Hi Subuey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN ( talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 13:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply

I have not edited this page or its talk page for a while, although I am still watching it. Like several others who have tried to improve it, I concluded that it was beyond my capacity to do so while it remains under the effective control of a tightly knit team of outraged physicists who want to delete it on the grounds that they do not think its subject should be notable. No, its subject does not pass the academic notability guideline but the article should be primarily about autism, not astrophysics, and should be written by thoughtful psychologists, not outraged physicists. Viewfinder ( talk) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Exemplo347. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Jacob Barnett without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Exemplo347 ( talk) 00:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

With respect, Exemplo347, Subuey did use the edit summary to explain why they removed the material from Jacob Barnett: because it is disparaging and unsourced, which is what it is. But there is no point attempting to remove it again. As I have just stated on its talk page, the article is under the control of three editors and their various supporters who are outraged about the existence of the article and the international media coverage of its subject that is its reason to be, and remain determined to get it deleted despite two failed attempts at AfD and another at DRV. Viewfinder ( talk) 11:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jacob Barnett is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Barnett (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Simply attending college classes at a young age isn't sufficient for notability. Power~enwiki ( talk) 05:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

It's an Afd being held a few months after the last one, what did you expect. Subuey ( talk) 05:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

The way "notability" often works on AfD is that anything with 2 reasonably-credible websites discussing it gets kept. The main exception to this rule is WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not Facebook and cannot become Facebook. There are several competing claims for notability on that page, but taken individually, they all suggest that the page should be removed. As the subject of a book, the book might justify a page but he doesn't. As the subject of a media hoax, the page should be deleted. As a physics grad student, he doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Power~enwiki ( talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

There are significantly more people with opinions on this topic than I expected. Power~enwiki ( talk) 05:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

There is so much more notable material about Barnett than some unfortunate historical media excess, but those who pushed for deletion at the last AfD seem to have the strength to prevent us from using it. I can understand why people are not happy with the article as it is. Viewfinder ( talk) 07:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC) reply

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello. Your recent edit to List of child prodigies appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. See WP:LISTPEOPLE jps ( talk) 16:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC) reply

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Notifying single users of discussions as you did here will place you under scrutiny. You are skating on very thin ice here. Next stop will be a request for administrator intervention. jps ( talk) 20:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC) : jps Why are you stalking my posts? A single post is not suspicious. I have had no prior warning about that and yet you say I am "skating on thin ice". Please do not post to my talk page again. thank you Subuey ( talk) 21:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC) reply

jps why are you so upset about a single on-line post on the talk page of another editor known to take an interest in the subject? Are you suggesting that there has been no off-line canvassing, or canvassing on other sites, whatsoever by opponents of Jacob Barnett related articles? Viewfinder ( talk) 08:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

See WP:CANVASS. The rules are clear. I'm glad the canvassing stopped on wiki. What you do off-wiki is not something that can be helped here. jps ( talk) 12:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

At least the former is transparent. The latter is not. Viewfinder ( talk) 13:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Stopped before it started more like. Subuey ( talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

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-1992 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.

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.

Doug Weller talk 10:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: pseudoscience and fringe science post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.