User talk:FurrySings

Welcome!

Hello, FurrySings, and welcome to Wik.ipedia.Pro! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wik.ipedia.Pro
• Tutorial
• and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wik.ipedia.Pron! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wik.ipedia.Pro:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding Vandalism Warnings. The thread is Appropriate vadalism warnings?.The discussion is about the topic Vandalism Warning. Thank you. NickCT (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit to the Jefferson article in the section on slavery saying, "those statements are sourced" [[1]]. Actually, if you read the source, it says there is no such evidence to support any such claim. The LOC made a point of highlighting that fact. Please read V "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." The source does not support the claim of presenting any bill; it says the opposite. Why? Because it never happened.Ebanony (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs El Gouna FC Arthur Heming Don Burke Mohamed Ashour El-Adham Mary Jefferson Eppes Tarzan & Jane Search For Senna (Everworld) National Genealogical Society Pooh's Heffalump Halloween Movie Jake Pavelka Mesilla Valley His Nose in the Book Ruben Rausing Heme oxygenase Peter Szatmari Shadwell (Virginia) Estádio 11 de Novembro Mohamed Fadl Dumas Malone

Cleanup Henri Grégoire Kristiani Herawati Stephen Fry Merge Tetra MoU Teletha Tessa Testarossa Magic Voice Add Sources California Gurls John Hemings James T. Callender Wikify The Awakening (Armstrong novel) Visual schedules The Economists' Voice Expand Fearless (Taylor Swift album) LimeLife Earth Eternal

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wik.ipedia.Prons. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wik.ipedia.Prons have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wik.ipedia.Pro better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopping by to say hi! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceWick2011 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão has been proposed for deletion because under Wik.ipedia.Pro policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wik.ipedia.Pro:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Eeekster (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your interest in the article Paul Revere. Unfortunately you made a number of edits that have no references or inline citations that removed the work of others that were indeed referenced with reliable sources. Please refrain from removing work that stays within Wiki guidelines as you are in danger of coming very close to bad faith editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the pot calling the kettle black innit? I merely partially undid your removal of relevant material that left the article in a disorganized shambles. Now stop trying to intimidate people you disagree with. FurrySings (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article, and all the stuff you had removed has been put back by other editors, so there. (Blech!)

FurrySings (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have all of the sources available right now, so i'm commenting from memory, but when i looked at this subject once before, I believe there were some authors who argued that the Molly Maguires were not a "labor" organization. Add to that the fact that there was a union functioning in the same locale at the time which had little to do with the Molly Maguires. I think that it may still be open to question. Richard Myers (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is secret society a better description?[2] FurrySings (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i think that is a more accurate description. Some historians say the Mollies in Pennsylvania were a secret subset of one chapter of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which is a society, and not a labor organization. So "secret society" would seem to fit well. Richard Myers (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've checked the Hemings' articles and made the Leads more emphatic to reflect the academic consensus; have also added material to the TJ Talk page of recent books which have been published reflecting this consensus. Editors such as DarkOne just have to get over it; they are making Wik.ipedia.Pro look silly and wasting the time of others. We are to follow reliable sources, and they have accepted Jefferson's paternity for a decade or more. The holdouts don't count. Thanks for your interest and attempt to have the Madison H article reflect material in the one on TJ. Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. :-) FurrySings (talk) 08:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements to the Glee article. I did have to remove the italics you added to the three quotes in the paragraph you edited, because quotes within articles are not supposed to be set in italics: "For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics." See the Wik.ipedia.Pro Manual of Style for further information. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll remember that. FurrySings (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how is this BLP violation. -- Vision Thing -- 15:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FurrySings, thanks again for your input regarding the Dee Dee Myers article recently. I've since completed a draft about a colleague of Ms. Myers, also the subject of an existing page: Joel Johnson. Again like the Myers page, I have a potential COI with Mr. Johnson as a subject, so I have posted a request for feedback on the article Talk page as well as at WikiProject Biography—alas, so far without response. If you have a chance to look it over and offer any comment on the Joel Johnson Talk page, I'd appreciate it. If not, I do think my changes are pretty straightforward, and I may just go ahead in the next 48 hours or so. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You version looks good, I would just go ahead and copy it over. FurrySings (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you very much for your feedback and thumbs-up. I've now copied my draft over to Joel Johnson in the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the edit warring. I've listed every edit on the talk page. Please join in and see if we can reach a consensus, but your reversions, after being warned, are inappropriate.

There's a way to achieve consensus - it includes discussion of the issues and making cogent arguments, not simply hitting the revert button.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you might wonder which version is "preserved" while discussions are ongoing. In some cases, this is problematic, and there are guidelines on how to handle it, but I don't think that applies in this case.

Have you read WP:BRD?

• The addition of the phrase though the number of economists who support such stimulus is "probably a majority" by the IP was BOLD
• Vision Thing REVERTed it.
• Now we DISCUSS whether it should be included.

We don't leave in an unsourced IP addition while we debate whether to remove it. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am edit warring then so are you. Vision Thing's edit removed 2 things and added 3, but you still added it back three times, against BRD. I asked at Wik.ipedia.Pro_talk:BIOGRAPHY, and it's not OK for someone to come to a BLP to only always makes the person look bad, so stop helping Vision Thing. I was right to revert him. FurrySings (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my edit is obviously not vandalism, so don't call it that when you revert in the edit summary.[3] FurrySings (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've now added back the unsupported phrase "though the number of economists who support such stimulus is "probably a majority" " many times. Please revert it, or I will be reporting you to ANI.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

Look at the history of the Krugman page. Look at every edit Vision Thing made to the article. Every single one is to make the article more negative or less positive. Every. Single. One.

I don't know you, so I have no idea whether you know what you are talking about or not.

Let's find out.

Vision Thing noticed that a template {{Criticism section}} was a bit dated, and not under active discussion, so he removed it. Please explain how a removal of a stale maintenance template makes the article "more negative or less positive"? Remember, you not only said Every Single One, you emphasized it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're being dense. Is that the best you can come up with looking at his edits to the Krugman page? He wants more criticism of Krugman, so of course he's going to remove the template that there says there shouldn't be a criticism section. I'm not talking about whether the template should be there or not, I'm talking about his motivation. All his edits are driven by motivation to make Krugman look bad. That is not OK. Why don't you go through his last 50 edits and see if you can find any edit not motivated by desire to make Krugman look bad? FurrySings (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visionthing has been edit warring to do this[4]. Can anyone look at this and say that he is not motivated by the intention to make Krugman look bad? FurrySings (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Heinrich Brüning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reichstag (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B^e——C_ritical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just a question on your recent edits to James B. Bullard: Is an inefficient citation? I'm rather new (or rather, I haven't done many Wiki articles yet); so, I appreciate the help. Thanks! -- william.martin871 — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.Martin871 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing his official biography on his web site is fine, as long as the claims or conservative and not overly self-serving. (See WP:ABOUTSELF) However, factual claims in BLPs do need to be cited in-line. FurrySings (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll revise that personal life stuff and replace it. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.Martin871 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FurrySings, I added numerous citations/links. I also removed the citation notice, if that was OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William.Martin871 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfC is interesting, but flawed. An infobox would go at the beginning, if at all. By including an option for having it lower down in the article, you will split the !votes of those who want it included. I recommend removing that option from your RfC, before anyone starts contributing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it as you suggested. FurrySings (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works better. Here's another thought: you should anticipate that someone is going to remove the infobox from the article while the RfC is taking place -- the point of the RfC is to determine whether there is consensus for including it, and so including it now is premature. You should accept this and refrain from reverting it back into the article if someone removes it -- and perhaps even remove it yourself, since it is really inevitable that someone else will do it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wik.ipedia.Pro's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Spreadingsantorum banner.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wik.ipedia.Pro under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wik.ipedia.Pro (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 08:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Furry; No way to know what you actually wanted to do when you hit revert and offer no edit summary or Talk page comment. Inclined to undo in stages, so you can elaborate (assuming you are trying to be productive), since there are multiple edits you undid all at once. [[5]]

For instance, the longtime consensus on the page has been that general discussions of the First Amendment issues is a WP:COATRACK on the RL-SF Article, but this is being revisited by another editor.

There is also a grammatical problem with the wording in that it gives an inaccurate chronology; the Hearing was first, then there was a request to add Fluke.

Similarly, it is fine to mention the Democrat protest that the hearing was all-male, only as long as the fact that it wasn't is included. I know the wording is not the best on that section, but was an imperfect but messy compromise.

All these issues have pages of text devoted to them on the Article Talk and Talk:Archives page.

If, instead, you want to leave a reply here, I will check your Talk page. Thanks--209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor has been making an effort to add POV to several articles. Please continue to edit and make comments on this article. Casprings (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. There are countless real world examples of this shirt. Creating facsimiles is standard practice on commons to mitigate copyright issues.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 22:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except you didn't attribute it as a derivative work of the original, as required by copyright. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FurrySings. Because you participated in Wik.ipedia.Pro:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page breaching Wik.ipedia.Pro policies, you may be interested in Wik.ipedia.Pro:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Occupy Handbook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robin Wells (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't appreciate being told to work elsewhere, but my response isn't particularly relevant to Krugman, so I'm posting my response to your talk page. I note that your suggestion wasn't uncivil, and was polite, but it was unwelcome, and inappropriate. You are free to work on articles you think need your help, and I'll make my own evaluations on where I think my contributions are productive. The use of info boxes to include summarizations which cannot be adequately summarized in a single word is an important issue to me, and Paul Krugman is an article where it has been abused. If you see it abused elsewhere, you are free to correct it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, excuse me for thinking you cared about this issue, rather than just caring about removing stuff from Paul Krugman. Thanks for telling me to mind my own business. FurrySings (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misread me. I didn't tell you to mind your own business, I requested that you not tell me where I should and should not contribute. Can you appreciate why that is unwelcome? Let's not make a big deal out of it, my guess is that you didn't realize you offended, so I was trying to point it out as politely as possible. The link to Friedman wasn't unwelcome, it was the suggestion that I go elsewhere. If you don't get why that was offensive, no big deal, but it was.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for help and advice[6] and you told me to stop bugging you, I think I read you loud and clear. FurrySings (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?? Why on earth would I know about a post on someone else's talk page which isn't even addressed to me? I don't have it in my watchlist, which means I've probably never posted there. Are you confusing me with someone else?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick ≠ Srich32977 I guess I got the names mixed up and posted on someone else's talk page. So I guess you weren't responding to my asking for help. Still, not a good reaction to my pointing out that if one cares about the principle, there is a lot of other stuff that needs fixing first. FurrySings (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your CongLinks change, as the template is correct. The discussion about the fix is on the Talk page, several posts ahead of your post, titled WhoRunsGov. Unfortunately, there is NO automatic way to correct the entries so I am doing the hundreds of them manually. I just did Todd Young and realized your edit caused it not to show up. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FurrySings (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are a scholar and a gentleman. :-) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you have made some edits to the US public debt page in particular the table of total debt for selected years. I tried to replicate some of this information from the OMB table 1.1(SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS). The OMB table shows the total government deficit for each year from 1789. If I add up all the surpluses (and deficits) in the OMB table through for example 1990 I get a total debt of $2,440 billion. The Wiki table now shows $2,412 billion which is fairly close. However, if I continue that process through 2010 I get to $8,032 billion. The Wiki table shows $9,023 billion for 2010 so now there is a rather large discrepancy. I am hesitant to make any changes until I am sure my methodology is sound. Note, I am using the total deficit for each year which includes both on and off budget numbers. I did check only the on-budget totals as well and these numbers total to a debt of $10,605 billion in 2010. This is due to the off-budget surplus numbers. Please comment if you can.

1990 Public Debt ($ billion) Wik.ipedia.Pro table = 2412 OMB Cumulative Total = 2440 OMB On-Budget Cumulative Total = 2650

2010 Public Debt ($ billion) Wik.ipedia.Pro table = 9023 OMB Cumulative Total = 8032 OMB On-Budget Cumulative Total = 10,605

Also, the OMB now has more up to date receipt and outlay information through 2011 and estimates through 2017, so the table could be extended at least through 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The mad dr (talk • contribs) 23:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted language beginning the section with "The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize." as "source do not support what is written." I have reverted your edit as incorrect. That phrase is a verbatim quote from the nobelprize.org website, and is referenced and stated at the provided reference, in the current website and in the archived one cited. For your convenience, the link is here: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/nomination/ --68.127.29.108 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found the footnote at the bottom of the page. However, the language can be adjusted to better reflect the rest of the website. FurrySings (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the new proposal. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the New New proposal. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your , as you did at Fiscal cliff. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wik.ipedia.Pro's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wik.ipedia.Pro's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FurrySings, you should take your case to the talk page. Sparkie82, it takes two to tango, and the same goes for edit-warring. That ANI thread is closed. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. The page is now protected. If edit warring starts back up after the protection expires everyone involved can and will be blocked, so it is in your best interest to follow WP:BRD on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like you, am a furry. I play a Sivoan (felinoid) when I role-play, but that's not the reason for my contacting you.

I see you have a tag that says you're a Furry and that you're a native speaker of English. I am both of these and I'd like to add those two tags to my talk page.

Could you please tell me how to do this? HTML and I do NOT get along. Thank you for your time, and CHEERS!

--Dr. Entropy (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the userbox on your talkpage. Hope you like it! FurrySings (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Just an FYI - Regarding your edit. This topic was discussed on Sherod's talk page. I agree User:Viriditas's edit seemed a little rash. NickCT (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sônia Braga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kiss of the Spider Woman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I call to you attention a discussion at http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Krugman#.22undue_weight_for_off_hand_remark.22_dismissal_of_Gary_Becker_statement . Are you intending to support your assertion of "undue weight for off hand remark" as a revision reason? Deicas (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wik.ipedia.Pro:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wik.ipedia.Pro:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wik.ipedia.Pro:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

--Guerillero | My Talk 20:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I call to your attention the posting I made at the Village Pump: http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Wik.ipedia.Pro:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Seeking_guidance_on_how_to_address.2Freport.2Fobtain_administrator_intervention_to_end_User:FurrySings.27_disruptive_edits.3F Deicas (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.Wik.ipedia.Pro.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/GA2#GA_Reassessment - Youreallycan 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, FurrySings. I just saw your comment over at Talk:Michael J. Saylor, and I'm very pleased you agree my proposed version is much better! However, because of my involvement with the company, and because I've followed Jimbo's "bright line" policy since he first announced it, I really should not be the one to move it over. Are you comfortable doing so, or should I get additional community feedback first? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I realize you've been busy for awhile, but I wanted to let you know I've posted to COI/N looking for additional help, and I've mentioned you in my note. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I realize you've been off-wiki most of the last week, however I haven't been able to find anyone else to respond to approve + move my proposed update to the Saylor article (it did receive some more praise at COI/N, though). By the way, I thought your minor changes to the draft were entirely fine. Would you be willing to take the new draft into the mainspace? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sorry it took so long. FurrySings (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I appreciate it! Meanwhile, I've added a note on the Talk page about some additional edits that will be needed; I'd like to add a photo, but not ready just quite yet. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for following up my second request with the Saylor page. All done! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Comment has been called at Talk:Watchmen. As a registered editor who has edited that page over the past year, you may wish to comment.    --Tenebrae (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards,  Gong show 04:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, FurrySings. As I mentioned on the Saylor Talk page last week, I have two follow-up suggestions: a CC-licensed photo to include in the infobox, and re-enabling of categories. (Request here.) Any chance you could handle these? If you're busy, I can ask elsewhere, too. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Best, FurrySings (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again! I hate to bother, but I realized that, in the Writing section, I had inadvertently written "fiction" when I meant "non-fiction". Would you mind making this small change? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. FurrySings (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the actual RfC states and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider bringing your input to the new discussion and vote on the this page - [7] scroll down to Requested Move and see the vote there Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent attempt failed, on h talk page, to get User:Surtsicna to improve h behavior, as did mine to stop h reverting as many times as h/s pleases, almost always with sarcastic and rude edit summaries. I find that user, though a good contributor, unusually belligerent, always ready to pick a nasty fight with anyone who does not fully agree with h and accuse such a user of all kinds of things, such as "bizarre stalking" in your case and "grossly insulting personal attacks" in mine. If you ever need any help in attempting again to contain that behavior, you are welcome to contact me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really sad, SergeWoodzing. I recently discovered that you were not only ready to make ad hominem attacks, but also to actively seek to do harm to another user. Such malicious behaviour is despicable. If (and only if) calling me "unreasonable" and "stubborn" is not a grossly insulting personal attack, allow me to call you malevolent and rancorous. Should either of you ever need to "contain" my "behavior", report me to an administrator; but if you continue wikihounding me, you can be sure that I will report you. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FurrySings: I adressed this to you and can only repeat what I wrote, regardless of Surtsicna's continuing attempts to bully both you and me, as evidenced by h comments here. I will continue to offer the same assistance to any user to whom Surtsicna, in my opinion, is rude and belligerent, like I really feel h has been to you and me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SergeWoodzing, I have reluctantly brought this issue to ANI, as I see no progress to be made with further interactions with this user. You may wish to comment there:[8] FurrySings (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SergeWoodzing, what you are doing to me now is what you alleged Pieter Kuiper did to you. As seen from half of your recent contributions, your only agenda for the past two weeks has been wikihounding me, stalking me and ganging up on me with the intent to spite me. It's sad to see you do the same thing; you of all people should know better (that is, if your accusations against him were true). If you focused your energy on building this project by editing and creating new articles, rather than on attacking editors who actually do so, you too would be a productive contributor. Such bullying will eventually again end in a WP:BOOMERANG, as it did here. As for FurrySings, his or her raison d'être a Wik.ipedia.Pro user is beyond me. Surtsicna (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say you don't understand my intention, I will state it clearly. I want you to stop calling good faith edits "vandalism", and when reverting, stop leaving edit summaries with words like "ridiculous, nonsense, pointless and laughable" - words that will drive away the users that you revert. That's what I want, hopefully that's clear enough. FurrySings (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you forgot "unhelpful" - apparently another dreadful word. So, which words do you suggest I should use? "That's a wonderful addition, but let's remove it"? Quit lecturing random users - that's what I want. You've been told the same thing at the ANI. Surtsicna (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By one person who has rather loose standards about civility, who also noted that your idea of vandalism is wrong. Let me quote policy to you:

• "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful."
• "Other uncivil behaviours ... referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. Use your best judgement, and be ready to apologize if you turn out to be wrong."

Kindly stop calling good faith edits vandalism. FurrySings (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop telling me what to do. While you are at it, stop issuing personal attacks to random users. Calling users "abrupt, surly or even rude" the very first time you contact them is such a grossly uncivil personal attack that I cannot help wondering why you consider yourself entitled to lecture anyone about civility. Surtsicna (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Stop attacking me" is probably the last defense of defenseless behavior. Note that I didn't say that you are surly and rude, but rather your edit summaries are surly and rude. And again, you are ignoring the fact that you regularly call clearly good faith edits, vandalism.[9] That is a personal attack. So please take your own warning to heart, and stop attacking other editors. I'm sure that will make everyone happier. FurrySings (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not defend anything. Is it even possible to do that when there is nothing to defend? Note that you are lying about what you said. What you said is: "...you are often abrupt, surly or even rude..." The subject of that sentence is the pronoun "you". You were referring to me, not to any edit summaries. What were you hoping to achieve by lying so transparently? Surtsicna (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters my dear friend, the sentence preceding talks about your edit summaries, and the fragment you pulled is followed by examples of your edit summaries. It's obvious from context that "abruptness" and "rudeness" are describing your behaviors - your edit summaries. As WP:NPA notes, one should comment on edits not on the person. (FYI, a personal attack is like what you wrote above "allow me to call you malevolent and rancorous".) BTW, for someone with such a stick up his ass about not making personal attacks I count at least 5 that you have made against me and SergeWoodzing on this talkpage alone. Ironically, your objections about 'personal attacks' is filled with personal attacks. It's high time you started practicing what you preach, and high time you admit that you are wrong about calling good faith edits vandalism (which is a personal attack). FurrySings (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't remove my talk from my own talk page as you did here[10], what can you possibly hope to gain by doing that? FurrySings (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wik.ipedia.Pro appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Krugman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question posed at the Elizabeth II RfC, at which you commented, has been amended [11] to clarify a potential misunderstanding. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I filled a WP:DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. I would ask that we put the past behind and come to some comprise language where there remains disputes. The link to the discussion is here. Casprings (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link to the discussion. It is here. Casprings (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FurrySings, I'm reaching out to you to see if you might be willing to participate in a discussion about the article David Marchick, because you helped me place a draft of the article back in September 2012. Since then, an editor named Uzma Gamal has made a large number of edits to the article, significantly expanding it. Unfortunately, I believe there are quite a few issues with the additions that have been made, so I'm trying to get a discussion going about the best solution here. I've put a detailed list of my issues over at Talk:David Marchick, and would certainly appreciate your input. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, since I last reached out to you about the Marchick article, I've been able to work with a few editors to develop a shortened draft that better complies with Wik.ipedia.Pro's guidelines, and is overall more accurate. There are, however, still some factual inaccuracies in the article, which I've been attempting to work through. I've recently posted comments + proposed solutions to a few such errors at Talk:David Marchick. If you have a moment, do you think you could take a look? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is now  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to promote United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 to good article. I've started a peer review, if you have any available time, would you please comment on it? Thanks, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012 you participated in a discussion about various "cite x" template redirects (e.g. "Cite journal", "Cite book", etc) at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30#Cite journal. The redirect "Cite book" was nominated for deletion yesterday (31 August 2014) and your input into the discussion would be welcome at Wik.ipedia.Pro:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Cite book. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2014 (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 Wik.ipedia.Pro 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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]