User talk:FriendlyRiverOtter

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! TimVickers 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Evolution

Did you mean to post that new section at the top of the talk page, rather than at the bottom - in date order? People look for new stuff at the end of the page, not at the top. Shenme 05:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shenme. I'm still learning. I may not have done it right. I'm used to yahoo groups where the most recent post is on the top of the list.

I think, at this point, I'll let it finish about a week where it is and then switch it to the bottom of the list. Yeah, I did put some time into the piece and I kind of want to get some attention and discussion out of it. FriendlyRiverOtter 20:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hello! I notice that you seem rather new to Wikipedia, and thus might not be aware of the purpose behind talk pages. Talk pages are meant for the discussion of improvements to an article, as explained in the talk page guidelines. They aren't meant or designed for discussion of the topic itself; doing so just promotes the inclusion of original research in the article, and makes it more difficult for editors to use the talk page for its intended purpose. For Talk:Schrödinger's cat, the talk page had become extremely unwieldy due to off-topic discussion. There are far better places to discuss physics if that is what you want to do. --Philosophus ^T 04:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this for Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is not merely a suggestion for use; it's a rule. Please follow it in future. Chris Cunningham 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Why cannot we discuss the topic of the article with a view toward possibly making a good article even better? FriendlyRiverOtter 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem: "with a view towards"? Either talk content is pertinent to making an article better or it isn't. Wikipedia articles must use reliable sources for information contained within, so any conclusions or insights gained from talk discussion would be invalid anyway. As Philosophus pointed out above, talk content which is not centered around the editing process itself interferes with the provided purpose of the page and additionally leads to increased bandwidth and processing costs for the project's hosts. Chris Cunningham 10:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages (different subject)

Hi, I saw a comment of yours on the Schrödinger’s cat Talk page. Then I read your user page, then I read some more comments. You’re cool, I like you. But you seem to want Wikipedia to be something it’s WP:NOT—you want it to be better. While I agree that Wikipedia could and should be better than it is, frankly I don’t think it’s likely to happen. So if you ever find something that does what this site does better than this site does it, could you do me a big favor and let me know? Thanks. —Frungi 23:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frungi, thank you very much for your kind words! It’s nice to know that my efforts are sometimes appreciated. And about the content, all the individual decisions that are made and have to be made, we certainly do not need to always agree on that. For example, I would love to see Schrodinger’s Cat become much longer and used as a starting point for quantum physics in much broader terms, including current theory right now in 2007, much like a case study in medical school or school law can be skillfully used to move from the specific to the general. Now, some other people might think that such a broad article would be going too far afield. And you yourself might think that, and that would be okay. Just help me where and when you’re able. And I will try and return the favor. Just let me if you have articles you’re working on and would like some help with, and I’ll help where and when I’m able.

And yes, I would like wikipedia to become better, I would like to help, and I do realize it’s a debate. And I will endeavor to stay good-natured. FriendlyRiverOtter 02:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utilitarianism?

From your posts on the discussion page about Utilitarianism am I to believe that you a believer in this doctrine?

I only ask because I am interested in meeting others who share this view :)

I hope I do not offend by asking.

James - curuxz--Curuxz 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you about adding your own opinion pieces to articles before, FRO. Your addition here is nothing but your personal opinion on a matter, one you are expressing by inserting it into an important ethics article on the world's most visible encyclopedia. Stop doing it. Richard001 (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I am aware that I push the envelope. However, I strive to do so in a respectful way.

On population size, by saying that the ‘answer’ is somewhere in the middle, I feel I am merely pointing out the obvious, am setting the stage so to speak, so that someone else might make progress.

On the ‘dilemma-fication’ of ethics, I don’t feel I did that part as well, but it’s the same goal: setting the stage so that someone else might make progress.

Since Parfit published Reasons and Persons in 1984, has there been any progress regarding average vs. total welfare?

And I ask you to please reread your post to me. In part, in part, you spoke to me as if I were a child or social inferior.

And I would suggest a pause. When I post something that in your judgment detracts from the article, please pause and see if anyone else deletes it. If you find that you’re the only person deleting my postings (which is merely one possible future situation) that would not be a positive situation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not pushing the enveolope, you're breaking the rules. You've been told that Wikipedia is not for original research before, but you childishly refuse to accept that. If you feel something is genuinely obvious from basic reasoning I can understand why you might feel you are justified in adding it. I've made similar additions to the article which I don't feel are disputable, but others still might dispute them in future.

That an 'optimum' population size is somewhere 'in between' that required by average and total utilitarianism is certainly not obvious to me. It seems more like an appeal to moderation than a false dilemma to me. I can see why you might think it best to maximize average or total welfare, but maximizing 'something in between' seems to me only an option one would take if one couldn't determine which was desirable. I don't think there is any answer to the problem that we can arrive at by reasoning or evidence, if there is indeed any answer at all.

From what you are typing it is clear that you want Wikipedia to be a place where new theories are synthesized on talk pages and presented on article pages. It is neither of those things. If philosophy has made no progress on an issue it is not for us to start developing new ideas here.

I have no doubt that others will be similarly concerned about the nature of your edits, as people have mentioned here before. In truth, I think someone needs to carefully go through all that you have contributed (especially to philosophy articles) and probably do a lot of deleting. Richard001 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talkative otters and the editors who like them

I'm sorry to have removed many of your talk pages discussions, but, as you've been told before, they just don't meet talk page guidelines per WP:TALKNO. Your additions are becoming so unwieldy that they make it difficult to discuss article edits or for other editors to figure out what's going on, much less participate in the discussions. You seem to be very knowledgeable (and opinionated!)...have you thought about taking those talk page posts and publishing them on article directories like EHow.com, Wikihow or Examiner.com? I'm not trying to be mean or discourage you, but I think your discussions would have a much better chance for exposure and interaction on sites designed around those things. Flowanda | Talk 22:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earned Income Credit and Person Leaving Situation of Domestic Violence

A couple can file Married Jointly even if they lived apart for the entire year and even if they share zero money, as long as both spouses agree and are still technically married. The two spouses might even visit the accounting office at separate times to sign. And there is Form 8888 to direct the refund into up to three separate accounts. Form 8888 Allocation of Refund, (although with complicated rules of what happens if the refund is reduced, see esp. the paragraphs “Past-due federal tax” and “Other offsets” on page 3).

Married Filing Jointly, Head of Household, Single, or Qualifying Widow(er) are all equally valid filing status for purposes of EIC.

The only disqualifying filing status for purposes of EIC is Married Filing Separately (MFS). No exception, not for any circumstances. For example, the criticism below by Mark Moreau is that no provision is made for a person leaving a situation of domestic violence. And unfortunately, that criticism seems to be all too true.

Now, with the four EIC valid statuses, people sometimes get the idea that Head of Household is better. For other things, yes, maybe, perhaps, all depending on the circumstances, but not for Earned Income Credit. In fact, for some cases, Married Filing Jointly may be advantageous because it has a longer plateau before the phase-out range starts.

And also, it is December 31th. If you are divorced or legally separated by Dec. 31, that carries for the entire tax year. You can then file as either Single or Head of Household as you choose and as the rules allow. It is the last day of the year that determines status.

Now, under the category Head of Household, in the sub-section “Married persons who live apart” in the part "considered unmarried," there is some opening if all the following rules are met: lived apart from your spouse for the entire last half of the year, lived with your qualifying child for half the year (not necessarily the same half!), paid over half the cost of keeping up a main home or several main homes for this child or children (again, not necessarily same half of year!), and can claim this child or children as dependents or could claim but are waiving the dependency to the other parent. And thereby, meeting all these rules, you can file as Head of Household even if still technically married, if you so choose. And the child can be a foster child who has been officially placed. And an adopted child also includes a child lawfully placed for adoption. Whoo. A lot of details.

At this point, you may want to consider a good CPA or EA (Enrolled Agent), or maybe even an attorney who knows some tax. Or, perhaps a method I like which is to take multiple quick passes at unfamiliar material. I feel it puts the odds more in my favor. You may have your own method.

(For EIC other than the specific route of Head of Household via "considered unmarried," a foster child can be either officially placed or a member of one's extended family.)

"Tax Fairness and Simplification for the Working Poor," Presentation to President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, New Orleans, March 23, 2005, Mark Moreau, Low-Income Taxpayer Clinic Southeast Louisiana Legal Services, powerpoint presentation, see especially page 7. govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/meetings/docs/moreau.ppt

Or, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/taxreformpanel/meetings/docs/ And see moreau.ppt

(And obviously, it goes without saying, domestic violence affects high-income families, too. It is across social boundaries, and a more common situation than we like to acknowledge, yes, even in this day and age.)

Some of this material is discussed in Earned Income Tax Credit. See esp the section "Other requirements," the long paragraph about filing status (as of June 16, 2010).

See also 1040 Instructions 2010.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf
Filing Status, pages 12-14.
Earned Income Credit (EIC) instructions, pages 45-48.
The EIC worksheets on pages 49-51 are potentially helpful but are optional (in fact, the IRS would prefer that you not send in these particular worksheets!).

To claim EIC with qualifying child(ren), a person uses either 1040 or 1040A.

And, if you have the time, please consider jumping in and helping. :>) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC), FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 year disallowance for 'reckless' EIC claim, 10 year disallowance for fraudulent claim

A person or couple will be disallowed EIC for two years if they claim EIC when not eligible and the IRS determines the "error is due to reckless or intentional disregard of the EIC rules." A person or couple will be disallowed for ten years if they make a fraudulent claim. Form 8862 is required after this time period in order to be reinstated. However, this form is not required if EIC is reduced solely because of math or clerical error. 1040 Instructions 2010, see caution note on page 45. See also "Form 8862, who must file" on page 48.

Notice that this doesn't happen with business people, who might claim depreciation in the wrong way. They aren't barred for 2 years for a 'reckless' claim. I wonder if this point has received at least some debate in Congressional hearings or news articles. Be that as it may, these are the current rules. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

California Attorney General sues H&R Block, Feb. 2006, regarding third-party bank cross-collection, and other practices

Attorney General Lockyer Files Lawsuit Against H&R Block for Illegally Marketing and Selling High-Cost Loans as ‘Instant' Tax Refunds, press release, Feb 15, 2006.

“ . . . alleging the tax preparation giant has violated 15 state and federal laws in marketing and providing high-cost refund anticipation loans (RALs) . . . ”

“ . . . with a request that the court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prohibit H&R Block from engaging in deceptive debt collection practices related to RALs. . . ”

This request for the temporary restraining order and the deceptive debt collection is the part that pertains to cross-collection, in which one bank engages in third-party debt collection for another bank. It doesn’t happen often, maybe in the neighborhood of 1 out of 100 times, but when it does, it’s huge. Apparently, even in 2010, any loan or bank product from the storefront tax companies has this risk, including the set-up where they merely take the prep fee out of your refund. That is still a bank product. The only safe way is to pay for the tax prep upfront and either request IRS direct deposit or check, in either case the money goes directly from the IRS to you.

In particular, if the preparer gets a small pop up or if you are handed a piece of paper saying you owe debt, back away from the whole thing as if a rattlesnake. It might just be debt from previous tax prep, but it could be a whole lot more. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IRS stops giving prep companies "Debt Indicator"

IRS Removes Debt Indicator for 2011 Tax Filing Season, Aug. 5, 2010. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=226310,00.html
'WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that starting with next year’s tax filing season it will no longer provide tax preparers and associated financial institutions with the “debt indicator,” which is used to facilitate refund anticipation loans (RALs). . . ’

The upshot is that more RALs will be denied and converted into RACs (the estimated two-week nonloan bank product, account merely sits open waiting for the IRS refund).

The risk of third-party bank cross-collection, will be the same, neither more, nor less. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, Liberty Tax, RALs, "cross-collection," etc.

consumeraffairs.com, Paul of Cincinnati OH (01/28/07):
"Me and my family came here to file out taxes, like we have done for the last 15 years. This time the person servicing us stated that WE have a new bank product this year. Your ral in 1-2 days guaranteed! we have used there services for years and allways have gotten rapid refund in as little as 3-6 days. We trusted their product and tried it this year. on 1-26-07 the HR branch stated that we didn't qualify for RAL. This is a first in 15 years!!!! We were denied for internal bank reasons! They would give any contact numbers for the bank. And they also couldn't or wouldn't look into a refund of $346.76 in tax and bank fees. This has cost our family a lot of financial grief this time. This has never happened before and it wont happen again. These services that this company is offering is geared toward people with low income who cannot afford to pay the $100 upfront to get there taxes done and a refund in 10 days." [1]

National Taxpayer Advocate's 2007 Objectives Report to Congress, Volume II, The Role of the IRS in the Refund Anticipation Loan Industry:
"[pages 11-12] . . . At the very least, banks should be barred from transferring EITC under a cross-collection arrangement to satisfy a debt owed to a third party bank . . . " [2]

National Taxpayer Advocate 2005 Annual Report to Congress, Executive Summary, The Most Serious Problems Encountered by Taxpayers:
"8. Refund Anticipation Loans: Oversight of the Industry, Cross-Collection Techniques, and Payment Alternatives . . . The IRS contributes to the demand for Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs) by: (1) failing to deliver refunds in the quickest manner possible and (2) failing to provide RAL alternatives for the 'unbanked.' . . . " [3]

Illinois, Office of Attorney General Lisa Madigan:
" . . . In 2002, these customers paid an average of $248 in costs and fees to receive an RAL on expected tax refunds that averaged $1,980 . . . " [4]

consumer-action.org, Feb. 5, 2007:
“ . . . Thus, in 2007, a consumer can expect to pay from $57 to $104 to $111 in order to get a RAL for a typical refund of about $2,500. The effective APR for this RAL would be 85% to 150% to 170%. The RAL loan fee is in addition to tax preparation fees averaging $150 and, in some cases, an application fee of about $40. The major commercial chains have stopped charging this fee, but independent tax preparers may charge a fee and they have a substantial portion of the tax preparation market. . .” [5]

2nd Story Software, HSBC loan application, 2005:
"9. Payment of Other Debt . . . With respect to any delinquent debt I owe to JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank One, First Security Bank, Republic Bank, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First Bank of Delaware, or County Bank and/or their assigns (the "Other RAL Lenders"), relating to a RAL or similar financial product made in prior years . . . " [6]

Bank One, RAL application, 2006:
" . . . COLLECTION OF OUTSTANDING RAL DEBT—If you owe money for a RAL from any prior year to Bank One or another RAL lender, including HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Beneficial National Bank, Household Bank, f.s.b., Santa Barbara Bank and Trust, County Bank, First Bank of Delaware, First Republic Bank, First Security Bank, Republic Bank & Trust Co., Republic First Bank, Imperial Capital Bank, or any of their successors or assigns, you acknowledge such prior obligations and authorize Bank One to deduct . . . "
This cross-collection provision is from the second page of the four-page loan application, which is included in the industry publication "Your Key to Our Program, Bank One Tax Related Products, 2006."
page 44 (49 in PDF file) http://www.petzent.com/crosslink/formsdocs/2006KeyBook.pdf

Bank One, non-loan bank products ("RACs") can also be cross-collected from, 2006:
" . . . This provision applies to any Bonu$ Deposit Account, whether or not you apply for a RAL. If you have an outstanding RAL, you understand that Bank One will be acting as a debt collector . . . "
page 44 (49 in PDF file) http://www.petzent.com/crosslink/formsdocs/2006KeyBook.pdf

Bank One, binding arbitration, 2006:
" . . . ARBITRATION REPLACES THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT. YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BRING A CLASS ACTION OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE ACTION . . . "
page 44 (49 in PDF file) http://www.petzent.com/crosslink/formsdocs/2006KeyBook.pdf

IRS time frame for e-file:
". . . in as little as 10 days with Direct Deposit."--from page 5, 1040 Instructions, 2008.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

essay by filmmaker Danny Schechter:
" . . . I saw this first hand when making my film In Debt We Trust. We were shooting in Brooklyn's black community outside a small H&R Block tax prep store advertising 'instant money' in the form of tax rebate loans. I was with Sarah Ludwig, an organizer with NEDAP, an economic justice organization who explained:
'The interest rate is anywhere between 40 and 700 percent, annual percentage rate. Because these are very short term loans, that are being made by some of the largest banks in the world, which netted $1.6 billion in profits.'
That surprised me. What banks? All I could see was a grubby little ghetto store.
Her response: 'You don't see the banks. And what you really should see behind this storefront looming are some of the largest financial institutions in the world. Particularly HSBC' . . "
Danny Schechter, who directed the documentary In Debt We Trust (2006), recounted this conversation in his essay "Media, Big Business And the Economic Squeeze." [7]

Financial Aid Podcast, Aug. 11, 2008:
"+ A cautionary note about using tax filing services - avoid at all costs the “refund anticipation loans” such as Rapid Refund, etc. - there’s some whammies in there that can eat your entire refund. For example, if you don’t qualify for the loan, you get a bank account product instead and still pay high fees. Also, some of these companies also do debt collection enforcement, so if you have an outstanding debt that is registered with one of these companies, they can legally seize your refund. It’s buried in the contract you sign when you agree to the refund anticipation loan."[8]

Florida, Office of Attorney General Bill McCollum, Jan. 31, '08:
" . . . Consumers are also cautioned about taking out 'Refund Anticipation Loans,' as the fees will still be required even if the loan is not approved . . . " [9]

discussion and more information available at Talk:Refund anticipation loan.

Work on HSBC and money laundering
" FriendlyRiverOtter: thanks for reaching out for help on HSBC and money laundering. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do much. I would be curious to hear if your efforts encounter resistance from editors, etc. and be happy to lend support if you need. Jreiss17 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I certainly understand people being really pressed for time. Perhaps you can just please send us a link if you happen run across a really good reference. I can see an editor being concerned if something seems way out there. But . . . my plan is what I hope almost all of us would agree with: a variety of good sources, and then just right down the line, neither overstating nor understating. I will keep you in mind as a person to lend support if I run into problems. Thank you for the kind offer. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (2006)

Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (2006) , Cal.App.4th [No. B184489. Second Dist., Div. Six. Sept. 28, 2006.] CANIEVA HOOD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SANTA BARBARA BANK & TRUST et al., Defendants and Respondents. . . . . . http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2006/b184489.html

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY . . . “ . . . Santa Barbara sent Hood a letter dated February 3, 2002, stating that her RAL was denied because Santa Barbara had "been informed of an outstanding [RAL] debt with [Household Bank]." Santa Barbara's letter stated that Hood's 2001 tax refund would be used to satisfy the Household Bank RAL debt and that Santa Barbara would send Hood any funds remaining after the Household Bank RAL debt was satisfied.

"Hood did not receive her 2001 tax refund. Nor did she receive the Accelerated Check Refund described in the RAL application as an alternative product for applicants who were ineligible for RAL's. Without her tax refund, Hood could not pay her rent and she received an eviction notice. Hood and other class members suffered substantial economic losses as a result of the seizure of their tax refunds. . . ”

Notice the dry, stilted legal language. It's almost to the point of being comedic-tragic. " . . suffered substantial economic losses . . " No Duh!

Of course, she did. She got evicted. If a low or modest-income tax client loses a substantial (like two thousand dollars!) expected refund, it likely will be a blow. And this is money she is entitled to receive according to current U.S. tax law. Even if an upper middle-class person loses this kind of refund, depending on the circumstances, it can be a body blow.

Notice that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is collecting for Household Bank. Third-party debt collection.

And the client was not informed.

That is, they [Jackson Hewitt tax prep] are not treating their client as a client. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hood v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, SETTLEMENT

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Hood, et al. v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, et al.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court, Case No. 1156354

(page 5)
“A. Business Practices to Be Followed
“1. Defendant Santa Barbara and Cross-Defendants agree not to engage in Cross-Collection during the 2009 calendar year . . .
“2. For future years in which Cross-Collection may occur, Defendants agree to provide a notice to Jackson Hewitt customers regarding collection of taxpayer refunds to pay RAL debts from prior years. . . ”

(page 6)
“B. Monetary Relief
“Defendant Santa Barbara’s records show that there are over 100,000 members of the Class. Defendants and Cross-Defendants will pay a total of $8,500,000 pursuant to the Allocation Agreement amongst Defendants and Cross-Defendants. . .
“2. . . . each Class Member will receive a minimum of 5.5% of the total amount of his or her tax refund that was collected by Santa Barbara and paid to a Third-Party Creditor. . . ”

http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/litigation/closed/hood-settlement-agreement.pdf

“The Sturdevant Law Firm and the National Consumer Law Center in Boston represented Canieva Hood, Tyree Bowman, and a proposed class of individuals who have had their tax refunds seized to pay back alleged debts to other banks. . .

“ . . . On April 29, 2009, the Court approved a final settlement that secured 8.5 million in compensation to individuals whose RALS were seized as well as comprehensive injunctive relief that ceased SBBT’s practice of cross-collection for a limited time and ensured consumers are provided adequate notice of the potential of cross-collection.”

http://www.sturdevantlaw.com/cases-hood.html

Talk:Average and total utilitarianism, Sept. 18, 2007

with the goal of reprinting some of my favorites . . .

The advantages of pursuing both quantity and quality

Let’s say you like to paint. Sometimes, it’s just alright. Other times, it’s as if you catch a moon beam and you really get into it. Well, the more times you paint, the more total happiness you will have, and in addition, the more occasions you will have for the peak experiences (and the more skill you will acquire in allowing these to come).

Let’s say you and your spouse like to travel and meet people who live in other countries. (This is pretty ambitious socially. It would be even more ambitious, and more of a social long shot, if you were traveling alone.) Most of the conversations tend to be rather surface and light. That’s okay. You’re still meeting new people. But every so often, you and your spouse meet someone new and really get into a great conversation, and it might even be the beginning of a friendship. Like so many good things in life, it’s more a matter of being open to it and allowing it to unfold. And again, the more times of medium happiness you have, the more opportunities you have for occasions of high happiness. FriendlyRiverOtter 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC), Re-posted here FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utilitarianism, Types, Average vs. total, April 16 & 22, 2008

. . "So, the question is between a very large population and a very small population. And obviously, rather like a good engineering problem, the optimum choice is most likely to be somewhere in the middle. It is similar to the local max provided by a downward opening parabola, except this will be in multi-dimensional space. We of course want both quantity and quality of happiness. In fact, if there's a lot of quantity, there's a greater chance that due to good luck, repertoire of skills, and genuine friendship connections, that there will be peak experiences.

"And, through a stroke of spectacular good luck, as far as persuading people to have fewer children, the "nice," low-key methods of social security and education for women work among the best. The problem is that we are not moving fast enough with these nice methods. And, the question can be raised, how much progress do we make in ethics through the method of heightened "dilemma"? Sometimes it might help to clarify a point. But this has become the dominant method, to such an extent that other methods and possible methods are considered suspiciously as not really philosophy. . . "

again, some more of my favorite parts! --re-posted by FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can run homeless shelters, progressive businesses, community arts centers!

Hey, hey, we have no specific qualifications for this at all. That is true. But, on the other hand . . . we have no specific disqualifications either! And it is exactly this kind of interplay between theory and practice where we can do so much, learn so much, that can is such a furtile area. FriendlyRiverOtter 03:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC), re-posted and somewhat re-written (from Utilitarianism discussion (archives)) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is triage really our crowning jewel?

Yes, it’s obvious that in that situation we should treat the people where it can do the most good, but why should we allow ourselves to get into that situation in the first place?

There are many, many examples of the medical system being stretched thin. A person with a possible/probable broken arm goes to the emergency room and ends up waiting like 7 hours, and it’s not even a particularly busy night. What would the hospital have done if something really had happened?

Utilitarianism is a theory that is very open to challenging the status quo. At its best, it is about open fields, about being proactive, about throwing off conventional, old-fashioned, and superstitious morality, and hopefully, creating something better. And whereas rights theory, virtue theory, social contract theory, etc., are not necessarily against better alternatives, they are not emphatically in favor of them either. Not like utilitarianism is.

The question remains, medical care stretched so thin, what would the emergency room have done, say, if a school bus had been involved in an accident?

In addition, there are many cases in which we can freely take away suffering and/or freely add happiness, without counterbalancing negatives, or almost freely. We should get very good at these kinds of cases, and allow them to become a big thick part of our repertoire.

Ethics in the field of philosophy, which asks the big of what do we value, what should we value, how should we treat fellow sentient beings, should be about so much more rather than just 'dilemma.' FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC), re-posted FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAR

This was posted in the wrong spot[10]. Please read the link I have provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to follow the straightforward procedure. Drawing from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment this part: "4. Allow time for other editors to respond. Also, please notify major contributing editors (identifiable through article stats script), relevant WikiProjects [Emphasis added] . . "

Of course, if there's a better way, I am happy to learn.

Other than a history of changes to that page, I'm not seeing in the link perhaps what you intend to point out. Okay, for the time being, let's perhaps move this part to the talk page of good medical articles. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded to your concerns here [11]. The place you posted was not a Wikiproject. The medicine Wikiproject is here WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again that is not where you post. Here is where you post WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, got the right place: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Thank you for the directions. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Legislative Exchange Council

I made some additions to the article following your comments. There is discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to weigh in. Trackinfo (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a potentially important article, and a chance for the wiki community to be accurate, and not merely formal and 'neutral.' I thank you for the work you've put into this issue. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the transcript is on Moyers own site, a much more appropriate and less contentious site to source from than DemocracyNow. We don't need to introduce sites that some might contend have an agenda. That's why I removed your link. Its a bit harder to get to on Moyers, their poor web design. Go to http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-united-states-of-alec/ click on "full Transcript" and it opens into the upper part of the window. Trackinfo (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to reduce Democracy Now to a ghetto. I think they've done some good work. And I'm the one who has put the label 'political left' on them. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/9/27/the_united_states_of_alec_bill

[transcript is about a quarter of the way down]

And again, I think DemocracyNow has done some good work. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea

I saw this explanation in your edit summary about reading level. Is there any guidance on Wikipedia about it? I haven't seen it yet. Please drop me a note at my talk page. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It makes sense. The most specific thing I see after looking is here. Thanks again. Biosthmors (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concussion

I've noticed all the hard work you've been putting into Concussion and I've finally decided that you shouldn't have to do it all alone. I went to the talk page to see what needed doing and was intimidated by the sheer volume of text. So, what can I help you with? ITasteLikePaint (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ITasteLikePaint, thank you very much for offering to help with this topic. Any work you can do would be most appreciated. I should tell you at the outset, I am not a physician. I am just a person interested in the topic.

Okay, you ask me what you can do to help. The really high payoff thing would be if we could get a primary care physician to review big parts. One physician, very much to his credit, reviewed parts of the article on post-concussion syndrome, but his time is very limited, and this kind of work is anything but relaxing work away from the office. And possibly, if we could have a neurologist review parts about later consequences. And maybe someone who does biochem research to review parts. All this is a tall order. This is kind of the dream team.

What I'm doing right is slowing going through a 2010 review article in Pediatrics (currently section 27 on Talk: Concussion), and I want to make my excerpts shorter. Eventually I will compare what in my judgement are the most important parts with our wiki article(s). But it's slow going. And this regards sports related concussions in children and adolescents, which is of course only a subcategory of concussions.
From the American Academy of Pediatrics, Clinical Report, "Sport-Related Concussion in Children and Adolescents", Pediatrics, Mark E. Halstead, MD, Kevin D. Walter, MD, The Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness, Vol. 126 No. 3, September 1, 2010.

If you want to dive into this review article, that would be great. Or anything else which in your judgement will bring substantial improvement to our wiki coverage of this topic. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well now I feel bad for the lack of work I've put into this article. I'm just now finishing up grad school which has taken up a lot of my time but I have noticed this new article that may be helpful in our efforts. I wanted to make sure that you had seen it. Keep up the good work. --ITasteLikePaint (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. We're all busy, and whatever time you can put into the article is a gift. And thanks for the lead on the journal article. Although I'm busy with other projects and it might be a while before I can get to it, I do like having it available. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Post-concussion syndrome/GA2

Hi Otter. You may have forgotten about this. It is probably time to close it. If you need help let me know. AIRcorn (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's where we're at. I am not at all convinced this article should be classified as a good article, but I'd rather not act as a single individual in taking away the 'good' label. I'd much rather act as part of a small group project. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed in as well although it wasn't the worlds most detailed review. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. You were probably looking more for a community reassessment rather than an individual one. Individual ones are meant to be closed by the person opening them, while community ones are usually closed be someone uninvolved. If you still have doubts about the quality of the article, it is probably best to just delist it. It is a relatively easy process to renominate and your comments will be stored for any subsequent reviewer to take into account. Paint has left comments that lean towards delist. There are instructions on the WP:GAR page describing how to delist an article. I can double check it once it is done if you want. AIRcorn (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm working on reviewing and potentially improving the Concussion article, and am leaning toward the same GAR review. And then I guess invite more people into the tent and then we'll see. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I delisted Post-concussion syndrome for you. I would suggest using the community process for concussion as you may get more responses and someone else will eventually close. AIRcorn (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the delisting. And I invite people to help make Post-concussion syndrome a better article. On the GAR, second evaluation (included on Talk:Post-concussion syndrome), we have recently included a specific. And I think this and using a variety of good sources is the way to go forward. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:30

In regards to your question at my talk page I think you might be looking for third opinion. Other options are the dispute resolution noticeboard or even a request for comment. I would go for the third opinion if it is just two editors involve (including yourself) and if it has not really escalated. The dispute resolution noticeboardis for disputes involving more than two editors, while requests for comment are usually the last option for disputes. AIRcorn (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project with residents

Perhaps you could have a look at WP:WikiProject Medicine/GF-FMR at your convenience and give me your feedback. It is drawn from Doc James's work, whom I previously contacted. Regards. Bill Mann --Mdscottis (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there's also this article Functional magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brain. And please do keep in mind, I am not a doctor. I'm just a person interested in doing some of the step-by-step research.

Check out some of the above on Earned Income Credit, Refund Anticipation Loans, H&R Block. That's one area where I have some direct experience. And I feel I'm pretty good at distilling down information. Some of my academic background is in business, psychology, philosophy, history. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EIC Costs

I'll see what I can do this weekend. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Whatever you can do is great. We're all pressed for time (the biggest limiting factor of all!) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bakke

I am way behind schedule and it may be a week before I get to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Anytime you get to it is a gift. And really, only if the topic appeals to you. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does, it does. I've getting hold of three books, and I have access to the NY times archives. I'll help out with the writing as soon as I'm done with Liberty Head double eagle, currently in prep in sandbox (it will turn blue when I'm done). I don't have Lexis/Westlaw access so I don't know about law review articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was some question---and this is really outside my field---whether Powell's decision was really a majority decision. And later Supreme Court decisions made it clear that, yes, it was. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. There is ample material on JSTOR, including enough law review articles to make people happy. I'm expanding the article and its structure. There's ample material on Bakke. I gather you've been working on the background facts, I've left that for you to deal with, plus whatever else you want to work on. I don't see any great difficulties. No images worth mentioning that I'm aware of, so who expects them in a legal article anyway? We can use the filler of shots of the court building, justices, etc. Try to coordinate referencing styles, and if you feel strongly about what style to use, let me know.

On the legal question, yeah, I think with time, Bakke has come to be seen as a precedent. Although I've seen that it's greatest legacy was negative. It didn't abolish affirmative action. The liberal coalition hadn't fully formed around affirmative action yet, really. It gave it time.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Justice Powell's decision spanned two different 4-votes, creating two differently majorities. And I remembering you telling me that you got to shake Justice Powell's hand, and the guy had just had had surgery and he said 'Don't squeeze it.'

And I remember one of the justices saying, and I think it was Powell, that the liberal view didn't come to him as naturally and he liked having at least one liberal law clerk to help him consider this side, which struck me as very intellectually honest.

Yes, I have mainly been working on the background part, but feel free to jump in there, too, if you come across some good information. As a young man, I remember watching news cast in 1982 that Allan Bakke had just graduated squarely in the middle of his medical class, which strikes me as being ironic in a number of different regards. But I have not been able to find this in print. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only connection with a Supreme Court justice I'm ever likely to have, except that my former handyman also worked (still does, for all I know) for Scalia. Not quite certain where in McLean he lives, but odds are six or seven miles from me. I'll look for those things, but he did do his residency and subsequently work for the Mayo Clinic, which argues that his class rank probably wasn't that bad. We'll see. I'm slowly moving ahead with the article but slow is the word right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Supreme Court justices are public figures, say if one walked into a restaurant, he or she may not be immediately recognized. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scalia … might be.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nommed at PR]. We should get some comments. This sort of article can sometimes get a LOT of comments. We could probably use some images. I will be in the Sacramento area in a few weeks and could go to Davis if need be or to Woodland where the Superior Court proceeding took place. We can always pull one of the Supreme Court building or of Justice Powell. Possibly we have one of that Court, which held together six years.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, from 1975 to 1981. And leaving President Carter as one of the few modern presidents who did not have an opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Regents of the University of California v. Bakke to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I'm glad I was able to help. Thank you very much for this award. I do appreciate it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sysco(1A)

Hi FriendlyRiverOtter

This is Heredenj. I want to let you know that I work for Sysco. I want to be transparent, but now sure how to indicate in my profile. Anyway, I noticed the full story wasn't being told, so I wanted to add to it. My objective is to be factual with information I include in Wikipedia. Also, I hope I am responding to you in the proper forum and format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heredenj (talk • contribs) 20:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're responding to me in a proper forum. This is fine. Yes, I think it's good to be transparent. I guess in just a brief paragraph you might state that you work for Sysco and whatever job description you feel comfortable. Now, sometimes you get a nastygram here at wikipedia, straight up. I wish it wasn't the case, but sometimes wikipedians do get nastygrams (more commonly about formatting)

Maybe Sysco after a time period could slowly begin to re-introduce drop sites just with the proper controls and spot-checking? Because I think there are valid business reasons for them, the last mile delivery issues, all that.

I do a variety of topics, generally what catches my interest, as the story with Sysco did. And I try and be resposible and cover stuff right down the middle. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sysco

Hi; thanks for the invitation, but I don't know anything about the issue, and these days I'm a little busy with Real Life(tm), so I'd have a hard time informing myself or trying to work on issues with which I am not that familiar. Sorry. Magidin (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Just maybe if you run across anything, please let me know. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bakke

Nommed at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is pretty good! :>) And let's hope for the best. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,332 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, and I'm glad I was able to help. As far as the date, the anniversity of the Supreme Court decision would be an obvious date. But perhaps also linked with other discussions of admission policies. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the good news in the Signpost--congrats on getting this through FA! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

inviting talk

Thank you for quality contributions to articles such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Bruno Bettelheim, for inviting to talk, collaboration and transparency, for living the "friendly" of your user name, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1339 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words and this nice award. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... four years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestinesucess

Hello there, the article Halil İbrahim Akça has just one source which is not enough to support your claims. Moreover your introductory statement was not referenced at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestinesucess (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter. 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]

Your third opinion request

Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter. You recently asked for a third opinion. Unfortunately, you made the request in a biased fashion, ignoring the insistence that the request be neutral. You stated that there was a "Debate over how upfront to be about Bettelheim's fraudulent credentials". But the "debate" was not how "upfront" to be about Bettelheim's misrepresentation of his credentials, but about whether this was relevant at all to his book on fairy tales. I strongly suggest that you revise your third opinion request to make it neutral and accurate, otherwise it may be declined. Furthermore, you wrongly linked to a post you made on the talk page of The Uses of Enchantment to which no one responded. You should instead have linked to the place on the talk page where discussion actually occurred. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also included "Please also see next discussion section on whether to include multiple reports of his violence against students." FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent mistake

In this edit you restored vandalism which had been reverted. Presumably that was a mistake, so I am just letting you know so that you can be careful to avoid similar mistakes in future. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thank you. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC) And thanks for helping with eclipse article. (I think it was reverted so fast, I ended up reverting it back!)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bruno Bettelheim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rockefeller Institute (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank the person or persons involved in making this bot! :-) It caught something I didn't. And plus, there was another mistake. The Rockefeller Foundation (please notice the difference) is who helped Bettelheim get his first academic position in the United States. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Ronald Reagan Page

As required, I am notifying you that you have been reported to admins for the edit war on the Reagan page. Please see the Administrators' noticeboard for the specific complaint.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Saturday, March 3, I made this edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=828661347&oldid=828646768
"Some of the 49 Waffen-SS soldiers had been members of the Second SS Panzer Division, which was nicknamed "Das Reich," and which in 1941 assisted an extermination squad in the killing of more than nine hundred Jewish persons near Minsk on the Eastern Front and in 1944 carried out a massacre on the Western Front in the French town of Oradour-sur-Glane in which more than six hundred residents were killed, although it was not known if any of the 49 participated in either of these war crimes."
with this source:
SS UNIT'S HISTORY OVERLOOKED IN U.S. PLAN ON GERMAN VISIT, New York Times, John Tagliabue, James Markham, April 28, 1985.

Lionel on the Talk page stated that it was too long as compared to other sections of our article.

Today, Tuesday, March 6, I made this edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=829121536&oldid=829087710
" . . some Waffen-SS military divisions, such as the Second SS Panzer Division nicknamed "Das Reich," had participated in war crimes. Some [of the] 49 Waffen-SS soldiers had been members of this division, although it was simply not known whether these individual soldiers had participated in specific war crimes. . "
With the correction "of the" added in the very next edit.

Please see the section "Genocide Treaty ratified with Reagan's support (although with reservations about perpetrators being tried by ICJ)" on the Talk page of our Reagan article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reply to this on the noticeboard. I am not interested in discussing this with you here. I posted here because notification is required.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The decision by an Administrator was "No violation." FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive362#User:FriendlyRiverOtter_reported_by_User:Rja13ww33_(Result:_No_violation)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. – Lionel^(talk) 01:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the result of the complaint you have been warned for a pattern of non-neutral editing at Ronald Reagan. If you are truly editing neutrally, it will be impossible for an outside observer to discern from a review of your edits which side of a dispute you are on. With your work on RR the result seems transparent. I'm also leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions (below). EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. – Lionel^(talk) 01:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are welcome to check out Talk:Ronald Reagan for the month of March 2018, and see how I treat fellow editors and also see how I was treated in turn, and reach their own conclusions.

I think this editor may be referring to a section I added to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review entitled, "article on Ronald Reagan controlled by handful of pro-Reagan partisans"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#article_on_Ronald_Reagan_controlled_by_handful_of_pro-Reagan_partisans
I stand by the examples I gave. The article needs a lot of work. Someone wrote in boldface, "Article on Barack Obama is controlled by handful of pro-Obama partissans." That may well be true also, especially if my experience with our Reagan article is at all a common norm. I simply do not know how much of a general problem this is.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Muhammad Ali, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superdome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well done for the bot! Yes, it's the case that "The Mercedes-Benz Superdome, often referred to simply as the Superdome . . ," with the page entitled Mercedes-Benz Superdome. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! :-) I'm glad to help out where I can! I should point out that the bulk of these contributions are on medical history, such as the early history of heart transplantation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: 1988 Summer Olympics

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as 1988 Summer Olympics, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20180227215939/https://apnews.com/c22de3a565fe4e85a0508bbbd72c3c1b/ap-s-korea-covered-mass-abuse-killings-vagrants, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:1988 Summer Olympics and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, 1988 Summer Olympics, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:1988 Summer Olympics. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:1988 Summer Olympics with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:1988 Summer Olympics saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for taking the effort to look at it. If I made mistakes, I want to get it right. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, FriendlyRiverOtter. 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]

April 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Fermi paradox does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! —DIYeditor (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. However, I've been a Wikipedia editor for a number of years, and I'm not going to describe the reason for most small edits such as getting subject and verb to agree.

I am going to describe most medium edits. And with large edits, I feel I go above and beyond as the following two illustrate:

(MAJOR CHANGE. I'm moving to the very beginning the paragraph describing the term as post-World War II since this seems to be the most common English usage.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-war&diff=prev&oldid=890853654

(MAJOR CHANGE. This is the type of bold, informative, and, most of all, well-referenced introduction, which we should seriously consider and probably go with. The current intro is not even accurate (for example, Bettelheim is not a "psychologist" in any way, shape, or form).)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruno_Bettelheim&diff=prev&oldid=887453941 [In fact, you might disagree with the content of this edit. A fellow editor did. But all the same, I'm proud that I put it out there inviting other people to agree or disagree. And Bettelheim's a topic I plan to return to later.]

I have been complimented for collaboration and transparency. I think I do above-average edit summaries. I'm just not going to allow myself to feel obligated to mechanically include a summary for every single small edit. Plus, that kind of dilutes and waters down the important edits in my mind. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to explain yourself. I believe Wikipedia community consensus is given in the notice template: Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following to your talk page:

Thoughts on standard of edit summaries for all edits

I thank you for effort to improve Wikipedia. However, I do have some concerns.

Every business system requires some flex in the rules for normal function. That is why "work to rule" is such an effective labor union tactic. We could say, well, we should have better interplay between rules and actual practice, and keep the rules continually updated with best practice. We could say that, but apparently, that is surprisingly difficult to do.

And then there is Doc James' experience. This editor does very valuable work, in that he's a medical doctor who gives his real name. He has worked, for example, to prevent medical device companies from simply promoting their products on Wikipedia.

If we require edit summaries for all edits, where brief pro forma summaries become the norm, it just makes it all the easier for malicious and/or self-serving edits to hide.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay: Can the site’s dwindling ranks of volunteer editors protect its articles from the influence of money?
The Atlantic, Joe Pinsker, Aug. 11, 2015:

"On January 11, 2013, James Heilman, an emergency-room physician and one of Wikipedia’s most prolific medical editors, was standing watch over the online encyclopedia’s entry for a back procedure called a kyphoplasty. The page originally suggested that the procedure’s effectiveness was “controversial,” and an unidentified Wikipedia user had proposed changing the text to “well documented and studied”—a characterization that Heilman thought wasn’t supported by existing research. He rejected the change. . . "

And he later tracked this change back to, you guessed it, an employee of a company which makes devices for this procedure.

The edit summary is not going to make a huge difference one way or the other in a case like this. But if we add to a norm of non-meaningful edit summaries, in which the same pat phrases are scrolled through again and again, I think it does make it a little more hard to catch the bad edits. For we would have essentially given self-serving edits something to hide behind. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Hi, you've been on Wikipedia for something like twelve years now, so I won't template you. But I notice that you have left a note like this on the talk pages of more than fifty users in the last week. The implication of the first phrase is that you are sending such messages to anybody who has edited the talk page, and this could be construed as WP:CANVASsing. My only edit to that page was nearly seventeen months ago, and purely in the nature of housekeeping (per your request here): I have no knowledge of (or interest in) the topic concerned. Users who are interested in that article will already have it on their watchlists; those who are interested in RfCs in general will either have subscribed to the feedback request service, or will have pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies on their watchlist; and indeed, that is how I became aware of that RfC, several days ago.

This is not to say that you cannot send out messages like that - the talk page has some WikiProject banners at the top, and it would have been acceptable to post notes on the talk pages for each of those WikiProjects: WT:WikiProject Biography (and WT:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia); WT:WikiProject Illinois; WT:WikiProject Chicago; WT:WikiProject Psychology; and WT:WikiProject Autism.

Also, there is no need for an external link when a normal wikilink works perfectly well: Talk:Bruno Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fifty users sound about right. However, I read the explanation of canvassing . .

Wikipedia:Canvassing

"Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. . . "

And since I sent it to everyone, firstly, to ALL who responded to the RfC a year and half ago, then started with past contributors to the article, and then started with past contributors to the talk page (moving back and forth somewhat between past article and past talk page contributors), only ignoring the bots -- So, no, I'm not trying to stack the deck, or influence the discussion in a particular way, or anything of the sort, although I certainly have my views which should be obvious from the talk page. I started with the present and sent to everyone moving backward on time.

I had wanted to finish with past contributors going to 2+ years previous probably to about the beginning of 2017. Out of respect to you, your experience, and your taking the time to compose a thoughtful message to me, I will think about it. But please be aware that I will probably still go forward. Past talk page participants was short and easy. In part, I want to bring past article contributors even with this.

I like knowing about other ways, such as WT:WikiProject Chicago; WT:WikiProject Psychology; and WT:WikiProject Autism. All the same, I tend to think we can do both.

Following is an example of the brief notice I've sent to people. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you're invited to an RfC regarding Bruno Bettelheim article

As a past contributor, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fermi paradox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass message

I think you contacted enough users now. Mass messaging +30 editors is a bit much. Pleas don't do that again. Thanks. El_C 16:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to invite people who have participated within the last 3 months. In fact, I think it's fine to probably go back further than that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, for an article that popular, definitely not. Sorry, but it's just a bit much. People have watchlists. El_C 16:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't continue the mass message while this is still outstanding(!). El_C 17:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? You are still doing it. Please acknowledge. El_C 17:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you're not my boss, and I'm not your boss either. I understand loud and clear that you object.

I also got one thank you, and two new participants.

My background is in business and sales, where it sure helps to ask people to help you. And if you don't ask, they probably won't.

On your point of watchlists, not everyone uses these. Again, I think a brief, polite, occasional invite is fine. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a request. No, I am instructing' you to stop as an uninvolved admin now looking into this. You are failing the Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, etc. clause of WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification with this mass message. Feel free to appeal this decision in any forum you see fit. El_C 17:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please don't continue the mass message while this is still outstanding — this is your last warning about that. El_C 17:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you for 25 minutes, because I seem to be having difficulties getting your attention. Sorry for the inconvenience. El_C 17:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you tell me an admin was involved? You probably should have. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did. See above. El_C 17:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I really don't see that. You did say the matter was "still outstanding." I rather read that as the RfC. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly told you to stop — I am instructing' you to stop as an uninvolved admin now looking into this. El_C 17:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you only said that part after you blocked me.

Arguing with me is fine. In fact, I'm used to sports sites where people argue quite a bit heavier than this.

But if you're going to argue with me, you probably ought not be the person who blocks me. Don't you think? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the timeline. And this is not an argument. I am instructing you that you violated policy. You were blocked because you continued the disruption even after being warned. El_C 17:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point since you messages are timed at 17:16, 17:17, 17:25. But I also have a point in that I didn't respond to any of them! And I've learned from sports sites, yes, I'm willing to respond to criticism, but I'm also going to do my own thing. I can't let the criticism monopolize, or at least that's not my style. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am instructing you about adhering to policy. You can define it however you want, so long as you do so. El_C 18:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Below is the (brief, polite) message which I sent to approximately 43 editors who had done work on the Ronald Reagan article within the last 3 months (up to and including March 24th, 2019). I sent to everyone, only skipping those who had already participated in the RfC.

This is the one thank you which I received: User_talk:SunCrow#Invite_to_RfC_(Request_for_Comment)_at_Reagan_article_on_Iran-Contra To which I said, "You're welcome."

And, I'm counting four persons who contributed to the RfC because I invited them to. I sent out a brief, polite, and non-repetitive message to any one user, got some positive response. I count it as a success. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does not respond to your mass message still being a violation of WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification. El_C 18:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, it's not canvassing because it's not stacking the deck. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, it violates the Appropriate notification part of the policy. El_C 18:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Invite to RfC (Request for Comment) at Reagan article on Iran Contra

Hi,

You're invited to an RfC on the question of, "Within the section on the Iran-Contra affair, should we include the aspect of drug trafficking on the part of some Nicaraguan Contras?"

Talk:Ronald_Reagan#rfc_85A761C

Thanks,

FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you sent me one. That's why I'm here. Again, see above (WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification). El_C 17:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not canvassing, because canvassing is stacking the deck

"*Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions . . . " Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification

So, canvassing would be if I made a list of people on "my" side and then a "rogue's gallery" of people against me. Well, I didn't do anything of the sort! I invited all past editors for the Reagan article for the last 3 months, skipping only those who had already responded to the RfC.

Now, on the other side . . .

"Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification

This is allowed and accepted, and even recommended. I guess people can decide whether sending notices to 43 fellow Wikipedians is acceptable. I myself think it easily is. In fact, a case to be made to go back further than merely 3 months. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have not participate in a previous discussion about this. Again, you are failing the Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, etc. — you are not being selective enough per policy. El_C 18:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article" is one of topics listed. But I really think, if I tried to make a judgement call on whether an edit was "substantial" or not, that's the kind of thing that could drift into me judging whether someone was on "my" side or not, whether they were a "serious" editor or a "good" editor. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is so. But the point stands. There's no need to mass message 40+ users. That's just overkill. El_C 18:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to invite people who have participated within the last 3 months. In fact, I think it's fine to probably go back further than that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't think going back a measly 3 months is overkill. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm telling you that 40+ notifications is a lot, but you are entitled to think otherwise. El_C 18:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to tell you. Now, that I'm unblocked, I'm going to go back to the RfC and participate. And maybe we could get a seasoned person not involved to referee some of this? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still acting in my capacity as an uninvolved admin. Blocking you does not make me involved. You are welcome to appeal my decision to other admins in any forum you see fit. But you are not to mass message tens of users in the interim. I hope that much, at least, is clear. El_C 18:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are we still following a de-centralized model here at Wikipedia? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FriendlyRiverOtter, the last message that you sent out was to Rchard2scout (talk · contribs) who in the last thirteen years has made no edits to the talk page that I can find, and just one to the article in the last ten years - which was hardly substantive. This is not the first time that you have been asked to stop canvassing - see see earlier thread (did you consider informing the WikiProjects instead of the individual users?) - so if El C (talk · contribs) had not blocked you, I probably would have done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Appropriate notification . . . Examples include . . . "

Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article is listed as one of several examples. And the fact that we say "Examples include . . . " to me says, use your own good judgment. Rather than iron-clad rules.

WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification

Other examples listed are:

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
Editors known for expertise in the field
Editors who have asked to be kept informed

This same section also says, "Do not send notices to too many users," Yes, it does. But again, I do not consider going back a scant three months and sending notices to approx. 43 editors on the Reagan page to be excessive. To the contrary, I consider it temperate and moderate. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another person was criticized for canvassing

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronald_Reagan&diff=prev&oldid=902852242

This other person received a warning. I myself said on the Reagan Discussion page that inviting three persons most probably he or she had worked well with in the past, I personally didn't think it was that big a deal.

Although maybe if it was three energetic persons who held similar views, it could end up being so. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And my sending invites to all contributors within three months helped to dilute

Yes, inviting people who have participated is a good way to get a broad response to an RfC. And I suppose people can decide if I invited too many, or if I asked people repetitively (which I made a conscious point not to do). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iran-Contra

Include everything significant including drug trafficking.--پخش مطلب (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

There is a RfC on the Reagan article on a subject in which you have previously commented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ronald_Reagan#RfC:_Reagan_and_Apartheid Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I'll probably be participating a little later. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

– Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit on Monday evening, Oct. 21st:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Carter&diff=922360888&oldid=922286536
A fellow editor reverted my edit the same evening.

I made a new and improved edit on Weds. evening, Oct. 23rd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Carter&diff=922694940&oldid=922582810

I understand this is how we often operate, and constructively so. That is, I don't think I've done anything to warrant the above warning. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Carter and East Timor

The bulk of my edit from Weds.

Indonesia invaded newly-independent East Timor in December 1975, with one of their major goals being to take the place of South Vietnam as a major regional ally of the United States. And the U.S. largely accepted this overture.

[ref] Two other reasons Indonesia invaded East Timor were (1) high initial estimates (mistaken) of oil and natural gas under the Timor Sea, and (2) to the prevent the "negative example" of a small independent nation (even though East Timor was a former Portuguese colony). Please see The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective, edited by Robert Gellately and Ben Kiernan, Cambridge University Pres, 2003, Ch. 8 "'Encirclement and Annihilation': The Indonesian Occupation of East Timor," John G. Taylor, esp. pages 174-75.

[And a little bit of rewrite of the next paragraph]

This is moderate, temperate--and important. Exactly the kind of material we ought to include in an article on a president. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion, sports, etc.

You're moderate, temperate and important! Seriously. If you ever decide to run for an office, let me know and I'll reaffirm that point when the going gets tough. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote of confidence! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's no confidence in my endorsements. Just wishful thinking. I tried to remind America Carter was still technically a living President in 2016, and nobody had to choose between two evils, but nobody listened. And I tried to spread the word that Biden wasn't black enough or woman enough to win in 2020, and nobody is still listening. Sometimes I wish I were a Russian trollbot on a Chinese smartphone. Everybody listens to those guys. Anyway, thanks for not pinging me. Seriously, notifications still alarm me. I'd be a terrible political strategist in today's futuristic maze. But I hope you win big soon! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s always kind of surprising what people will listen to and what they won’t. I remember at a sports site arguing that Tony Romo was a gamer and a player, but just was hurt too often late in the season. A fellow member fought me tooth and nail, and basically argued that Romo was the proverbial bum. And yet . . . several months later he was echoing some of my points! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that name tossed around by football fans, so knew he was better than a bum. But I figured he was about twice his actual age, so that was surprising! I'm a blank slate, pigskinwise, and I'll accept your view on the man without a shadow of doubt. But football players-turned-wrestlers, I can hold my own. Big Van Vader (excluding WWF run) all the way! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the Wrestling the weekend (no audience!) might be among the few live sports events during the Coronavirus pandemic. I have thought in a month or two, if other sports could go back perhaps with smaller teams? Don’t know if that’s at all doable or practical. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt non-winter sports will be back this year, but next year will be appreciated all the more for it. I couldn't find a single working stream for WrestleMania last night, probably due to general sport pirates falling into the funk. Hopefully easier for night two, but not very hopeful. Apparently, the best tag match was a singles match and the main event was a ghost movie, so two-on-two hockey or cinematic pretaped basketball could work, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, a lot of rebroadcasts, which I guess is okay for a while. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of "e-sports" streams, if you can force your brain to consider video gaming a sport. I can't. But I can appreciate the insane dedication single players put into beating the classics through tool-assisted speedruns, so maybe you can enjoy those, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t either, but I am impressed as heck that South Korea has had professional video gamers — for years now! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, their Internet speeds got fast quick and stayed for longer than ours out in the "real world". In a lot of ways, South Korea is simply the best country on Earth. At least it looks like an efficient place from afar, never saw it live (I've barely seen anywhere, man). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never been to South Korea either, but I’d like, too. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jones edits

Hi FriendlyRiverOtter: Thanks for your edits on the Jesse H. Jones article. I have put in significant effort building the article and cleaning it up, but as you have demonstrated, it still has much room for improvement. Given his significance to the development of 20th-century Houston and his role within the New Deal, this subject has the potential for development as a good article or featured article. I think I work better in collaboration with other editors, so I am wondering if you are interested at some point in building this article to its potential? Now I am busy, but in the near future? Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for your nice compliment.

Okay, if you have just a dynamite reference about the Great Depression, sure, by all means, please pop me a hello and let me know. But in general, I think I'm more interested in the Dec. 2007 - June 2009 recession ("The Great Recession") and the Sept. 2008 near-meltdown of financial institutions. Even though the Depression from the 1930s was a lot more serious, this one was a lot more recent. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your interest in the Great Recession. I hope you will be able to watch the Jesse Jones page and jump in with edits as needed. Best, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No guarantees, but I will if I can. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We generally do not check existing text against references

Because it's tedious work.

Because our strength as human beings is going with overall impression of what sounds reasonable and gut feelings which we've learned to listen to. And I'm all in favor of playing to strength! I'm just saying that, I'm also in favor of adding some skills to this.

So, if something peaks your interest or raises your eyebrow (okay "piques your interest" is the more proper English) . . . well, dive on it! Is the reference actually saying what we say it does?

And I think it's fine to skim through the reference. You're still way ahead of the curve. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Criticism of Walmart page, in the following edit and the next five, I more closely summarized what the Walmart CEO was saying in 2015 about store issues (as well as more minor issues):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Walmart&diff=941996555&oldid=941996093

In this edit on the Fermi Paradox page, on the issue of whether an alien civilization might potentially use solar satellites and then beam the power to the surface, I changed "radio" to "microwaves." Because that's what our reference was saying. Of course, microwaves are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. And whether microwaves can also be considered to be within the radio waves category . . . well, that probably hinges on whether one is a lumper or a splitter when classifying things! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermi_paradox&diff=939498343&oldid=939497135

Airborne

Per WHO[12] it is not generally airborne except when doing aerosolizing procedures. This is from WHO a few hours ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

———-

From this same WHO tweet, I also read:

“The #coronavirus is mainly transmitted through droplets generated when an infected person coughs, sneezes or speaks.

“To protect yourself: “-keep 1m distance from others . . . ”

Which sounds airborne to me!!

They are using “airborne” in a narrow technical sense to mean highly airborne, and that is confusing as all get-out.

And don’t take my word for it. Please ask any two non-doctors of your own choosing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fomite is acceptable term, but a confusing redefinition of airborne, not so much.

Yes which is why we list "close contact" first as a method it spreads. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of community-authorised general sanctions regarding COVID-19

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.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m glad this says “does not imply that there are any issues” with my contributions. I’ve taken things set-by-step and invited the participation of others. In fact, let me take this as an opportunity to give a shout out to either experienced or new editors.

We need help. Coronavirus, across a variety of topics and pages, will be something by which we’re judged. People will either say, Wikipedia did okay, I guess, or . . . Wikipedia actually did really well! Let’s strive for this second one.

And if there’s a particular occasion in which my game has slipped, please let me know. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS

WP:MEDRS is a valuable and necessary bulwark against the introduction of poor quality material into our medical content. Those guidelines carry the authority of a project-wide agreed consensus, and are not optional at an editor's whim. Their core principles have been stable for over ten years. If you feel that some of those guidelines should not apply, then make your case at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I'm not prepared to see you continually challenging MEDRS at project pages, because of its corrosive effect on other editors by subverting our attempts to keep medical content at the highest quality. Consequently, I'm now warning you, in all seriousness, that I will seek sanctions against you for disruptive editing if you persist. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not pertain to the article page: Coronavirus disease 2019. But rather the following section on the talk page: Discretionary sanctions on the use of preprints, in which I participated and said a number of things, including:

”What we’re up against are bat shit crazy conspiracy theories. That’s the reality of the situation. We’re also at risk of irrelevancy due to the 24-hour news cycle and social media.”

”How often really does a professional journal make substantial changes to a pre-print?”

” . . a clear better alternative is to say ‘According to a preliminary study . . ‘ or something of this sort, . . ”

”No compelling argument, eh? I’m not sure one should both energetically champion a viewpoint, and neutrally sit as a judge. Perhaps most of all, when one is largely right! . . ”

Dear Reader, you may disagree with all of these, or only some of them. All the same, I do not feel I should be penalized for participating on a talk page.

If it makes a difference, I have contributed to Coronavirus disease 2019 since at least April 8th, and other articles about COVID-19 and the pandemic since before that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just draw your attention to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019, particularly the section Application notes. If you think your comments quoted above do anything other than subvert attempts to maintain the standards required by MEDRS, then you've no business editing in the area. It's time for you to drop the stick and back away. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friendly Otter, I am glad that you contribute and what you contribute. Don´t be intimidated by the chain gang of the medical WP group - they are truly horrific, as you are finding out. They´ve managed to shoo away a lot of level headed editors already. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wuerzele: thank you very much! I certainly do jump in there and try regarding Coronavirus. And I think it’s important and will be one of the things by which people judge our Wikipedia.

And I’m not against the criticism. I’m the one advocating the occasional exception, and therefore, the burden of proof is on me. Just not an impossible 100% proof, which we can never, ever get. But still, I need to present a reasonably strong case why we should make an exception in a particular case. In fact, from the following thread:

Header for WP:MEDRS says “. . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . ” (Archive 9)

” . . doesn’t mean run hog wild. .”

“ . . going the route of exception and common sense will probably benefit from slowing down, . ”

That is, if someone is looking for an exciting radical and revolutionary, it probably ain’t going to be me! I think of myself as very middle-of-the-road.

—> Now, in fairness I also said, “it doesn’t mean consensus first for our Coronavirus article,” because progress would grind to a slow crawl otherwise. But the editor who makes the exception to MEDRS needs to be pretty confident indeed of his or her facts, and ready to defend their decision.

Or, as you say, a level headed editor. I will aspire to that standard. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerzele, That's terrible advice. You do know that, right? The COVID-19 sanctions enjoy broad support, and we have the block button and you don't. FriendlyRiverOtter, regardless of whether you like RexxS' tone, he's right: if you try to push the limits on these articles, a block or ban is likely. MEDRS or GTFO is the current standard. Guy (help!) 23:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Wow. You come to my talk page out of the clear blue. A little bit of reasoned argument and then this business of, “we have the block button and you don't.” I thought you admins tried to avoid being gleeful about blocks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FriendlyRiverOtter, dude, you posted this to WP:ANI. Are you really surprised that other admins would look at your talk page? Guy (help!) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pings

My understanding is that pings do not work like this and are only forwarded when submitted with a complete message that is timestamped. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DIYeditor: Thank you for the heads up. My thinking was to first proof the edit before pinging you. I take it that you didn’t receive it, but are receiving this one, correct? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I saw your comment though. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I look forward to your response if you wish to make one. I think of myself as quite moderate, even though I think I do come across as a radical at times. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

topic-ban from COVID-19 related pages for 1 month

You have been sanctioned per this discussion on AN/I

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus and COVID-19, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes for Appeal

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 —> Proposal (FriendlyRiverOtter)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019&diff=prev&oldid=960776478
Closing my RfC on June 4. It wasn’t going anywhere, but my closing it on my own does show you can work with me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960714376 “So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?” — 4 June

Comment on notes for appeal

Not sure if you know, but you can make a page of any name you like under your user space, like User:FriendlyRiverOtter/notes if you want a place for something like this that isn't a message for someone else. Further comment, that RfC closing was improperly done, you kept the Lorem ipsum which is just sample text in Latin rather than wrapping the actual RfC in the top and bottom statements. Additionally, your topic ban is almost up isn't it, why spend time on an appeal? —DIYeditor (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because I think it’s bad practice. We’re at risk of losing good editors. And the missed opportunity isn’t spending skills and effort on patiently coaching up editors to a B+ level. Plus, it’s 9 more days.

PS If you have a good recent example of a properly closed RfC, I’d appreciate it. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note WP:THREAD and MOS:LISTGAP, you had spaces between your paragraphs and two indent levels rather than one. WP:RFCEND gives an example of how to close an RfC. The "top" and "bottom" templates need to completely encase the entire discussion. 1 month is a short topic ban as it is, often they are indefinite. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember you as one of the better admins and I appreciate you being in here talking with me. Not sure if you do it, but it’s common practice this business of “need to send a message,” as if we’re repeating a line in a mob movie, and talking about an editor in third person when the person is right there and he or she could just be asked, what do you see the problem as?

Thank you for the specific link regarding closing an RfC. And regarding two indents, I often can’t see just one, and I prefer spaces. On your talk page, I’ll try to remember to do it your way (which I’m guessing is also standard and most common!). On my talk page, I’m going to continue to do it my way. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin. Not following WP:THREAD and MOS:LISTGAP is a problem for people who use screen readers and potentially for other kinds of interpretation of the message threads in the future. They should always be followed. There should only be one indent more than what you are replying to and there should not be spaces between indented paragraphs. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You carry yourself well. :-) You probably could be an admin if the political side interests you. I think you’re right about article talk pages. And plus, I’ve found that anything lengthy can really rub some people the wrong way (maybe they’re busy, or they’ve done a lot of work that day, etc). Now, if you tell me that you yourself use a screen reader, I’ll really make an effort for you. Otherwise, I’m going to generally be casual on my own talk page. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about anyone else who may check out your talk page and use a screen reader? Your thread at AN was silly but meh. I come here to find your don't care about ensuring your talk page is accessible for those who need it. Disgusting. I was mostly joking with what I said at AN because of how poor your appeal was, but from what I read here, I'm glad that you're topic banned and would be glad if your site banned. We don't need people like you on Wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was not initially presented to me as an accessibility issue. Now that I know it is, game in. I want to do a good job. And you can just talk to me regularly.
From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility —> Indentation, I see that a user can put the same colon(s) on blank lines as text. I also see that a Wikipedian can use new-paragraph markup (this one I’m not familiar with). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wanna take a look at another psych article?

It was great seeing you work on the Bruno article, so I was wondering if you'd fancy giving Optimal stimulation level a glance over. Are you familiar at all with the subject or interested in working on it? Jasphetamine (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasphetamine: thank you for the compliment. I’m not familiar with Optimal stimulation level, but it sounds interesting. And time permitting, I will take a look. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community topic-ban

You are now subject to a community topic-ban per this AN discussion. The ban stipulates that FriendlyRiverOtter is topic-banned by the community from making any edits on COVID-19-related pages indefinitely. This ban is appealable to the community at WP:AN in 6 months, at the earliest. Best, --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otter

I realize you might not be receptive to me posting on your page, I just want to know that I hate voting to ban anyone from any page. I'm a researcher in real life and I have no problem with "spirited arguments" with my colleagues. It's an exchange of information at times. However, Wikipedia is a lot different and I have to be willing to not have that attitude in here. I realize, you likely think you're right, and I totally hear you on that. However, even something that you might think you're totally, 100 percent right, might not be right. Take a look at this discussion, for example, I was totally convinced that I was right in giving someone a certain label. I took the time to read through their arguments and really listened to what they were saying and came to the opposite conclusion.

Hopefully, you'll do the same. For the moment, edit other articles that totally don't pertain to Covid - heck it's not going away for a long time, likely by the time your ban is over, it will still be making news. Just take a breath, edit other articles and just use it as a teaching moment! Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wekeepwhatwekill: look, I appreciate you responding and the spirit in which this is made. And let me ask you, is it okay that I respond frankly? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FriendlyRiverOtter Go ahead - but be careful, I'm not a sysop and I'm pretty thick skinned. That said, remember what you say here could have an effect (not from me) in the future. Simply put, you can say what you need to say to me, just keep it within Wikipedia's rules and you'll be fine! Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 03:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wekeepwhatwekill: well, since you have a thick skin . . You participated in bullying behavior. Straight up. And the fact that you turn out to be a decent individual kind of makes it worse, not better.

I think you were about the 8th person to support a permanent ban. It was running 7 and 0, and you made it 8 and 0. If there was an Amish family in your neighborhood, and other people were talking trash about them, would you jump on the bandwagon and make it 8 to 0?

And even if it’s a sincere belief on your part, it kind of doesn’t matter because the question might be, is it worth the threshold? Is what you’re saying hugely important enough to be worth one more person piling on? And please don’t think, since I’m taking a moderate position, I’m going to pull the group back to the middle. That only occasionally works out.

In addition, you kind of talked about me in third party terms (not 100%). And that seems to be yet another bad Admin page practice. Once we do that, we are already largely treating the person as an ‘other’ and as a problem or issue to be managed.

Look, I’m going to be fine. Probably going to be fading away, still doing the occasional good work. If you wish to see some of my better work, please check out some of my COVID edits from April and May.

I’d be interested in knowing if you might know of sites somewhat similar to Wiki, but better in my terms.

And please consider becoming a pro-editor defender on the Admin pages. Although from the negative patterns I’ve observed, would probably just be an exercise in frustration. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice award.

2016 may have been when I came back after getting busy at work and getting out of the Wiki habit.

In any case, it’s nice to be appreciated! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]