User talk:Leprof 7272/Archive 1

Preparing for departure

This is setting context for all notes that might appear in the interim. (Le Prof)

Scabeba posting

Please do not edit my edits on the buddy rich page...I am his daughter and know a lot more about him than you. Leave it alone!!!

Posting traced to Scabeba, and cordial reply left; attribution of edits to me was mistaken. (Le Prof)

Thanks for your note

I appreciate your kindness and wish you well on your retirement. I highly recommend it! I retired last October and have resisted making "plans" because I just want to let this next chapter open on its own. My husband and son are both physicists working on the ATLAS experiment at CERN that announced the Higgs Boson last July. Like you, they both have sought opportunities to explain scientific subjects to the general public, but it's a steep climb. Best, Grand'mere Eugene — Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank You :)

Thank you for all your advice. I will be sure to follow up on EVERYTHING. It's a great start for me to finally get some usable guidance.Lgkkitkat (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for

Le Prof, Thank you for the compliments on my userpage art and hometown! Here's hoping that you're having a better day today and thank you for the kind words! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

An invitation to look at a couple links, suggesting

that with a little looking, even close to you (@Doc James), you'd see we are on the same side of the secondary referencing principle. See here, in your Talk, for our shared conviction on secondary sources… [1]. And here for guidance given new editors on the same, [2] and [3] and affirmation for how I do it (see also Barnstar above it); And then for the articles I am working on, see [4] (this section only, vis-a-vis referencing), and [5] (note no refs. in lede, because all material mirrored and ref'd in main body), and for an article in process (6 of 13 secondary, remaining primaries take from secondaries, and no bare URLs, etc., [6]. And see here for an invited analysis of referencing at an article: [7], at request of another editor, followed by 30 day wait since not my area of expertise, then by posting of tags. I could go on forever. This is not something we disagree about. I am sad we had to have this falling out over this apparent issue. Le PRof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that we agree on the importance of secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Substituted alcohols

I just started Substituted alcohols but It needs improvement from a chemist (see Talk:Substituted_alcohols). I also started Alcohol (drugs) recently, and Alternative psychoactive alcohol use long time ago. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My Talk page

has not received any new messages from you, can you please quote the text for me as I cannot find anything from you by searching for "28 June" and "19 June". --David Hedlund (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Carpanone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Phenolic

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polycyclic compound may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Polycyclic compound may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for [[red tide]]s. The R group at right refers to one of several possible four-carbon side chains (see main [[Brevetoxin]] article.]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polycyclic compound, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bridged, Spiro and Tetracyclic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane

Hey Leprof, could you please fill out this form so I can process your request for Cochrane access? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Apology

You stepped into a mine field. I blew up. I'm sorry. This was an extraordinarily difficult interaction and the person involved exhibited some of the worst behavior I have encountered as an editor. We spent thousands of words debating a single sentence in which Bob was clearly defying consensus by every means in his disposal without any regard for the rules whatsoever. I'm not capable of discussing this issue rationally, so it will be a lot easier for me if we don't rehash that episode. If you can accept that I'll appreciate it. Formerly 98 (talk)

Response made at editor's talk page. All good. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Paracetamol and asthma

Hi Le Prof, I agree with your assessment that the important thing regarding the paracetamol article is getting the content accurate [8]. Considering request to stay off the editor in question’s talk page [9], I’ll discuss content related concerns here. [Content already appearing here, [10].], deleted. Le Prof.] On the behavioral issues raised, I disagree with many of the statements made regarding me personally, but one good thing about WP is everything is documented. Here are all the relevant discussions, if you are at all interested in any of that: [11], [12], [13]. To tell you the truth, the edits on the paracetamol article were actually my first edits ever on WP, and I was surprised by what I encountered from the editor in question and a few others. His statement that I was blocked is accurate. I was reverted then later blocked by an involved admin and stated reason was “copyright violation”, but then I was still reverted when significantly reworded to remove any hint of copyright violation, so this was confusing for a new editor. I was disappointed by the editor in question’s lack of response to your statement regarding refraining from threatening discipline action/sanctions during important debates. I was driven away from that debate and the article by his threat, and I was almost driven away from WP entirely by earlier fiasco. I’m still interested in improving the paracetamol article, but honestly, I’m concerned regarding associated threats and concerned that attempts to improve article would result in a non-productive time sink, and unfortunately my time on WP is limited. Thanks again for addressing this concern with the editor who made the threat. Regards.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion redirected to article talk pages, and personal response made at this editor's Talk page. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol and health

Hello, Leprof! I'm trying to remember: were you one of the people who dealt with the alcohol related articles created by David Hedlund? I can't remember who all contributed to fixing the "Alcohol (drug)" and similar articles, and I can't go back and look because the page has been deleted so its talk page is gone. But if you are interested in dealing with those poorly-written anti-alcohol articles of his, I just discovered another one: Alcohol and health. It was called to my attention by a new addition someone added (which is also problematic). But then I noticed the section "Pregnancy and alcohol" which is horrible: it cites a single study instead of a review article, and mis-states the results of the one study it cites. Then I looked at the general tenor of the article, noticed its strong anti-alcohol bias and partial incoherence, and smelled David Hedlund. Sure enough, turns out he contributed most of the content. If this area interests you, I'd appreciate it if you would take a look and maybe discuss on the article's talk page. My question: Can the article be fixed, or would it be better to simply merge any salvageable content to some other article? Also, who else should I contact about this? Thanks for any thoughts. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Thank you for your interest in our user study. Please email me at credivisstudy@gmail.com. Wkmaster (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine sandglass, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Columbus and Chronometer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Rauner

I want to apolgize for the edit tonight. I have not been on here editing for a few months and its 1 in the morning so half awake, but i did it because i was worried and from my view that it was becoming bias and vandlism, (again maybe because im half awake) I revert it to that version so that it would be a clean start if u can understand. Anyway, it was all in good faith and in no way did i meen for all this to happened. I sincarally apolgize for all the trouble that was cause tonight. and i ask for forgiveness. Nhajivandi (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Western culture

Thank you for your edit at Western culture. Generally, it's best to follow WP:NOCITE when dealing with unsourced material that you believe is doubtful, especially in an article that is largely unsourced. Actually, I'm surprised that the information was controversial at all, but I guess everyone has an opinion. I put a {{cn}} tag on the claim about equality of women as happening during the Medieval period -- I'm pretty sure that's not true; that movement didn't really get going until the 19th century. Anyway, good luck with your sourcing project on the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply from Georginho

Hello Le Prof, please see a reply to your message in my talk page. Thanks. Georginho (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply from George_M._Church

Hello Le Prof, please see my reply to your message in my Talk:George_M._Church talk page. I'd greatly appreciate your help in fixing this. George Church (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and requests for dates and secondary sources. I've suggested a few on the talk page. George Church (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

George, this is a good venue to place brief notes, to keep it out of the general bulk of commentary at the article talk page. As for edit suggestions, keep appending them there, with citations as simple content bullets (without templates or other html markup)—in the two "existing" or "new" categories. I will then keep facilitating their review and addition. Please, though,have patience: the rush to work in response to your initial effort was intentional, in good faith, and its pace cannot be maintained. Further work will come as life permits. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You have a great deal of integrity

...unlike certain other people. I didn't realize until now, how bad it was. --FeralOink (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thank you very much. I will soon move this to a selected accolades area on my User page. Thankfully, those most important in this NPOV and COI situation have been amenable to reason, and we are making good progress. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Checking in

Hello, Leprof 7272. You have new messages at Marketdiamond's talk page.
Message added 4:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just so you know

I'm gathering together evidence against against DePiep if he gets taken to ANI as it seems there are some WP:CIR and WP:THERAPY problems here. I'm hopefully someone with a hat there can tell him to start being more mindful of keeping a civil tongue and assuming good faith. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I can also be short/curt in dialog. My bottom line is that the discourse be reasonable, aimed at expertise, and largely impersonal. See also the following: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#I_would_ask_general_attention and Talk:Oxygen#Discharge_tube_prose_edited_strongly. Cheers.

No worries, if I may though, it's best to try and keep your cool in situations like this and allow the other person to dig their hole if you feel they are refusing to be reasonable. I'm not sure you could bring a claim of ownership against them, but civility wise, DePiep is in deep. I don't know about alchemist, though I'm unfortunately having a lot of trouble understanding everything he's written (and I can understand some pretty bad English). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5775 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dora Maar, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lloyds, Douglas Cooper and James Lord. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

New message

Hello, Leprof 7272. You have new messages at Marketdiamond's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edit of an AN3 archive file

[User removing content because discussion long over.]

Discussion regarding the proper response to an editor deleting unsourced material in a BLP article

[User removing content because discussion unproductive.]

Kittens for you!

...because sometimes one kitty is just not enough! :) --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You are so very kind, and Madam LeProf is endeared to you for the gesture. Smiles. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your citations! Now create an account or the kitten gets it! PureRED (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, responded at your Talk page, and all is (as said there), understood. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemical substance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purification. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pyrrhotite and non-stoichiometric compound

I've removed the tags from those articles. As stated on the talk pages: the articles are not contradictory. The pyrrhotite article discusses the basics without using the term non-stoichiometric in the crystal structure section. If you want to add to that section, please do - improvement always welcome. But the contradictory tags were not accurate -- so removed. Vsmith (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-stoichiometric compound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solid state. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Avoid Widefox

Nothing more to be said. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I (finally) just read your reply concerning the B.bergdorfi(sp?) article. Your message really gave me pause, and I appreciate your patience in pointing out my errors. Feel free to critique any of my other edits, it will only make the encyclopedia better. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Methylene. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

List of cosmic microwave background experiments

Hi, I have been working on bringing List of cosmic microwave background experiments up to date. Since you added various improvement templates a couple of months ago, I thought you might be interested in helping, or discussing inclusion criteria on the talk page. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent help

I appreciate your support and editing help on PBC Foundation and your kind comments. Did you intend the last post on Talk:PBC Foundation to be there? I have lttle time or enthusiasm at present but will see if I can manage further comments. Now -- would you like to help me in part of my day job and write a biomedical grant -- that is probably just as frustrating! Jrfw51 (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your edits and advice. A battle lost. Once the professional "dogs" get their teeth into you and your less-than-perfect creation, there is no hope for a part-timer like me and a charity for a disease I expect they have never heard of. I will look out in the upcoming months for further evidence of the greater-than-other notability they demanded and may revisit the entry then. Do you have any enthusiasm to suggest a full overhaul of other health charity pages to bring them up to the standard we had created? Jrfw51 (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:New International Encyclopedia

Thanks for pointing out the editor error in the Template:New International Encyclopedia

I have fixed it. Here is the diff so you can see how it was done.

It may take a time to propagate through usage on some pages, but if you want to hurry up the process for a particular article, make a dummy edit on the page (edit the page make no changes and save it) no change will occur in the edit history but the templates used in the page will be refreshed.

-- PBS (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Repairs at Revenant

Please take your discussion to Talk. Consensus first seems to be the best route for the many numerous issues you have raised. Talk page first. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

that you left on my Talk page concerning DocJames. In my defense note that I did end my message to him by wishing him "Best regards all the same." And Best Regards to You, as well. Motsebboh (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for all your work on the Jennifer Pritzker article! TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yvonne Connolly Martin

Check out the new article at Yvonne Connolly Martin and feel free to expand or correct. - Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Chirality (chemistry)

Are you going to be writing the "Methods and practices" section in this article? H Padleckas (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

And it would be good idea to write drafts of the other sections that you found lacking. You are an ideal author. Feel free to cut a lot of the material. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@H Padleckas:@Smokefoot: Alas, I am not the best to write fully, and alone on these basic articles. I will always contribute to outlines, and write on bullet points in outlines, in the areas where I have expert knowledge and experience. But the person for this is a secondary school instructor, or a small team of college educators (e.g., one organic, one inorganic, one analytical, etc.). The key point of my earlier edits, was that simplistic, most basic textbook-derived statements, when filtered by the inexperienced, often come out simply wrong (example being focusing on axial chirality with spiro compounds, when Eliel et al. list at least three kinds observed).

Moreover, I am more and more parting company at articles where tags are not accepted. The policies and guidelines allow them, yet I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing, when placing an article tag, and then noting which are the offending sections with section tags/and or marking sentences needing checking. Now, I am fully aware that this disturbs the appearance of articles. But so what, if the article is badly in need of attention? We here are far too devoted to appearance, and deny the utility—as is used in professional document preparation—of allowing working documents to have placeholders indicating where attention and work are needed. And I have no further time, case by case, to argue this point.

Bottom line, based on my own research and experience, tags are honest, they are useful to readers (as I have queried), and they streamline followup work of all editors, down the road as time permits. The only down side is they make articles look awful. Well, I am more than willing to engage individual questioned edits, to remove and change as others suggest. But the carte blanche reversion represent a fundamental difference in values, and respect for our readership. (After learning about tags, one class was overwhelmed at the value they add in knowing whether to trust material, and asked me why they do not appear in all cases where there are problems. What was I to say?)

Bottom line, I will give little more time of my life to fighting devotion to clean looking articles that have major, major problems. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sicario

Just a neutral note that you might want to join the discussion at Talk:Sicario (2015 film) regarding the original-research tag in one section.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Intrinsic factor

The tags at intrinsic factor accomplished what they intended to; they called attention of experienced, expert editors to the article, and led to change. [Often, the extent to which at-odds differ, is that some editors seem to believe that once they have visited an article, sufficient expertise has been brought to bear—and that no other experts need look. I see this as simple, personal hubris. In no sane universe is a job done with a single editor's attention (nor should one win the highest prizes of at ones' entry into an endeavour, so much for the sane universe theory).] Moreover, my affixing tags is never the sole task I involve myself in, at an article. I always put in considerable time, on the content of the article, often hours. It is simply my conviction, not universally shared by others, that it is near to criminal to leave problematic articles appearing superficially fine. This is a dishonesty expressed toward our readers, especially the youngest, and those least experienced in differentiating content of quality from that which lacks it. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

See status of Partition coefficient. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Article versus section and inline tags

There is no prohibition to having both section tags as well as article tags (and inline tags, for that matter). Each serves a different purpose (noting that the following description is not necessarily complete):

• Article tags, to call general attention to the article's need for editor effort, and to warn readers, especially young student readers, that there are issues with the article that they are about to read (as an educator, a purpose I find critically important to the encyclopedia's improvement and proper perception);
• Section tags, to point editors to the principle places in the article needing editor effort, that would allow removal of the article tag. Article tags can remain, if there are a plethora of inline tags, distributed broadly through the article, and not concentrated in one section. In such a case, a section tag is unnecessary. But if such needs are concentrated in one a section, a section's tagging hones other editors in on that section's need for attention (and, avoiding repetition of editorial review, thus saving editor time). Section tags also, if combined with other broad issues with a section, can signal a bold editor to move the section to Talk, and remove it from the main article space (i.e., section tags regarding sourcing—my main contribution—can have an important additive effect in conjunction with other tags, that can lead to outcomes in future editing that are positive for the encyclopedia). As well, a section tag can make clear to a reader linking directly in to a section that the section has quality issues, see prose above under article tags;
• Inline citation tags, to serve two clear purposes, one akin to those mentioned above, and one distinct: as above, to call reader and editor attention to a specific sentence needing attention. In addition, however, inline citation tags, in conjunction with appearing inline citations, can be the result of a careful line by line analysis of the text of a paragraph against appearing sources, and thus differentiate the text into two formal subsets—those sentences with content that has been sourced and verified, and those sentences still needing attention (i.e., that is, sentences not supported by the end-of-parageraph or other citation, and therefore still in violation of WP:VERIFY).

Hence, as I have elsewhere argued at greater length—where I have analogized the discernment just stated to the different types of notes used in multi-author documents in review, in corporate document-control settings—all three tags are, for different reasons, distinctly informative and reasonably non-redundant (depending on how they are applied), and properly applied, make the degree to which attention is needed at an article clear, and further clarify where attention is and is not needed. The proper combined use of tags, therefore, allows both clearest, most direct communication with our readers, as well as prioritization of limited editor time to do further work on the articles in question.

Otherwise, any specific discussion of what I have done, at a specific article, is encouraged, as is follow-on combining of tags—the latter generally being appreciated if I have not done it already. If I have not done it, it is often because the tag content sometimes is critical to reader perception or editor follow-up. Sometimes non-combined tags, though less sightly, constitute the better tool to move an article toward quality. (And as I have repeatedly said, appearance is not my concern; rather, encyclopedic quality, and a properly informed readership, are.) Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

[Keeping this as a closed section, except for specific WP policy/guideline-driven comments about this mini-essay content. Cheers, Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)]

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science

Join us!
	Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon - a Year of Science initiative Hosts: Women in Red, Women Scientists Sponsor: WikiEdu April-December 2016 #wikiwomeninred #yearofscience #contentgap

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Look

look Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Seen. But irrelevant to cladograms, and to the issues raised. But thanks, it was a fun diversion. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

The following addition to my Talk page was just found, as it was added, not as a separate section, but as an addendum to an unrelated section, above. It is moved here, in part to keep the whole of this matter in a single place, but also to help explain why the initial communication of the matter was missed by yours truly [signed Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)]:

Extended content

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC) @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: — I cannot find the ANI to which you refer. Could you please re-insert it here? Katie, my edits are never flyby, and always involve hours of work, and are aimed at warning readers about serious problems that remain at articles. They are generally placed only after I have spent long periods reviewing, repairing, and enhancing available sources. If you wish to peremptorily ban, and if it is in your power, I cannot stop you. But I am doing a service here, prompted (not by editors), but by student readers and users of the encyclopedia—one of whom recently said to me, "I have never found anything lacking in a Wikipedia article," so clever and careful we are about hiding the true status of things here. Rsvp here? cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Leprof. Please respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Leprof 7272. This is kind of important. An administrator has indicated that she is considering blocking you for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Leprof 7272, I'd like to echo NinjaRobotPirate's words and urge you to come to ANI and explain your unique approach to tagging articles, sections and sentences in articles (WP:TAGBOMBING). A number of editors have issues with your conduct and without a BRIEF explanation on your part, your behavior will be judged to be disruptive. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC) And I'm one of them. You're making the articles completely unreadable and it has to stop. If you add another tag to another article without explaining yourself at ANI, I'll block you myself and it won't be for 24 hours. Katietalk 14:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC) You can find the archived discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Leprof 7272. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Although there was no archive box surrounding it, responding in the middle of an ANI archive as you did here is bad form, because editors are no longer watching the discussion and it gives you the last word by default and for the record, so to speak. Liz, should we unarchive that section and bring it back with his response included? I'd like to keep the discussion in one place. Katietalk 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you, I clearly did not know this. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC) KrakatoaKatie, I see two options here: a) we can unarchive this ANI discussion and allow Leprof 7272 to respond (and allow other editors to respond as well) or b) Leprof7272 can stop adding comments to an archived page and we can let this discussion remain, unresolved, in the archive. Leprof7272, if I were you, I'd carefully read over the complaints the editors who posted had about your editing behavior and change it to avoid these problems. Take this seriously as I know you've had complaints filed against you at ANI before and this one could have easily resulted in a sanction. This choice would require you to accept the discussion "as is" without trying to add in your comments and, remember, you can not alter content that has been placed in any archived page, it will be viewed as disruptive editing. Liz Read! Talk! 10:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie:, I'm going to block this editor if he edits/reverts the archive one more time. Leprof, de-archiving is an option; what you're doing right now is highly disruptive if only because you give the other commenters no chance to respond. That I have to explain this is somewhat baffling. Anyway, you've been warned--here and on the page of your IP. BTW, don't edit when logged out please. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: Please, explain to me what I am to do here. I am being threatened at my Talk page, with sanctions for not having responded to an ANI that is now archived. Where am I to respond to this? Thankfully, at this edit history, there is this record, so you can see my responses. What is the next step? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Le Prof. First, you cannot vanish for such a long time that an ANI thread gets archived, and then come back here and freak out and demand attention to What You Want Right Now. Second, people made very clear offers above to unarchive the thread so that you could respond. So if that is what you really want, write here and ask for the thread to be unarchived if you want. You would be way, way smarter to a) hold your breath and just read the ANI thread; b) absorb what people said; c) stop doing what people were complaining about, and d) thank who ever you pray to you that you dodged a bullet. (it was archived without action) If you insist on having the thread re-opened and "defending" yourself there, the likely outcome will be a good long block. So think carefully about asking it to be opened again. But again, if you want to argue, ask here for it to be unarchived. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @KrakatoaKatie: please unarchive the ANI thread, I think there are at least seven editors, including myself, who have all experienced the same thing with Leprof 7272. The fact that Leprof waited so long that the thread auto-archived shouldn't stop them being open to appropriate punishment (if deemed necessary). XyZAn (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I would say that is pretty unhelpful XyZan. ANI is for "incidents" and there are no longer active ones as far as I know; it is unlikely you will be able to generate any interest in doing anything at this point. Please reconsider.Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I agree with Jytdog. At this point the matter is stale. If the disruption resumes, however, start a new thread there and link to the archived thread. But only if the tagbombing starts up again or there's a different issue. Katietalk 17:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC) Points duly noted - @Jytdog:, @KrakatoaKatie:. I'd rather hope that Leprof just modifies their behaviour, somewhat, than raise another ANI. XyZAn (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Constructive continuation of earlier tag-related discussion

To continue this is in a constructive way, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Liz:, @KrakatoaKatie: @Jytdog: here are examples of recent editorial visits:

Extended content

Hay. No changes made. Article found in reasonable shape, and any attention to small discrepancies would have been flyby. [As PubServ, I support some individuals at rural high schools, as I was raised with this background.] Conditioner (farming). Editing from 50.129.227.141. edit summary, Talk, diff. Critical legal studies. Editing from Leprof_7272. edit summary, Talk, diff. To be added. To be added. [I will add others as I have time, feel free to stop back periodically.] Please feel free to pick one, and give specific feedback to indicate what I have done—per specific policies, please—that is prohibited (versus not to another's tastes), and more importantly, to address specifically, how the edits were not consistent in moving the article, and the encyclopedia, in the direction of becoming a more reputable venue for real learning. Reading my earlier posts at Katie's Talk page might also be of interest, as they address the differences between the utility of inline, versus section, versus article tags. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Hi, Le prof. I saw you pinged me here. I don't see any policy violations at Conditioner (farming). If it were me, I would not have included {{expert needed}}, as it seems potentially redundant to {{Unsourced}}. I understand why you added it, though. I looked at Katie's user talk page, and I didn't see any comments from you. I think you might have meant User talk:Drmies/Archive 100#Drmies, please note… But if I can help you, I will try. We have worked well together in the past, and I wouldn't want to see you get blocked. You might consider the Tea House if you have questions about Wikipedia and want constructive, friendly feedback. I contribute there sometimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC) @NinjaRobotPirate: No hurry on this, but I indeed misdirected you. Here are links to relevant mini-essay-type entries I have made, which explain my view (which, after the first will rapidly become redundant, alongside my user page): look here, and here and here (a summary I wrote today, and earlier notes at a Talk page). But seriously, no hurry, take care of your important matters first. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC) Thanks here, for feedback, Ninja, and the honesty, and will answer more fully, elsewhere. (Ellipsis marks a matter that I will speak to you directly about.) Warmest regards. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paul Julian (meteorologist) has been accepted

The following was posted long ago at User talk:Leprof7272 (note mis-spacing) by User:Chris troutman:

Paul Julian (meteorologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chris Troutman (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Just importing it here for housekeeping. DMacks (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vonnie Quinn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Keene. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cracking. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Wachowskis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gadfly and Mark Miller. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A note about AFC notes

I saw a few of your AFC draft comments and thought I'd mention something. MOS violations and small editorial issues are never a reason to decline a draft (I'm specifically referring to the opening bits of this post). If the only thing negative about a draft is the formatting (lack of headers, style, etc), then fix it yourself and accept the draft (or just accept it, it's up to you). New editors frequently don't know every formatting trick, so it's acceptable for thing to not be perfect. Declines should be for content reasons (promotion, lack of references, notability, etc). Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and welcome to AFCH. Primefac (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, just as a note, I assume you weren't planning on accepting your own draft. I'm not saying that you would have, or that you should; I tell this to every new AFC reviewer who has personal drafts in the Draft space. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion relevant to AFC (and this discussion) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#LeProf. Primefac (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing Concerns

Some concerns have been noted about your reviewing. In particular, you changed the instructions for reviewing. The instructions for reviewing are the result of consensus. Do not change them unilaterally without discussion, even if you think that those changes will help to work off the backlog. Your changes have been reverted, but raise questions as to whether you understand the review process. Also, specific questions have been raised, in particular about tagging. Please address the concerns before doing any more reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion taken up at the appropriate reviewing pages. Cheers, and thanks for drawing me there, Robert. All respect. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

You really should try to make sure you're always logged in when you're editing. While it's not specifically prohibited (see WP:LOGOUT) it makes it less likely someone will think you're trying to avoid detection with your edits (and also makes it easier to point to specific edits that you have made). Primefac (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. I always make clear who I am, regardless of being logged in or not. As you say, what I am doing is not prohibited, and since I go out of my way to make clear there is no sock puppetry, I am not in violation of policies or guidelines. That said, within a discussion with other editors, I will try always to remain logged in, so as to not confuse. Otherwise, if we lived in a more perfect world, I would be glad to speak to you at length why IP editing at times is inevitable here, and can be thoroughly sensible in given situations. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: A Prairie Home Companion with Chris Thile has been accepted

A Prairie Home Companion with Chris Thile, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

Hi, because you are editing in a bit of a hot spot:

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.

Regards,  Sandstein  20:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sro23 (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Jahn-Teller page

Dear Le Prof, thanks for your message to Ppzjld. I am part of the community of users who remade the JT webpage with her. While we agree that there may be many ways to improve that entry, we feel the page in its current state is much better than the previous version. We are willing to discuss the content and, in time, add extra references. We would however like to point out that citation is much better now than in the version before we added our edits as we have added a large selection of the most important articles, reviews and books on the subject. We think that threatening with going to a previous version is deleterious to everyone. In order to open the discussion, is your criticism of the complete article or is it directed particularly to certain sections, like Jahn-Teller effect#The JT Hamiltonian? If so this can be solved easily without any harsh measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P garcia fernandez (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Meroë

I don't see evidence of plagiarism. Lack of sourcing alone isn't enough, esp. when it concerns older content. Please be specific. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Original Keetoowah Society

added a link pointing to Oneida

Red Sticks

added a link pointing to Arms

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Cristina Vee

Looks like YOU seem you're the one who's "bias" on not having Facebook posts and Tweets allowed on the voice actors pages, including the Cristina Vee page. I mean really, what is wrong with having Facebook posts and Tweets on the pages, don't you realize that every online article in the web and end credits from a video game or a certain TV show (mostly an English dub version of an anime) may not credit or better yet even mention the voice actors and the roles they play in, that why the tweets and Facebook post were placed here!!!!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

AnimeDisneylover95 (and Leprof), it might be worth reading through WP:SELFSOURCE, which gives the very narrow and specific criteria for when FB and Twitter can be used as a reference. In the future, if someone removes a source that you may think is valid (or adds one you think is invalid), take it to the talk page and discuss it, or go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Edit warring over something silly like this is just a good way to get blocked. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Wait you lost me on what you said on edit warring, who's edit warring?!??!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

AnimeDisneylover95, no one is edit warring (yet). However, I've seen it play out too many times when person A thinks that they are right, and person B thinks that they are right. I simply meant that discussion should happen before things get out of hand, a.k.a. BRD. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Need a critique

Hi!

I liked your reasoned comments on Talk:Introduction to general relativity and was wondering if you could offer some critique of the rewrite that I did over the weekend to the lede and Introduction of Spacetime.

I started with this undeniably dreadful version and converted the "Explanation" section into something that I hope that a High School student should understand. This is a reasonably well-watched article, and since nobody has reverted any of my edits (except nitpicking details of how to format my references), I presume that I haven't committed any gross errors. :-)

Given the awful starting point, it's hard for me not to have improved the article (or at least, its Introduction) tremendously. But writers in general are poor judges of their own work. What I need is some advice on how to take this from "better than what I started with" to being actually a good Introduction, and in what directions that I should take this work in the future. (I'm well aware, by the way, that I don't yet have enough in the way of references. I'm working on it...)

Thanks!
Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've managed to solicit the critiques that I needed to improve my Introduction. Thanks anyway! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Odd userpage box

I see you keep updating {{User Wikipedian for}} to the current date. Seems unusual that you, a user who has been here since 2012 would claim to have been here for only a few days. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Tagging, a last effort

Hi Leprof

I have spent the last hour preparing an ANI case, to seek a TBAN to stop you from placing tags in articles. I am sharing the case with you here first. If I post this at ANI, I have little doubt that the community will place a topic ban on tagging. They might take that further.

You do some good work here, and I would rather avoid this kind of drama. Would you please simply agree to stop tagging articles?

Extended content

This is not a happy thing. Le Prof can bring a lot of value and improves articles, but keeps tag-bombing articles like this: diff series April 13 dif series April 7 diff series April 3 - 6 diff series April 4 diff series April 4 diff series April 3 diff series March 31 diff series March 31 dif March 29 diff series Feb 11 diff series in April 2016 including many all caps editing comments I get it (I do!) that there are parts of WP that are really bad, but tag-bombing this way is not OK. Leprof has been asked to stop doing this many, many times (Leprof selectively removes or overwrites stuff from their talk page, as you can see in its history). The list below is just some of the discussions people have tried to have with Leprof over this. The list starts with recent and goes backward in time -- start from bottom if you want chron order. January 2017: Noted here at ANI Dec 2016: asked to back off tagging here at their talk page Nov 2016: warned on their talk page here Nov 2016 complaint about overtagging at Peptide synthesis and generally tagbombing at their talk page here edited other editors' comment and replied here, then removed here May 2016 complaint about overtagging Sophie's Choice at their talk page here, removed here April 2016: noted here at ANI; extensive related discussion at their Talk page here, a great deal of that about LeProf edit warring over his edits to the archived ANI discussion (oy) April 2016, complaint about overtagging at Chromosome conformation capture at their talk [age here, removed here April 2016: complaint about overtagging generally at their talk page that had been removed, re-added here, defiant replies added inline here, overwritten by LeProf here, request to stop overtagging in response, here April 2016: complaint at their talk page here about Merlin Mann tagging, removed by LeProf here April 2016: complaints at their talk page about tagging/editing of Scum of the Earth Church here, removed by LeProf here March 2016 complaints about tagging of Intrinsic factor at their talk page here, overwritten w response by LeProf here; March 2016: complaint at their talk page here on March 25 about Acetone peroxide, with follow up here about Villa Baviera; other editor's comments edited, section header changed, and response by LeProf here then later completely overwritten here March 2016: complaint about inline all caps tagging here, removed here Feb 2016: response to editing tagging at Chirality by 2 editors here; responded to by LeProf here in mid-March, with justification of his tagging practices yet noting I am routinely reverted and accused of bombing January 2016: overtagging at Abbvie noted here, removed by LeProf here in March October 2015: two editors warn about over-tagging here. removed by leprof here during March 2016 discussions above July 2015: complaint about overtagging at their talk page here was part of the problem in [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive838#Requesting_backup|this ANI thread] from 2014

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• I could take this series of diffs as a "no, i will not stop", but I would prefer a yes or no before I escalate this to ANI. Would you please reply? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Jytdog, they've been asked this before, in multiple locations, to no effect. I gave up pursuing the matter, but I'm glad you're sticking with it. I say file and let the chips fall where they may. This last diff can be used as their reply to this thread. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  I hear you but there is no deadline and I would like to give them a chance to respond. I can file it tomorrow as well as today - the diffs aren't going away. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'm just expecting them to either not respond or give you six paragraphs that ultimately boil down to "this is how I do things". Primefac (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  Or not edit for a while. This is what happened back in March 2016, and when they came back the ANI was over. (the ANI was closed as LeProf was not around to respond and not causing more trouble, so there was no ongoing disruption to address). Am looking for a reply and engagement so that if I need to bring this to the community everybody knows that LeProf was given ample opportunity to reply already. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Ihi

Could you write in disscus of art, what You see too most wrong in article ihi? It is true, Newari girls have 3 weddings, it is old and common situation. Indu (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Boghog's concern over the appearance of all caps in an in-text (hidden) note

Boghog knows he is not allowed to post here, and so I am taking from his post what is important for continuity, and for readers to note, and restating it.

Boghog calls attention to this of my recent edits, expressing that it is "suboptimal", arguing that use of upper case in the in-text note, as I did (to call attention to the note) was not a proper way to express my concerns. Rather, ignoring clear data on patterns of user-behaviour of the internet, and patterns of work at Wikipedia, he argues that concerns should only be addressed in Talk. He does not address why in-text notes were created, and what they are properly to be used for.

(As it stands, the tag and the in-text note at the Snapchat article led to its being edited, and to the issue to which I called attention being resolved. The process worked, and all the talking here by Boghog, and others in response, accomplished nothing for the real quality of the encyclopedia.)

Boghog further makes clear his position that a normal sentence case explanation on the article's Talk page is all that he considers optimal (while I have argued such are generally ineffectual).

He also contends, implicitly, that the article tags placed there are excessive and inappropriate, but does not make clear how this linked Snapchat case makes his point. (One article tag, on inadequate lead, was placed at that article.) Finally, he asks, referencing Jytdog's Talk section above, whether I will agree to stop placing article tags (implication being, either that no articles need them, or that I am generally disallowed from judging an article as being in need of one). The answer to that question is "no" (see also below), pending discussions with the Foundation and others in leadership on their expectations for process and encyclopedia direction.

I would note in closing that this is a case in point, that an editor's relying on other editor's not doing any fact-chacking gives them powers to be persuasive, when the actual evidence of the case in question does not in any real way support the accusations/claims being made. (The Snapchat edit was case in point of limited tagging, and an effectual outcome.) Finally, if all caps and bold had no value of calling attention to a point being made, then User:Boghog would not have provocatively used them in his original title to this section. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, looks like they're not interesting in talking to you. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ugh. i have too much drama going on now. But OK it is time to post at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI

As as I said I would do above...

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Topic banned

Per community consensus at the administrators' noticeboard ([14]), you are banned from tagging articles with cleanup banners. This includes adding, removing, or editing any cleanup banner on any article. Violations of this ban will lead to you being blocked from editing. In addition, the multiple accounts policy forbids editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, and as it is apparent that you have continued editing while logged out after having been warned to stop, I have blocked the IP 73.210.155.96 that you have been using to edit. If you have questions about these actions you may ask here and/or appeal at the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted (twice) the post you just made at ANI. That discussion is closed. As noted above, the place to address questions about the sanctions is here on your talk page (by pinging the closing admin), or you may appeal at the administrators' noticeboard. Softlavender (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

[User:Boghog, who is has been made to understand that his postings are not welcome here, has had his comment removed. Suffice it to say that it questions my fundamental honesty ("...I find it hard to believe..."), and so is in his usual form. People wishing to see it can get it from the history, but I am not going to encourage him, by leaving his accusations in place. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)]

@Softlavender: Point taken with regard to where the discussion should take place. Please relate my concern, to the closing Admin, that the 3-day period it was open was too short, and that the initiator of the Noticeboard action knew how to get my attention, but on principle, knowing it would fail, only reached out to me here. So, too short a duration, and could have involved me, had anyone really wished. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am the closing admin and I've read your note (I have this page on my watchlist). You are right that such discussions normally remain open much longer than this one. However, in this case I observed a discussion proceeding rapidly to an obvious conclusion, concerning an editor apparently disinterested in participating in the discussion despite multiple proper notifications. It's not necessary and frequently inadvisable for discussions to remain open when the result is obvious, and so I closed it and enacted the result. By your admission (which came somewhat later) you were in fact not aware, as I recall you put it that you were ignorant to postings on your talk page. This is not a defensible position and in my opinion not grounds for reopening the discussion nor lifting the restriction: ignoring your talk page means it was not possible to notify you. However, since it seems apparent that you are now willing to discuss with other editors who post here (save one, I won't get into that) I suggest you do, calmly, and if you can come to a resolution here you may consider appealing your restriction, though generally it's expected that some time has passed with no more trouble before appeals are successful. I expect it should be no problem for you to find articles to edit as you're clearly a productive contributor, excess tagging aside. If I may suggest: if in your editing you encounter a situation which compels a tag, place a single note on the article's talk page describing the issue instead; your restriction clearly permits this (you are banned specifically from tagging). Best wishes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Please do reply, if it is indeed the case as it appears, that the ban is permanent, making the basis for this in WP policy and in the ANI dicsussion abundantly clear. If this is indeed the case, this matter will see review at a high level. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll save Ivanvector the time - I don't think anyone would ever use the word "permanent" on Wikipedia. The best word to use is "indefinite", as in "until such time as you can actually demonstrate restraint, which could be never, the restriction is in place." As for appealing "at a high level", your options are either the Admin Noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. I doubt you'll find much support in either location, but you are welcome to make an attempt. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: It appears that "in use" banners are meaningless to editors when there is blood in the water. Please, Ivanvector, reply to the above question, regarding whether the ban is permanent, and the basis for this decision in WP policy and in the ANI dicsussion. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac is correct, we do not do permanent bans of any kind on Wikipedia, though there are some indefinitely blocked users who will never successfully appeal. Indefinite simply means "with no set time limit". Blocks and bans are preventive: the community has expressed concern that your tagging of articles is disruptive, and your ban is meant to prevent that disruption. If and when it can be demonstrated that this disruption will not continue (that is, you'll listen to the concerns of your fellow editors and not tag articles disruptively) then there is no more need for this ban and it will be lifted. I think at present your view of the function of tagging is at odds with the usual practices on Wikipedia, so I think there's some work to do before we get there. I apologize that I had not noticed you had added the {{in use}} template here, as it's way up at the top of the page and I've been using section links to navigate directly to this section. It's an unusual use of that template but I will respect your request. Since there are a lot of subthreads happening here, I suggest when you've had time to read everything here you place your new comments below all of the discussions, and we can go from there. Ping me if you like, or I'll check in tomorrow. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no desire to appeal my restriction at present. The articles needing the attention are the 97+% that are dishonest, or inaccurate, or otherwise poorly encyclopedic. If I cannot edit where the scholarly need is clear, there is no point to being here. And as the tags are a key element in improving articles—see the rapid change in response to my recent tag and in-text note at Snapchat—there is no point to working here. Until it is clear which way this will go, I will enjoy the absence; but in the end, if I cannot use tags, I cannot in clear conscience edit here, and will make my efforts to improve the encyclopedia through independent tracks, inside and outside the organisation. Otherwise, I will address the 3-day window, and the "not possible to notify" in full later. (While it may have been true for many in the discussion, I will argue it is certainly not true for the initiating editor, and likely an unsupportable contention, more widely. Please see my closing note to User:Jytdog, for the initial thrust of this eventual response.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tagging acknowledged, tag-bombing and other misrepresentations belatedly denied; reply to the foregoing, on learning of it

The following is this editor's response to the closed ANI directed at his editing, in which this editor did not participate. (This editor claims that he learned of it too late to respond.) That ANI, occurring 27-30 April, is available at the link at right. Thank you to for User:Ivanvector for supplying it.

Note, this content was moved from User talk:Jytdog to this location, after placement at that User talk by this editor, after its placement following the closed ANI box, by Le Prof, was twice deleted at the ANI by an unknown editor. It was ultimately placed here by User:Ivanvector, and correctly so, given that it could not be included with the prematurely closed ANI.

This section is closed: The following is not open for editing, in this section. All responses and comments can go in the following section.

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

_____________________________

@Jytdog:@Ivanvector:@Primefac:@Sro23:@Softlavender:@L3X1:@Beyond My Ken:@Obsidi:@Doc James:@XyZAn:@Kudpung: I am sorry, real life does not allow me to pay much attention to the discussions that take place here. I simply saw nothing of this, until it was past, being alerted to it by failure of an IP address to work as a place from which to edit. I take responsibility for this ignorance, see following. However, the litany of cases, and the long span of time from which the cases were chosen, and further facts about each that are not given, hide the accurate conclusions that (i) these examples were always earnest, scholarly, high level sets of edits, generally over many hours or days, and (ii) that I have repeatedly responded at article Talk pages and elsewhere, to tagging objections, and that I have modified my behaviour substantially over time. In this regard, the emphasis on the 2015-2016 history, and the failure in any way to represent the responses I have given in any of the cases that are cited can only lead me to describe it as largely a misrepresentation of the facts of the matter.

But, that I continue to irritate many is clear, and so I will summarise the case I have made, again, here.

As a former academic, and a professional, I have argued that making clear to readers the shortcomings of article content is an improtant contribution, and one WP should encourage. Had we 20 top academics, in high traffic/visibility fields, just noting errors and shortcomings, our articles would be all the better for it. Even so, this is not what I do—contrary to the example cases offered and representations made, I do not just come in and tag. I challenge all voting editors above to go to each case given, and look at the total time spent editing the articles, and the changes made. (I will give an example of the clear misrepresentation involved in the limited description of the cases, in closing.) Generally speaking, I would be surprised if a fair-minded case can be made for anything other than "hours of editing, often completing and repairing/adding citations, ending with tags in place to indicate continuing shortcomings of the article." Bottom line, the tags were placed when I had done all I could, in a session, or in an article. And I would remind the assembled, august company, that at present the articles that are of "B class" (some issues remaining) and better amount to <3% of all of WP articles (2.7% by my last reporting on the matter). In light of this fact, and the easily verified fact that essentially none of my edits are on A, GA, or FA articles, one cannot conclude that I am calling attention to nonexistent issues. Rather, the problem must be that I am calling attention to real issues in unacceptable ways.

The tagging acknowledged and the tag-bombing misrepresentation laid to rest—yes, I am aware that we have differences of opinion on the matter of tags, mine being that readers deserve to know the truth about articles, the predominant contrary opinion, as far as I can tell, being that too many tags are bad, regardless of state of article, and thus that appearance of articles—that they appear better than they are—is the surpassing priority and interest here at WP. I have explained my understandings and motivations, case by case, at length, in reply to objections. But here they are again in summary.

• Readers are our "clients," we exist for them, and not for ourselves.
• Many of our readers are young, and are ignorant on the subjects about which the come to WP. To quote one, "I have never found anything incorrect in a WP article" (14 yo male student). Our being forthcoming with regard to the actual quality and verifiability of article content is very important to our readers.
• Article tags function to call attention of editors to broad general problems in articles, and place articles in lists for further editorial attention. They also warn readers, "beware, dragons here" — that there are potential issues in the content they are about ready to ingest. They should, from my perspective, be placed, if an issue occurs not in one section, but in several. In summary, the issues are real, and article tags are critical for the foregoing reasons given.
• Section tags function to honour editor time, by making clear where within the article the issues exist, to which the article tag is referring. It also acknowledges the fact that some readers arrive at articles sections via links, without ever viewing the top of the the article. Hence the reader service is again a motive here, as is clarity with regard to follow-on editorial work to correct issues. As well, section tags make very clear, when there are several article tags (the very common "multiple issues" article situation), which article tag applies to which section, thus saving time when I or others return to add further to article quality. Thus, section tags are critical for these distinct, and separate reasons.
• Inline tags serve the same very specific function as section tags, but do so more specifically; moreover, they allow an editor to make very clear the progress of checking and editing problem sections. Specifically—and this is very often the case, where, in my edits, you see repeated inline tags in a given section—this process will begin with a read of a paragraph that has a single citation at the end of a paragraph, or citations at end of individual sentences. The red flag is raised when I find that a particular fact within the sentence or paragraph is not contained in the cited source. I then begin a start to finish review of the material in the paragraph, clarifying what is and is not found in the cited sources. This often results in a back and forth between inline citations, and tags—because this is an accurate assessment of the state of affairs in the paragraph. If this one paragraph is the only place of issue in the article, only the inline tags will appear, with a section tag. If the refimprove issue is present in more than one section, then it will appear as an article tag as well. Thus, inline (sentence) tags are critical for these separate reasons.

To put this together, I have repeatedly, in different venues, made the following case. I have in past authored manuscripts with multiple authors at multiple institutions. And I have jointly edited multi-contributor regulatory documents submitted to the US government on health related matters. These are both cases of professional production of high quality, rigourous content, by multiple editors. In these cases, regardless of the editorial tools used, there is never a case, in these professional, multi-author/editor efforts, that one only flags a specific issue at a specific point in a work product by placing a message at the head of the document; likewise, it is never the case, in such work, that on noticing persistent patterns of problems throughout a document, that one only annotates the issues inline, without calling the matter more broadly to the team's attention, by placing a note at the top of the document. That is, in short, I am attempting to apply best practices, in the production of quality content, to my work here. Whatever those accusing me of malfeasance might otherwise say, it would be nice to hear, at the very least, those involved here acknowledge the foregoing, and the derivative conclusion that a commitment at WP to disallow this—for reasons of appearance, or otherwise—is at odds with the way that such things are done in the best, most important of places in the real world, and so arguably contrary to the best ways to move WP articles on to true higher quality.

To summarise, I argue that the foregoing description of my work misrepresents it, both in failing to make clear the long and productive effort involved in my editing, with focus on sourcing—here is one illustrative diff, of >35 edits adding 17 kbytes over 6 days, misrepresented in the opening diff list. I again challenge the editors participating in this noticeboard to argue that this is not the norm of my work; in addition, the arguments misrepresent, in failing to make clear I have explained the foregoing article/section/inline tag purposes and utilities, and motivations, repeatedly to people.

However, for failing to be attentive to my Talk page, I am guilty allowing this noticeboard to continue without response, and for that reason alone, I am deserving of the ban.

Otherwise, three closing comments. First, Primefac's contention that I have ceased editing while logged is simply untrue, as is her/his contention that I have never given reason for the back and forth (I repeatedly have, even if not to her/his satisfaction). If the reasons do not satisfy say so, but do not deny the reality of my having repeatedly responded. Second, User:Ivanvector's contention that I use IPs when I get in "hot water" is completely specious, apparently based on the fact that I edited today, before I new about this noticeboard, or the ban. The Talk section from me at your Talk page, earlier in the evening, should make completely clear, that I was clueless that this was going on—first notice coming as I attempted to edit, was logged off, found the IP block, and went to you (Ivanvector), to ask what was going on. Bottom line, assume good faith my friend, and/or do your thorough research before accusing. There is no clear case of attempts to deceive here; your association of today's edit as an example of such is a mis-association.

Third, as others have repeatedly noted, and policies clearly state, there is nothing wrong with IP editing. Persuasion is given to always log, but IP editing by registered editors is only prohibited if it is an attempt to sockpuppet or otherwise deceive. And as annoying as the appearance of my IP edits — claimed as most sets are, with Le Profs abundantly sprinkled through many if not most — are alongside my logged edits, the assessment is rightly made that I go out of my way to always identify. Any argument for malicious or deceptive practice (thank you for those carefully making this point), and any case for sockpuppeting (by definition, where the aim is deception), are ill-informed and specious to the actual facts. I will not go into another long defense, but just say, I simply haven't always presence of mind or time to re-log if in the midst of a long editing, finding (at time of save, generally) that my systems have logged me off. What is key is that I identify, and do not attempt to deceive. If you do not believe this, ask those rising somewhat to my defense—you will find IP edits signed Le Prof alongside logged edits identically signed. And this is the norm, and not the exception. Sloppy, perhaps. Less considerate of others than of my constraints and time, yes. But arguments mis-casting aspersions to my motives for this duality of work are clearly less informed by relationship/experience with me, or by thorough research, and so are just that, mis-cast aspersions.

Finally, I have copied everyone here except editor Boghog, because, in this case, I have found the editor at times to stalk, to be heavy-handed with regard to his (granted, likewise academically well-informed) scientific views, and also unable to be self-reflective or self-aware about his admixing in, personal sentiment/motivation, into specific editorial disagreements. So, I simply do not relate editorially to him.

In summary, my work and reasoning were mis/unrepresented, but are now properly summarised, my purposes and motivations are argued to be in-line with best practices for multi-author generation of high quality content, but I accept the ban/block as I was "AFK" with regard to engaging User Talk, and so did not see any of this developing.

Long term, this may be the beginning of my ultimate departure here. If it really is true that one cannot edit for 6 days, adding 17 kb of material and quality to an article, then honestly state how the article clearly remains short of our policies and guidelines (and set the article up for improvement, by noting clearly where the issues lie), then this simply is not an academically honest or intellectually tolerant place. The history of WP — e.g., in making our article assessments harder and harder for general readers to find, in seeing tags essentially hidden from mobile users, etc. — seems to be arguing for an emerging interpretation clearly over-emphasising appearance over reality, as the trajectory of the encyclopedia.

So, from the time-stamp and signature here, I will comply with the ban/block for its duration. Because articles at WP cannot, to any honest academic, be edited without noting their clear violations of WP policies and guidelines, I will enjoy this vacation from WP. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responses to "Tagging acknowledged..."

I hope Jytdog does not mind that I answer to you here (doing so as an uninvolved editor). @Leprof 7272: I have looked at some of the diffs. I would not say that they were vandalism or voluntary disruption, but I did find the tagging overzealous compared to what I usually see here. It may be that what you did would work fine on articles created and edited by your students, with a term to fix the annotated issues before the end of the activity. However, Wikipedia in general is always a work in progress, which I think many readers also know when reading the articles. The tagging templates are also there for that, although they have to be used gently and may sometimes remain a long time as part of live articles before someone can improve them. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 09:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Leprof, it is regrettable that much of this situation could likely have been avoided entirely, had you acknowledged and responded to these many posts on your talk page rather than removing them (which I will address in a moment), thus I feel it's appropriate that this conversation be moved to your talk page from where you originally posted it. This code will ping PaleoNeonate as well, as a courtesy since they already replied elsewhere. If you have not configured email in your Wikipedia account then I suggest you do so, as a post like this one on your user talk page will then notify you via email.

By longstanding convention here, user talk pages are the accepted standard venue for conversing with users, and for resolving issues when they arise as they are expected to from time to time in a worldwide collaborative environment (see WP:OWNTALK). It is understood that when a user removes a notice from their talk page, it means that they have read it and acknowledged it. What I observed is that you were asked repeatedly to stop tagging articles, which I assumed you had acknowledged by removing the notices (rather than simply deleting them without reading as you've described), but you neither responded to this criticism nor stopped tagging. You were also advised (on your talk page) that there was a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard regarding your disruptive tagging, to which you did not reply. When you don't respond to procedurally correct notifications, then there's not anything more we can do to seek your input on the matter, and the result is that you are topic banned.

Further to that, you had also been asked and later warned not to edit while logged out. You again did not respond but removed the notices, which I took as your acknowledgement and lack of objection, then you continued editing while logged out. Ignoring warnings to address or stop an undesirable behaviour is disruptive in a collaborative environment, and so your IP address was blocked. I would also have blocked your account for the same reason if there hadn't already been a community discussion leading to a different sanction. The nature and timing of your logged-out editing also gives the impression that you are deleting warnings from your user talk and then deliberately logging out to continue editing so that you can avoid scrutiny of your edits, and that is specifically not allowed. As it happens, had I not blocked your IP address it seems apparent that you would never have become aware of any of these discussions nor the topic ban at all, ignoring as you had the notices on your talk page. I dislike "attention-getting" blocks and did not intend this one for this purpose, but as it now seems you are aware of all this, I will unblock the IP address.

Now I woke up to 9 Wikipedia emails and 41 pings this morning all but one related to this, so while I have to run now I may have more to add later after I get some coffee into me. I would appreciate your acknowledgement of the discussion occurring here, given the present issue of you not reading your own talk page, and please keep discussion related to this issue on this page from now on. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

As is obvious from your contribs in this account, you edited under this account several times after I posted on April 16 and before the ANI closed early on 30 April. There appear to be four episodes of editing under this account.

• Why you didn't respond here or at ANI during that time, no one can say. But some failure of the system, it was not.
• The rest of the post just repeats things you have said before, and boils down to: "I do not care what the community says." As does ignoring your own Talk page.
• Working in this community means you have to listen to and be responsive to others.
• The tree that doesn't bend, breaks.
• In Wikipedia, "breaking" means you leave the community angry and baffled, or that you get indefinitely blocked for violating your TBAN (which would eventually happen after a series of escalatingly longer blocks).

It is clear you have chosen the "break" path by leaving. That is really too bad. I hope it is just fit of pique. But given your committment to the way you have been tagging, it is kind of not surprising. But I am sorry it came to that. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOCKING policy reads: Sock puppetry can take on several different forms [including]: Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. ... Editors ... who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse. (emphasis mine) See also: Template:Uw-login. You have very frequently edited articles both logged in and logged out. You never identify your logged out edits as Leprof except on talk pages. This is clearly against WP:SOCK. You have been notified and warned about this numerous times. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, can you not see the utter absurdity of placing endless and repeated posts on other people's talkpages, while completely ignoring the posts you receive on your own talk page? A very large part of Wikipedia participation involves abiding by community standards and heeding talkpage notices. When, over a period of three years, you repeatedly disregard notices on your talk page about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and norms, you end up with sanctions. If you then still fail to read and comprehend the messages on your own talk page, especially those posted by administrators, you begin to fall afoul of Wikipedia's WP:CIR and WP:DE guidelines, and risk being blocked from editing for an indefinite length of time. A word to the wise there: Learn to cooperate and abide by Wikipedia's norms and guidelines, or your stay here may be involuntarily truncated. Softlavender (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: There is a rather clear consensus that this discussion regarding your reaction to what others think of your behavior belongs on your talk page. Reverting them to force your... filibuster onto someone else's page is disruptive and only makes it look like you're not here to cooperate with the community or respect consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272:, what you wrote here is simply wrong. I posted notice that I intended to file at ANI on April 16th -- it is just above here, on this very page. Can you really not see that posting? Please answer, simply and directly. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please disabuse yourself of any perception of a degree of position, familiarity or respect that allows you to try to dictate the manner of my responses.

The ANI was filed on the 27th, and lasted ~3 days, closing on the 30th—though indeed notice of its drafting was made in the 16th. The last time I had been to this page, as anyone objectively assessing the situation must be aware, was 22:26, 21 December 2016‎ (because I always cleanup when I am here, see edit summary page). Please note for future reference, when you again refer me to such disciplinary action, that I am telling you here, clearly, and succinctly, that I will never be able to respond to anything formal in this place, as a venue outside of work or home, on this time scale. Even 16 April-30 April is too short an expectation for anyone with real world responsibility of any magnitude.

That said, had I been aware of the brewing storm, I would have stopped editing, until I made my way here or to the ANI. But I did not know of either.

I will argue fully later that there is no reason a longstanding editor with your deep experience, technical knowledge, and "situational awareness" from having engaged this enemy (i.e., having deep relative knowledge of this User, and his work practices) could not have simply gone to any one of the places where recent ongoing Le Prof work was evident, and made mention to look in here. Hence, while the letter of the "law" [WP policy] may be fine with posting a notice and conducting a 3-day ANI, the spirit of the law, and what might be expected between editors having worked along side one another for several years (dating at least back to Natural Products)—this history does not support what took place as being in good form.

I will address this again in full later, but please, @Jytdog:, understand that your comments are no longer welcome on this page. You have broken faith, once and for all. If we see each other in article Talk space fine. But please stay off this page, and I reply with the same courtesy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Leprof, I have described above my rationale for moving this discussion to your talk page. That is that one of the issues identified at the admin forum by Jytdog and other editors is that you refuse to acknowledge or discuss anything on your talk page. Although your earlier explanation of this issue is that you simply did not understand the purpose of user talk page discussion, your present disruptive moving of this discussion indicates that you simply don't want anyone to raise issues on your talk page, and that attitude is not compatible with participation in Wikipedia. Therefore, to demonstrate that you do not own this page and that you must pay attention when editors post things to you here, this discussion will be resolved here whether you participate or not.

I further note that while you insist that you must be allowed to select the venue for this discussion, you originally posted it in nine different places: on my user page, on NeilN's user talk page, on my user talk page, at ANI, on Primefac's user talk page, on Softlavender's user talk page, on Jytdog's user talk page, on Sro23's user talk page, and on PaleoNeonate's user talk page. The only page it seems you don't want this discussion to occur is on your user talk page, which happens to be the correct venue.

Furthermore, while you described earlier believing that you could simply ignore notifications on your talk page, you have also used the talk pages of at least thirteen users to draw their attention to this discussion (the seven above, plus L3X1, Beyond My Ken, Obsidi, Doc James, XyZAn, and Kudpung). So I think you know what's expected of editors when posts appear on their talk pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please understand how one sends communications, and how one receives them, are generally understood to be separate matters. Look to the traffic of this page, generally, before the ANI matter. No one posts to me here, because they know I do not generally chat about things here—people who know me, know I spend little, if any time here.

There is nothing incongruous about me reaching out to others where I know they are present and can be reached (their Talk pages), and their reaching out to me in article spaces or otherwise. I understand this is in part the superficial cause of my present predicament. But I cannot see the need for you to have listed all the times I have spoken with others on their pages—they are always there, and engaging others there. I will only, ever, do this to the minimal degree necessary. Clearly I have not been doing it to that minimal degree. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Now this is a final warning. The present issue is your unwillingness to acknowledge and respond to editors posting on your talk page. If you continue to refuse to discuss this matter here while insisting on discussing it elsewhere, you will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Admins please note: per a conversation on my talk page, I believe the issue leading to this warning is resolved, thus it is retracted. Any questions in regard to this please address them to my talk page, not this one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I am already clearly doing this, in and around work obligations. As you can see, I have acknowledged this page as the best page for the posting of my response, and have thanked those doing the moves. The rest, please do not be so quick to impugn motive, when lack of available time, and clear understanding of best practice are the issues. I come to this page periodically. And I am here today, trying to deal with this. Please, at your convenience, respond to the question of the permanence of the ban (appearing above, at the earlier section communicating the ban). At that point, all other matters may become mute. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Leprof, in terms of your latest diatribe on Jytdog's talkpage [15], Jytdog did not close the ANI thread, Ivanvector did, as can easily be seen both in his close of the actual thread and in his talkpage notice to you. Editors do not close ANI threads that they open, and only administrators can enact sanctions. The reason the thread was closed relatively quickly was because there was abundant and unanimous consensus: [16]. You have been a serial and egregious tag-bomber for years, had been warned about it (and about editing logged out) numerous times, but still persisted in both behaviors. Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the information regarding the closing of the ANI, which—you are correct—I mis-ascribed to M. Jytdog. Otherwise, I deny the broad accusations you make in closing, will return to them later, and meanwhile ask that you respect the "in use" sign at the top of this page. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not editing, have not had opportunity to reply to the foregoing, so please respect the "in use" tag

...which I applied after discussion with the participating Administrator, @Ivanvector:.

There is no reason to continue, and pile on—to add further material before I have opportunity to reply to the large block of amassed earlier argument and comment that already appears.

When time permits, I will carefully sort what of the foregoing material appearing actually addressed the ANI response I offered, and what did not, what was on point and what was not, and I will respond selectively to the constructive replies to my initial response, on the whole, as suggested by Ivanvector.

With regard to the way in which this Talk page is managed: its past and current management is within the range of practices widely evidenced at WP, which includes the manner practiced by some individuals involved in the ongoing process, e.g., in closing discussions at their own pages, and in proscribing all comments from particular editors (outright deleting them). (Jytdog and Boghog, for instance, have in past done this at their own Talk pages.) Likewise, the changing of formats to a page is also allowed, and other of the editors participating here have changed the appearances of things, at their own Talk pages, and at Talk pages for articles, as an aid to understanding the flow of a conversation. As such, the editing I have done of late here, at my Talk page—adjusting indents, so that I can understand who said what, and deleting a single proscribed editor's post, who I have made clear is not allowed at this page—is within the clear range of standard practices, and so will be maintained and not further defended.

Otherwise, I return the page to where it was when I added the "in use", and will add back new comments, posted since, after I have had opportunity to respond to the central matter at hand. Please respect (i) that this is my Talk page, and (ii) that I have asked that the target (content) remain static, until I can take time to formally respond to the long and detailed replies to my first ANI response. In short, despite its weak applicability to this situation, please nevertheless respect the "in use". I am not editing—no work at all in article space, since this erupted—and so there is no "new news" requiring comment. Le Prof 13:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)