Open main menu


Welcome backEdit

I see you are back again. :-) -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and glad to be back, thanks! Not to worry, though, things will be much different from here on out. Fhsig13 (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

  Hello, I'm John from Idegon. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Mark R. Isfeld Senior Secondary School, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. not much appears to have changed. In what publication did you read that the school's enrollment was approx. 1,000 or that the logo was commonly referred to as the "seal bear"? John from Idegon (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mark R. Isfeld Senior Secondary School, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. When you add sources they actually have to support your claim. A blank webpage is not useful. Meters (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Mark R. Isfeld Senior Secondary School. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A citation must be able to be parsed. Also, sources must be reliable. We are not interested in what the school wants to say about itself. You've been told this repeatedly. If you do not have a reliable independent source, do not add it. Period. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, apologies for the slow response time, I have added reliable sources. I don't know where the "We aren't interested in what the school has to say about itself" is coming from, however. I am quoting only the facts from their website and yearbooks. Apologies as well for any confusion this might've caused, but the evidence is there.Fhsig13 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources MUST be independent of the subject about which we are writing. Otherwise they are not reliable for the purposes of the encyclopedia. School websites, yearbooks or any other affiliated stuff is almost always not considered RS other than for completely uncontroversial claims. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Okay, but how are statistics about the student enrollment and a notable alumnus, (Nesta Cooper), not uncontroversial when coming directly from the school itself? Fhsig13 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. Once again you are adding images that are in violation of fair use. This is one of the things that you were indeffed for. You clearly still do not understand fair use. If images have been deleted as being in violation of fair use do not restore them. Meters (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, however the image of the Fourth Earl of Minto is clearly in the public domain, so I am confused by your anger....Fhsig13 (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes that image is acceptable and we edit conflicted over restoring it. As for the rest of the problems, this is becoming a WP:CIR issue. I'm not angry. I'm just tired of having to deal with the same problems that you were creating before your block. You were indeffed but managed to get unblocked, and yet you continue to make the same improperly sourced additions that you have repeatedly been warned about, and you are still making blatant fair use violating additions. If I see any more of this behaviour I will immediately ask for your block to be reinstated. Meters (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
As his revert of my edit to the coord template at the high school article was vandalism, I've already asked for his block to be reinstated at AIV. It might not fly, but I pinged an admin into it too, so we'll see. Meters and I are both very busy editors, and neither of us has the time to try to help an editor that refuses to learn from his mistakes. John from Idegon (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC
Excuse me? I removed the coord because it was already in the infobox, we didn;t need it twice. I'm sorry if that came off as vandalism. Please give me the link to the AIV chat, so I can defend myself. I have learned, but I still make mistakes. I don't deserve to be blocked, whether you are busy or not. Everyone makes mistakes, I've just made a few more than average. Also, @Ad Orientem, I think I might need your help here, before this gets too out-of-hand.... Fhsig13 (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
John, I don't think AIV is the right venue for this. If Fhsig13 does not understand that undoing a bot's removal of blatantly improper fair use images with the edit summary "Added back images that were removed by WP:NFCC Bot. I don't see a violation here." [1] is an extraordinarily bad idea for someone who had been indeffed for, among other issues, problems with fair use images, this is probalby a WP:CIR case for WP:ANI. Meters (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I doubt anyone believes you are being intentionally disruptive, but there clearly are some CIR issues here. I think you need to stop editing for a little bit while we discuss the best course of action to keep you from being reblocked. My sense is that you may be in need of mentoring. I advise you not to edit in the mainspace for the next 48 hours. Take a look at WP:MENTOR and WP:ADOPT and then get back to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Meters & John from Idegon What I am seeing right now are basically two issues. The first is a poor grasp of WP:RS and WP:CITE and maybe WP:NBIO. The second is persistent problematic addition of images that possibly infringe copyright. Of the two issues, the 2nd is by far the more serious and that has to stop. The issues involving RS and NBIO might be correctable with out dropping any hammers. And they might not. But if Fhsig13 can refrain from any further disruptive behavior over the next day or two that would be a start and give some hope for the longer term. @Fhsig13 you need to stop messing with images for now. Agreeing to that would go a long ways toward salvaging the situation. If you don't agree to this and you upload another image of questionable copyright you are going to be in immediate danger of being re-blocked. When the subject is copyright, we are serious as a heart attack. I strongly advise you to accept a voluntary topic ban and state clearly right here on this talk page that you agree not to upload anymore images for the indefinite future. That can change at some point once there is agreement among more experienced editors that you know what you are doing. But for now you need to just stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I will do nor say no such things. Ban me if you like, but these folks are blowing simple mistakes way out of proportion. I know what I am doing, and if they wanted to dispute my edits with civility here or on the article's talk page, I'd have done so without fail. As you can see, it is tiring to be repeatedly accused of things I haven't done, or at the very least not intentionally, and be instantly threatened with a block and have my reputation degraded, simply because I made a mistake or two, and some people can't show grace. To summarize, I will continue editing as I will, and if I get blocked that's on me, but what I won't do is sit idly by and be accused of things I didn't do, or did with valid reason. Oh and @Ad Orientem, I pinged you because I needed you to DEFEND me, not give them more ideas on how to get me punished. Thank you for what you tried to do, but I'm not so sure that what you're trying to do could be considered helping. Fhsig13 (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not your defense lawyer. I am an administrator and my first responsibility is to defend the project. Everything else is secondary. At the moment I am satisfied that you do not have an adequate command of copyright to be uploading images and I again advise you not to do so. While I would very much like to help you, it is not going to be on your terms. If you think you know what you are doing, then based on what I have seen, this is not likely to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Fine, then don't help. If I get blocked, whatever. I've done nothing wrong and I know it. That's what counts to me. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You now have four experienced editors pointing out problems with your edits, today alone. Saying that you know what you are doing, don't think you are doing anything wrong, and only care about what you think is why I am suggesting that this is a WP:CIR issue. Meters (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect. I have four more experienced editors trying to get me punished for making simple errors, and berating me for defending my work. I'm nowhere close to inexperienced, what with nearly 3,000 edits to my name. I do not need mentoring or adoption, nor should I be blocked or site-banned. What I need is clarification on why the use of images that are uploaded blatantly as Non-fair use content are somehow copyright violations, when the point of uploading as non-fair use content is to avoid copyright violations.....Fhsig13 (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't this will end well for you if you don't start listening to what we are saying. You have come from an indef block and started up with the same problematic types of edits. Four experienced editors have pointed out problems to you today alone. Refusing to accept that there is a problem is a problem in itself. You don't think you are doing anything wrong, and you don't want to be mentored or adopted. You may not think that you should be blocked (no-one has mentioned a ban as far as I know) but you don't seem to be leaving us any other option.
As for your "nearly 3,000 edits", your edit count actually shows less than 1700 edits across all Wikipedia projects in the 18 months your account has been active. Number of edits and account life does not always correlate to edit quality, but the four editors who have commented all have far more experience than you in both number of edits and account life (in total about 190,000 edits and 40 years). You really should consider the possibility that we know what we are talking about, instead of thinking that we are persecuting you. Blocks are not punishment, they are to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'm not trying to get you blocked (if I were I already would have take this to ANI). I'm just trying to get you to stop making problematic edits.
Read WP:FAIRUSE. I don't know what other image related problems you may have had, but the one I undid was your restoration of non-free images that had been removed for not having a fair use rationale for their use in that article. I don't know if it would be possible to justify their use in that article under fair use, but you didn't even realize that you had to do so. Meters (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, and with all due respect, I don't give a damn what any of you have to say at this point. I knew I had put in free-use rationales, but it hasn't occurred to any of you that maybe I have a life and hadn't been able to get to that yet. There is nothing that says it MUST be done immediately. Secondly, I know exactly how many edits I have made, none of them damaging to Wikipedia. I know this because I got the notification for having made over two thousand edits. Thirdly and finally, I will ask that this conversation go no further, because, as Ad Orientem said, it isn't likely to end well. That said, I will partake in it no longer, so as to avoid getting punished for anything else that might occur as a result thereof, including further accusations of committing so-called "vandalism". Good day to you sirs. Fhsig13 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit


Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Dan Dubeau. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The source you added does not support either the fact that he was acting commissioner, nor the awards you listed. This is a WP:BLP. Provide a reliable source for every change you make. John from Idegon (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: And I quote from "He returned to the RCMP in 2008 and continued working in Human Resources in various leadership roles. In 2010, he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Commissioner as Director General, Workforce Programs and Services. On October 24, 2011, he became acting Chief Human Resources Officer and was promoted to the rank of Deputy Commissioner in that role on April 4, 2012. After the retirement of Commissioner Bob Paulson in July 2017, D/Commr. Dubeau assumed the role of Acting Commissioner, a position he held until April 2018.

D/Commr. Dubeau's extensive knowledge and experience in the field of human resources have prepared him for his current role as Chief Human Resources Officer. In addition to his policing achievements, he holds a Bachelor of Professional Arts Degree in Criminal Justice from Athabasca University, a Master of Arts in Integrated Studies, with a focus in equity and cultural studies, as well as numerous certificates in fields such as human resources management, adult education, organizational development, project management and values and ethics.

In 2001, D/Commr. Dubeau was granted the Certified Human Resources Executive designation from the Human Resources Professional Association of Ontario. He is the recipient of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee medal, Long Service Medals for 20 and 25 years of service, as well as the 25-year bronze clasp and the 30-year silver clasp for long service." It is there in the paragraphs under his name. Here is an image as well:

(I have highlighted the proof). Fhsig13 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Screenshot of RCMP Site for Proof in dispute.pngEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:Screenshot of RCMP Site for Proof in dispute.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from whatever the website listed on the screenshot is. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. John from Idegon (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

  Your addition to Talk:Dan Dubeau has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. John from Idegon (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Seriously?! Could we maybe discuss some of this please? You asked for proof, I was simply giving it to you. I'd love to converse on the matter, and then delete the image myself, once we've ratified the article, if you'd be so interested....I'm not out to break the rules, I'm just out to fulfil YOUR requests. Fhsig13 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You claimed loudly above that you know what you are doing. So......have you ever seen anywhere someone posting a screenshot as an exhibit in a talk discussion? Very simply, it IS a copyright violation. Writing is what we do here. If you cannot write well enough to make a point without posting a screenshot, then you probably do not belong here. What you wanted to accomplish by posting the screenshot is completely irrelevant. It is someone else's intellectual property, and you violated the owner's rights. John from Idegon (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: If you didn't notice, I did provide a write-up for you as well. I merely added the image, which I have seen done on talk pages before, for sake of covering all bases, ensuring that I couldn't be accused of fabricating the write-up I gave. I realized that it might go against the rules, which is why I am willing to delete it on my own recognizance, as soon as we've agreed on the ratification of the article in question, which despite you dubbing the proof which did so "irrelevant", it seems that we have. I will take the image down, but I won't hesitate to bring it back, should the dispute recur. Fhsig13 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You don't understand - you don't set the terms on when a copyrighted image will be deleted. It's copyrighted, period. If there are any other similar breaches of copyright, please do point them out, but it doesn't mean you can do it too. It would be enough to post a URL, and say that under this-and-that section, paragraph starting with something (or, say 2nd/3rd paragraph), that's the source. Anyone could visit the website and verify it. Copyright infringement aside, screenshots are not really reliable. byteflush Talk 23:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question I am asking this because I honestly do not know the answer. What are the copyright rules in Canada about material including images of and from their websites? In many countries material posted on government websites, unless otherwise noted is considered to be within the public domain. However, I don't know what the rules are in Canada. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Per my research, it would seem the federal government publications fall under crown copyright, but enter into the Public Domain 50 years after being published. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Ad Orientem: I'm not an expert on copyright law, but there's more info here, and I think the screenshot violates these: [2] byteflush Talk 00:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
So once again, you are stating that you are going to ignore our policies on copyright if it suits you, Fhsig13? Its all pretty irrelevant, as it matters not whether the guy was or wasn't the acting commissioner, as being the acting commissioner does not make a person inherently notable, and there isn't crap for sources to show this guy's notability. John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
No. I'm not saying that at all...You are making false accusations, as I already requested a speedy-delete on the image myself, and the image was since deleted. Secondly, by saying that Dan Dubeau is not notable as Acting Commissioner, when there is one very valuable source to back it up, you are pretty much saying the same for Beverley Busson and Zachary Taylor Wood, as I've pointed out multiple times. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. The source you provided is a primary source, hence the speedy deletions, since it doesn't signify notability. We did find a couple of secondary sources, and that's the only reason the article isn't speedy deleted again, but going through the AfD procedure instead. byteflush Talk 00:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
It does also signify notability per WP:MILPERSON, as RoySmith stated in deletion review applies as no guidelines for RCMP Notability exist, and as I have relayed to the AfD debate. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you're overstating things. What I said was, One could make a reasonable argument that since we don't have a WP:NRCMP guideline, WP:MILPERSON might be a reasonable stand-in. WP:CSD is a process with very strict requirements, and consequently, even relatively weak arguments, such as I made, are usually enough to overturn a CSD. At AfD, the onus is more on the other side, to demonstrate that the article definitely meets our requirements. That's a significantly higher bar. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Dubeau for deletionEdit


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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi Fhsig13. It seems that you have elevated Despacito to WP:GA status, but it does not appear to have benn properly assessed and reviewed. Just for reference, GA and WP:FA are, unlike a standard article assessment, more formal types of peer reviews that must follow a specific processs. It's possible that the article is now of GA quality, but you should submit it for review. GA reviewers tend to quite experienced editors who follow a specific set of instructions and assess things according to a specific set of criteria. You can start a review if you want, but you need to follow the instructions accordingly. FWIW, the article was previous nominated but it didn't pass; so, you might want to seek input from those involved in the previous review to see if there are still any outstanding issues which need to be addressed. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I'm afraid you are mistaken. I did do a formal review....But I won't bother again, since you got it deleted despite my work in reviewing it. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "You got it deleted". Got what deleted? and where is your evidence that Marchjuly got it deleted. Despacito/GA2 was deleted for the simple reason that you had blanked it and left it blanked for more than an hour. GA discussions is an area into which I never venture. Page restored. Fight it out between yourselves. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@RHaworth: I apologize, I didn't realize that's what happened. I blanked it because the link from the article's talk page took the read to Talk:Despacito/GA2, so I moved my review there. I see the confusion now, and may request undeletion in the future. Fhsig13 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I didn't delete the page myself (I can't do that anyway) or otherwise tag it for deletion. I did, however, see that it was deleted by RHaworth per WP:G7, so I asked him about it. I believe that GA review pages are typically kept for record keeping purposes so that others who are interested can look at them later on as needed. I'm just curious as to whether this is your first GA review. If it is, then you want to have one of the mentors listed at WP:GAHELP take a look at it because they might be able to offer pointers or suggestions on such reviews. This isn't meant to imply you're unqualified to do such a review, but it was previously reviewed and declined here by Tbhotch so there may still be some underlying issues which need to be addressed. One of the editors listed as a mentor (person #15) is Ritchie333. Ritchie333 is not only a very experienced GA reviewer of music-related articles, he is also an admin who's been around for quite awhile so he might be a good person to ask for feedback regarding this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Once again, my bad. BTW, this isn't my first GA Review and I do know the correct procedure for doing them, however it is the first time I've used that particular template for it, which did cause me some confusion as to if I had to place it on the article page or the talk page (of the review page), which was quickly answered the link on Despacito's talk page linking to the review page's talk page, leading me to blanking the article page and moving my review to where it would be visible upon clicking the link. Fhsig13 (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I was not going to comment, because I was merely pinged by @Marchjuly: (for the record I quick-failed the article because at the time it was unstable for GA status), but after reading Talk:Despacito/GA2 I think this required a full and thorough review, specifically point 2b. FH said "I'm not going to check 400+ citations in depth, however the vast majority seemed standard". In fact, if you are going to do a GA review you do have to check all citations given otherwise you cannot verify "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, [...] contentious material relating to living persons" (also add original research, possible misintepretations, author mistakes or close paraphrasing). At first glance, I saw some questionable sources, like Despacito Lyrics (dead source), IMDb, or discogs (also note there are 2 other dead sources). IMO, it should be taken to WP:GAR for verification. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD nominationsEdit

Hi again Fhsig13. I saw that you nominated Zachary Taylor Wood for deletion, but you didn't notify the article's creator. Although you're technically not required to do so, it's generally seen as a sign of good-faith to notify at least the article's creator for the reasons given in WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. You can find who created an article usually by just going to the very first edit in the article's page history. Anyway, I've gone ahead an notified the creator of the Wood article, but try and keep this in mind for any future articles you nominate at AfD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


Hi Fhsig13. If you haven't already done so, you may want to activate WP:TWINKLE. This is a Wikipedia tool set that I have found to be invaluable. It allows you to perform multiple tasks with just a few clicks. And if you are performing tasks like XfD nominations it will make the appropriate notifications automatically. Instructions can be found at the link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dan Dubeau, you may be blocked from editing. For Pete's sake. I'm sorry you have not yet learned English grammer, but you are behaving very pig-headedly. Job names are unambiguously NOT proper nouns. A proper example of sentences using words that can be interchangeably used as a job name or a title follows. "Bill is the president of Foo, Inc." "The employees at Foo were overjoyed when President Bill took the stage." Go ask your English teacher if you don't believe me, but if you revert my change to proper grammer again, I'll be asking for a CIR block at ANI. This is getting old. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2018

@John from Idegon: First off, please calm down, and don't make personal attacks. There is a reasonable explanation for what I've done, that being that in Canadian English, job titles ARE proper nouns, and should be capitalized as such in this article about a Canadian. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Provide a source for that. And I've made no personal attack. Ping Meters. John from Idegon (talk) 04:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
No, job titles are not capitalized proper nouns in Canadian English. See Oxford Canadian A–Z of Grammar, Spelling, & Punctuation, (Oxford University Press, 2006 ISBN 978-0-19-542437-9) pg 180 for example "It is not necessary to capitalize a title when it is not placed directly before a name, or is set off by commas (an interview with Paul Martin, prime minister of Canada; an interview with the prime minister, Paul Martin). " Meters (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The Nelson Gage Canadian Dictionary also agrees that titles are only capitalized when used as part of a person's name "Doctor Namis (BUT the doctor). Prime Minister Macdonald (BUT the prime minister)" Meters (talk) 05:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at United States Army. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 00:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You are sorely mistaken as you have taken the reverts out of context. The other editor involved only wanted a reliable reference for my change, which I provided in my last revert, settling the issue. Until you stepped in just now, no further reverts had occurred on either end. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
A footnote to another Wiki page is NOT a reliable source, see WP:RSSELF and WP:USERG. Also the source needs to state the Army for the United States Army page. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Fnlayson: I also cited this site: Does this work to reference my additon to US Army? Fhsig13 (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, you added that ref later on. I'm not sure if is a really reliable source though. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It looked to me like, at the very least, a US Military sponsored site. My question now is how we are to proceed. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Based on what? Your opinion without actually having read the site's disclaimer? Read It explicitly states that it "is in no way endorsed by any: Of its listed sources; Governing local, regional or world body; or Military-related organisation." That's about as far from "at the very least, US Military sponsored site" as you can get.
It also says that it "makes no representations, in relation to this website or the accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained on this website" This is not a reliable source. That fact that you think that this is a reliable, US Military sponsored site is just more evidence of the CIR issue discussed above. Stop adding improperly source material.. Meters (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I took a quick look at the website and it is clearly a private organization. While the information there may indeed be accurate, it doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the information may indeed be correct. If it is, it certainly should be possible to find reliable sources for the claim. Meters (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not it meets the criteria, it's a reference, and I can find you tons more if you like. If O-12 exist in the US Navy, it goddamn exists in the army, and two people so far wore it under different titles! There are a million sources to prove this and more on the subject, just take a look. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────O-12 only existed (briefly) on the USN page because you put it there, after mucking about with the template page for USN officer ranks. That has been fixed now. You need to realize you can't just cram stuff into an encyclopaedia because you think you are right. The issue of a supposed six-star rank and actual ranks that are likely superior to established five-star ranks has been discussed, ad nauseam by the community and consensus for now is what you see in these articles where those ranks are concerned. Before you go changing any established content again, like a high-profile, high-traffic page like the US Navy (or Army) or especially a template, propose your edit on the talk page first and seek consensus (and perhaps guidance) and save the rest of the trouble of fixing your mistakes. And you can spare us all another potty-mouth-filled reply like the one you posted below in response to the suggestion you seek a mentor. We get it, you're not interested. You think you know what you're doing. But long before you realize you dont, and that we were just trying to help you, you'll likely get indef'd anyway. Have a nice day. - theWOLFchild 02:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


More problems. More disruption. More conflict. Fhsig13, at this rate, you may very well find your indef block being reinstated. This is just a suggestion, but I would advise you to seek mentorship. With a mentor to advise you and help guide you along, there is a good chance you will learn to contribute more effectively and stave off that indef block. Just a thought, but seriously, you should look into it. (pinging Ad Orientem) - theWOLFchild 19:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Already suggested somewhere above. But FTR I agree and think it is still a good idea. I intensely dislike blocking people for anything outside of intentionally disruptive behavior. Especially when I believe they mean well, as is clearly the case here. And yeah, we all do dumb things now and then. But basic competency is required to edit here. And multiple experienced editors are openly expressing doubts on that score. No, I am not going to block you for this. But I don't know how much longer your poor editing habits are going to be indulged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: Thanks for the reply. I see now that you yourself had suggested mentoring almost 2 weeks ago, but Fhsig13 did not opt to pursue it. Hopefully they are taking note of your comments here and realizing that they are now on thin ice and will reconsider mentoring. - theWOLFchild 00:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
How's about everyone shuts their goddamn pieholes and gets on with their days? I don't need anyone's help, and I've nothing f---king wrong! You all take shit out of context and make me seem like a fool. I provided a reference as requested. I deemed it reliable. There are tons more out there if it isn't, but that isn't my issue. I am competent 100%, unlike you folks, who'd rather bust me down for trying my best to better the project.; Shame on you all. I'd sooner quit than have any of you mentor me. Fhsig13 (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Fhsig13 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

UTRS appeal #22656 was submitted on Sep 14, 2018 08:27:04. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


Howdy. Take note, newly elected mayors don't take office immediately upon election. For example in Vancouver - Stewart doesn't become mayor until December 18, 2018. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I did know that, but thanks for the heads up, @GoodDay. I re-labelled the new Mayors in all three cities as "Mayor-Elect", similar to what was done the USA page between Trump's election and his inauguration. Fhsig13 (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Okie Doke. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me @GoodDay, but why did you revert my edits again, after I provided a solution to which we both agreed?

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Fhsig13. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Fhsig13".