User talk:Lithistman/Archives/2014/September

WikiLeaks and PRIMARY sourcing

Hello!

Since this is more of general topic and not specific to the Landmark Worldwide article, I thought I would first come here. If you prefer that I move this discussion to the article talk page, just let me know and I will.

When using WikiLeaks or WikiSource or other WP:PRIMARY sources, we need to have a reliable secondary source that comments on or uses the item to establish the significance of the documents/statements. There are a number of discussions around this at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but a couple that are on-point are here and here.

Please take a look at those discussions and see what you think. Related to the Landmark article, I could not find a secondary source that discussed the WikiLeaks document. Thanks and Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's the money quote from WP:PRIMARY, in my views: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The US DoL investigation is not being "misused" in this context, and is thus acceptable to cite in support of a claim related to the existence of said investigation. No "extraordinary claim" is being made that needs additional secondary sourcing. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I beg to differ, and the burden is on you. I won't template you, but I'm telling you that your edits suggest you are not editing the article in a neutral manner, and this is a clear example: tendentious information based on a primary source. I suggest you stop reverting until you find a consensus. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'd recommend you put your "badge" away, and forget you're an administrator, now that you've decided to edit war. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  And simply because I made an edit that you disagree with doesn't mean that it is I who is being non-neutral. I am arguing for inclusion of a neutrally-worded passage (I note, with interest, that you refuse to point to anything in the wording of the passage that is tendentious) that refers to a USDoL investigation that is a matter of public record. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have added my comments to the NPoV noticeboard entry on this, but basically the way I see it is that the statement cannot be made without context. It looks like the only outcome was a few dollars in overtime pay to someone, which seems trivial to me - but we can't interpret the primary source and we have no secondary sources to interpret it for us. Where I live, a Land Record is a public domain document that I live in the village that I do - but without secondary sources establishing that fact as somehow noteworthy it does not belong in the article on my village.

I am not attempting to trivialise something that is not, and I believe you would agree that my edits to the article in question are neutral and did not "whitewash" anything. It is clear that the article has had some rather heated debate (and I came back to it for that reason, or at least to try to settle some of that debate). Just because there are points of view does not mean that attempting to adhere to our policies here is being non-neutral. I hope that you reconsider "leaving" the article, as some of your content editing elsewhere is exemplary. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comic novel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses. 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) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by admins

Two examples of edit warring by the same admin in two different articles spread apart by one week. See for example this report. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing ever happens to admins who misbehave, unless it's just so egregious that they are stripped of their tools. That's why I quit editing the article where Drmies called his bald revert "admin intervention": I knew once he did that, that there was a greater-than-zero chance I'd be blocked if I kept working on improving that article. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Quitting is certainly one solution, but not always the best solution. Looking at the most recent dispute, you failed to immediately stop edit warring and to warn Drmies on his talk page. If you look at the diffs of the last dispute I had with Drmies, you'll notice that I did not revert a single time, yet I still ended up blocked. The best thing you can do is immediately document the dispute on the relevant noticeboards. When enough reports pile up over time, the community will take a closer look. I notice that Drmies attempted his patronizing shtick with you as well, talking down to you and giving you a veiled threat in his position as an admin. He did the same thing with me as well, accusing me of being a "youngster" (I'm not) and threatening me with false accusations. You need to document this bad behavior whenever it occurs, without fear or intimidation. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

    The thing about that page is, I'm just not interested enough in Landmark to put myself through the kind of nonsense that goes on there. Once Drmies started stomping around "waving the badge", I just decided to focus on work I find more interesting on this project. I have a long list of things I want to get done for the various WikiProjects I'm in, so I'm focusing on that. I will say, though, that if he (and that awful Landmark article) are ever brought before Arbcom, I will definitely present evidence. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

    Oh, believe me, I understand your position. You and I are here to write articles, share what we know, and learn from others. But a lot of these admin types aren't here for that reason. They are here to play games, and to use Wikipedia to advance their own personal goals. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

    If someone offered me the tools right now, I'd turn them down. As much as I'd like to be able to use a couple of them (particularly the non-controversial delete, as well as the move and history merge ones), I just don't have the desire to play politics as I see far too many administrators doing on here. I like to write and learn new things, period. That's why I'm here. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have started a new discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Edit_warring_and_advanced_permissions. I would like to modify the edit warring policy to make it clear to admins that the policy applies to them as much as it does regular editors. Please participate. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently, your having posted to my talkpage earlier in the day makes us some sort of collaborators or something, and disqualifies me from commenting on the edit warring policy--at least according to Spartaz. LHM^{ask me a question} 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Testilying

I checked out Chillum's talkpage after the user commented on User talk:Boeing720#Last warning. I saw the dispute you were having and followed the links you provided. No collusion, just agreeing that "police perjury" was simpler and more encyclopedic language. The last interaction before this was a Mediation Cabal case back in 2007. So we're not exactly allies. Just wanted to inform you.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. It simply looked sort of suspicious to me that two editors I'd never met--and who'd never edited the Blue Code page previously--showed up to support Chillum's first edit--a bald reversion of me after we previously disagreed strongly on a policy page. I had no proof, other than suspicions, which is why I worded my suspicions obliquely, instead of making a direct accusation. I am sure you're a great editor, though. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Lithistman,

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I do have some questions, and I hope I'm putting this message in the right place. At 115ash's suggestion, I created a new section on the Andrew R Heinze talk page, and (as I said on 115ash's talk section), I feel bad about messing up the Andrew R Heinze Wiki article because it didn't have flags on it before I added the new citations (because an article with flags on it looks bad.) So now I want to take my mistakes one by one and correct each one, but I'm not sure what was wrong with them. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• @EastDimeBoxFrank: I will take a look at that article and try to figure out what the issue is. One thing you can do to make it easier for people to navigate to articles you're talking about is to wikilink them, like this: Apple. You do that by typing [[Apple]], when you compose your message. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Lithistman. I will do that. So here it is: Andrew R. Heinze is.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem @EastDimeBoxFrank:. At a first glance, there are serious issues with the sourcing, and much of the article may have to be trimmed/cut, so that it can be built back up again on the back of good sourcing. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The info in the article was already there, and I just added some sources to try to improve it. Could you give me an example of where the sources are bad? For instance, when it comes to degrees from schools, I thought that a CV which was posted on the professor's university's own site would be perfect legitimate source. What would be better?EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There are so many sources, some of which are not web-accessible, that it's going to take me awhile to sift through them. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time with this. One thing that confused me is that I looked up a bunch of people's Wiki pages (so I could see what's wrong with my sources), and I could see that a lot of those Wiki pages have sources that are all over the map (and a lot of them go to dead links). I guess that I can't use them as models. For instance, I looked on the Austin Pendleton Wiki page, and there were only two sources on the "References" list (in a pretty long article), and both of those links seemed to be dead (there were also four sources on the "External Link" list), and yet the Wiki editors seemed to have no problem with it. Also, on that page, I saw that there were two kinds of sources, "External links" and "References", whereas on the Andrew R. Heinze page, the sources were all under, "Notes." What is going on with that? EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now I am improving a bunch of the sources on Andrew R. Heinze... including sources that came from other people. They were probably good once, but when I looked, they were dead. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. As this discussion has now turned exclusively to the article, let's take it to article talkpage. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you on the article talkpage now, so I will follow you there. And thanks again. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!-Cassianto

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your kind words during a recent conflict which I have been involved in. I would've perhaps continued if it wasn't for your helpful advice. Thank you. Cassiantotalk 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

btw, do you like reading books on America by any chance? User boxes are helpful in understanding the real life, interests, opinions and thoughts of a user, wouldn't you say? Cassianto^talk 18:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks for the Barnstar! Second, I love reading books on America, Kansas, the Old West, and many other topics--thanks for asking! :) LHM^{ask me a question} 18:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!-Viriditas

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for contributing to several discussions with your insight and wisdom. It's good to know there are helpful editors like yourself around who will stand up to nonsense when they see it and tell it like it is. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks--I'm doing my best! LHM^{ask me a question} 01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing harassing notes.LHMask me a question 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As much as I hate to rain on Viriditas's parade, you made a personal attack on me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. I don't wish to prejudge you the way you prejudged me by assuming you won't take it back, though I have my doubts. I do think it is time you realize that in between pro-cult and anti-cult there is, well, good encyclopedic editing. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC) You are, of course, free to believe whatever you like about me. Your perception of my post there as a "personal attack" is just utterly ludicrous. LHMask me a question 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC) What matters is what you say. I don't actually believe anything about you. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC) And what I wrote was not, in fact, a personal attack. It was an observation about what happens at that article. And it's very clear, by your own actions, that you are making things personal. LHMask me a question 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh

Collapsing more harassment. LHMask me a question 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
LHM, you must think I'm just fucking around here. First you accuse me of not practicing due diligence in the AfD, and now you doubt what I say in the article itself. Well, what you keep reinstating is a copyright violation, which is what I indicated in the edit summary. Why would you doubt that? Don't you think I'd ask the experts? Your lack of AGF, coupled with what appears to be a lack of, well, common sense, is somewhat troubling. You can't link to a "reprint" of something unless that reprint has been allowed by the copyright holder, in this case a French magazine. And can I just point out that you aren't even able to provide proper bibliographic information for the article (date, page numbers, byline), and that you won't find it on the NO website since it's not in their archives? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I think you've made it clear what your views on Landmark and Landmark-related articles are. That's as much as I'm willing to say. As for that article, have you read it? I just translated the text using some software, and it's explosive. LHMask me a question 02:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Please let this ping (@Drmies:) serve as notice that I prefer to not interact with you any further. You've threatened me with blocking, accused me of personal attacks, and now started a frivolous thread at ANI about me. I'm done dealing with you, other than if you happen to be editing an article I'm also working on. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC) And let this ping (@John: serve as notice of the same for Johm. I've no interest in interacting with admins who reach for their "badges" and wave their protect/block buttons around whn in the midst of content discussions/disputes. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To EDBF & others

The experience of editing Wikipedia that I've had since making my first edit to the Landmark article, combined with how Drmies, John, and now HJ Mitchell have misused their administrator tools, has removed almost all pleasure I took in editing this project. One of the only really enjoyable aspects of the project for me the last little while has been my recent interaction with @EastDimeBoxFrank:. It's been fun seeing you grow as an editor over the last week or two, EDBF, but I'm taking my leave now. I may return at some point, but until I do, maybe @Astynax: might be willing to step into the role I'd been playing in helping you out. One piece of advice I'd give you is this: as much as possible, just try to stay out of the way of administrators. Dealing with people who can get you blocked from editing, or protect non-consensus versions of articles using their extra tools, is no fun at all. If you cross them, just let them have their way, and find another article you are interested in to edit. Best regards, LHM^{ask me a question} 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Justice delayed is justice denied. The more editors that leave and fail to tackle the problem directly, the more it will continue. Please consider staying so that we can address this unpopular problem with admins in the appropriate venue. You were unfairly blocked by admins protecting other admins, and I think arbcom will take that into consideration when they see that John has a history of this kind of disruption. Retiring now, before I propose the case, is not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see @The Devil's Advocate: and I have a mutual... umm... friend... <rollseyes> LHM^{ask me a question} 03:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Flyer22: Thanks for the supportive note at your talkpage. I have no wish to cause you any consternation, so if you're not comfortable directly challenging what these members of the admin corps have done in my case, I completely understand. Happy editing, Flyer! LHM^{ask me a question} 12:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, and perpetuating an edit war by repeatedly re-adding content you know to be disputed, as you did at John Barrowman. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock|There is clear consensus for the material in question at the talkpage. It's not even close. Ask any of the other editors involved. You should have looked much deeper into this before blocking.LHMask me a question 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)}}

Note

Any of the following editors can give you the context at that page. You should have checked before blocking an established contributor. 22:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) @Viriditas:; @Ritchie333:; @Jusdafax:; @Mark Miller:; @Peter Gulutzan:; @Loriendrew: @A Quest For Knowledge:

@HJ Mitchell:Perhaps you missed it, but this has been discussed and the overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity) of editors is that this source is a reliable source in this context. Please see the following diff.[1] Can you please self-revert this block? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies started a thread at ANI about me, that I refused to participate in because he was just being vindictive. This block seems to be a direct result of that thread. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lithistman, I am happy to start an arbcom case, however the arbs will have to approve it, which is not always the case. I am at work right now, but I will consider writing the arbcom proposal when I get home. I'm very sorry you were blocked. There was a clear consensus on the talk page to include the material, and discussion had occurred multiple times already. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Have you self-reverted this block? I can accept on good faith that you made an honest mistake, but I don't understand what's taking you so long to undo this mistake. Please respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: 9 editors.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

John has been the definition of contentious throughout the process, as has Drmies, employing little other than the WP:IDHT "argument", and then fishing for a forum to get me blocked when I enforced the talkpage consensus. It's really quite a shabby state of affairs for admins to act this way.LHM^{ask me a question} 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to comment here because, in my experience, it rarely makes the situation better and blocked editors almost invariably (and understandably) vent their frustrations at the blocking admin, so it's usually best for them to stay out of the way and let a second admin deal with the unblock request. But since I was pinged. Multiple times. Here are my thoughts:

• I'm not going to self-revert the block, unless LHM gives sufficient assurances that he will cease edit-warring.
• Drmies had very little to do with this; he made a request at RfPP for full protection. I was clearing the backlog at RfPP, as I have regularly done for several years, so I certainly wasn't looking for an excuse to block LHM.
• I deemed that full protection would not solve the problem, because the edit war would only continue as soon as the protection expired, as it did last time.
• I don't block established editors on a whim (AQFK, we may not always agree, but I thought you knew me better than that), nor is it something I take any pleasure from. And I did evaluate the circumstances. While it takes at least two people to edit war, LHM was the one repeatedly restoring content that was in dispute, and being reverted by more than one person; had he ceased, the edit war would have stopped. It's as simple as that. Even if there was a consensus, and even if other editors were behaving disruptively, it still doesn't excuse the edit-warring.

For the reasons I've stated above, I'm loathe to get into further discussion (especially with third parties, much as I recognise that they're asking questions in good faith). If any editor feels the need to escalate the underlying dispute to ArbCom, I would have no objection to my actions being scrutinised as part of that, and I would suggest that that is the proper venue to make allegations of a long-term pattern of misconduct by another editor (admin or otherwise). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• @HJ Mitchell: I'm not going to edit war. But you should know something else. That request at RFPP was not, in my opinion, done in good faith. The editor who made the request knew full well that consensus had been established, and by the time the request was made, had even acceded to that on the talkpage. He had been trying to get me blocked at ANI, and when that didn't work, he went to RFPP. But yes, you can consider this my assurance that I won't be edit-warring. I would suggest you look deeper into that situation, and examine the conduct of those falsely claiming a BLP exemption for their reverts as well, if you have the time to do so. Best regards, LHM^{ask me a question} 14:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's as may be, but let's stick to this block for a moment. If you were to be unblocked, would you agree not to re-add this source or make related edits to John Barrowman until such time as the BLP/N discussion is closed by a non-involved admin following the usual timeframe for such discussions? Put another way, will you back off and let consensus be firmly and unambiguously settled? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

While I (and nearly every other editor of the Barrowman page) feel that consensus had been "firmly and unambiguously settled", I won't be readding the source. I will likely simply remove that page (as well as the Landmark Worldwide article) from my watchlist, as both of those articles (and dealing with the personalities associated with them) have sapped a lot of the fun from the project for me. Thanks for taking the time to consider my unblock request, Ultra. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• • (ec) Very well. Given those assurances, I've unblocked you. I can't find any autoblocks, but if you encounter one, let me know. I think deeper looking into the history of the dispute and into your allegations against other admins is best left to ArbCom if you want to go down that route. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

    As at your talkpage, thanks. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Section reserved" section

Lithistman, you asked me to take a look at this brouhaha. It's a sprawling mess, and I have little time, so I'll pick the low-hanging fruit first: this section was a very bad idea. No opinion should be implied on relative guilt/innocence of anyone on anything else. If it seems valuable I'll look more later, but it will be when I have a few spare minutes here and there. In the mean time, I'd appreciate it if everyone involved who is actually interested in encyclopedia writing could start de-escalating a little. Well, no, a lot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll respect your removal of the section, but given my experience of administrator behavior on this project recently, I think my feelings that there has been some "coordination" going on behind the scenes is not wholly without merit. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesse James father

I'm confident that we can resolve the question as to where Jesse James father (Robert) was born.
To me it seems there is lots of good evidence pointing to the fact that Robert was born in the US.
It looks to me as if a bar in Ireland is telling tall tales to tourists for cheap publicity claiming Robert was a Kerryman.
I invite you to contribute to the discussion on the Jesse James' talk-page: Talk:Jesse_James#Jesse.27s_father_from_County_Kerry.2C_Ireland
Thanks Aberdeen01 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup

Hi, Lithistman! How come you no longer want to participant in the GA Cup (there's nothing wrong with it, I just want to know because if it has something to do with how the competition works, we can consider a last minute change!)--Dom497 (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just found out that I transfer I wanted at work has gone through. The job is a lot more interesting, but also a lot more time-intensive, and I just don't think I'll have the time to do it this time around. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lithistman...

I just figured out what your name means: Literature/History/Man! I'm a little slow sometimes. (I'd thought it was some kind of Eastern European name that I couldn't pronounce. Ha.) Anyway, I just want to thank you again... for helping me with everything - and lately for introducing me to Astynax (who is wonderful). I'm moving ahead (as you have noted), and pretty soon I believe that last flag will come down from the Heinze article. When that happens, I'm looking forward to working on a new and different article. It will be fun to find one. Well, back to my citations. (I'm getting a huge kick out of doing these citations for some reason.) DimeBoxFrank (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I somehow missed this note until Viriditas posted his message below (thanks, BTW, Viriditas). I'm really glad you're enjoying your time on Wikipedia, EDBF--particularly with the rough way it started out for you, with the tags being put on the top of the page and all. Keep up the good work! LHM^{ask me a question} 14:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Just in case I haven't told you already, it's an awesome user name! :) Viriditas (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Far too technical

I don't think that thing works properly; I bet I've edited Mount Vernon lots more times than he has. I can't make it work a all, it keeps saying invalid date. Giano (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't put any dates into it. I just typed usernames into the given blanks and submitted. It seems to be right about the articles I've edited, so I'm not sure how to help you use it in this case. If you're interested, there are a lot of neat little gadgets at the WP:Tools page that do all sorts of things. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Retcon edit

My edit on Retroactive continuity was not a test. I removed that part about retcons being common in leading manga publishers, as it is completely untrue. Manga magazines in Japan works in a different format compared to their American counterparts, as the characters are not owned by the company/publisher but the author themselves, therefore retcons in manga aren't common at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rioliogiz (talk • contribs) 12:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Let's move this to the article's talkpage, @Rioliogiz:. LHM^{ask me a question} 12:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Nicely done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! LHM^{ask me a question} 19:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

St. Croix

You can have it. St Croix, has/had one hospital which recently was decertified as a medicare/medicaid facility. This will dramatically effect the budget of this hospital and thus the local economy. It will also effect the level of medical care available to locals and tourists....which is a reflection of the economy....and will negatively impact it as well. The AED devices that are in place around the island are potential life saving devices which are necessary in the absence more medical facilities. Not to mention the fact that the lady who has been installing these devices has been doing so with her own money and donations from interested parties. The blog which I referenced is the only blog discussing the implications and providing a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdubs8 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• The information above is interesting, and I'm thankful that there's someone doing it. However, Wikipedia is not the place to distribute such information, unless it has been covered in reliable secondary sources. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)