Thatcher57

Discussion results in the best editing. Thatcher57 (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dendroctonus pseudotsugae has been accepted

Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

         Thank you Dodger67 Roger. I will find additional sources and expand the article, but wanted a look from an experienced editor at the beginning. Thatcher57 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Notice

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 Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 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.

COI

Do you have any potential WP:COI in relation to Rolfing? If so please be aware of WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Thatcher57 (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

rolfing mediation

Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cyintherye (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2018

When adding links to material on external sites, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there an edit I made that you think violates this, @Alexbrn? Thatcher57 (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes[1]. I redacted the link. Alexbrn (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware of it and fixing it. I will be careful to avoid that mistake in the future @Alexbrn. Thatcher57 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It's odd because one would expect semanticscholar.org to be pukka, but on this occasion one of their sources seems to have got this illicit copy. Alexbrn (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)