User talk:Fishicus

Welcome

Hello Fishicus, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Fishicus, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greetings!

DYK for My Beloved World

On 1 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article My Beloved World, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that promotional efforts for U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor's best-selling memoir My Beloved World caused the time of Vice President Joe Biden's second-term swearing-in to be changed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/My Beloved World. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome–that's great! Thanks for letting me know! —Fishicus (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Serial reverts

You appear to be serially reverting constructive edits that I've made. Allow me to suggest that you take the issues to the talk page. Your behavior could be seen to be as an attempt to extend a content dispute on You didn't build that to other pages which are unrelated. aprock (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you've interpreted my edits to be personal or merely due to the existence of one particular content dispute. This is not my intention. However, our discussion has indicated you may not fully understand the difference between primary and secondary sources and how the relevant policies should be applied in editing. This is concerning to me because I, like many others, want Wikipedia to be the best encyclopedia and an excellent and accurate resource. Consequently, I looked into some of your prior contributions to determine if mistakes had been made elsewhere, and if any were found I attempted to correct them. Again, please recognize that my intent is not malicious. — Fishicus (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it takes a fair amount of dispute resolution to really get a solid grasp of the nuances of sourcing. I suggest you take some time reading and/or participating in WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, and WP:BLPN to get a better sense of the nuances of sourcing. I am happy to go over any specific issues or concerns you have about any edits or contributions I've made. I generally don't take wikipedia editing personally, far too much drama on here already. aprock (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British English changes in article

Hi Fishicus, I reverted your good faith edits on Sandifer syndrome because the article was originally written in British English. Best regards, GeneralBelly (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Ribbon (computing), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fishicus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]