Jump to content

User talk:Littleolive oil/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

How to tell who did what on the main article

Hi Olive. FYI no one signs changes on the main article. However, you can tell who made the change by looking at the top of the diff. Tanaats 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. TimidGuy 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Bleep OR straw poll

There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment Olive! Things like that really make the effort worthwhile! Dreadstar † 09:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It was so good, I just had to enshrine it! Dreadstar † 09:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back to Bleep! Good to see you there again! Dreadstar † 03:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the welcome... My favorite kind of editing - no arguments needed .... I hope!(olive 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind, but I linked to the article in your post for convenience. Dreadstar † 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, good, Thank you, ... I thought about it but forgot.....(olive 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

TM article "German Study

Hi LO

Thank you for cleaning up the mess that I no-doubt made of the TM article :-). Can i just confirm what the issues are with the so called German Study by the way? Just so I can get a grasp on it. Crowleys Aunt 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Olive

Thanks for answering on the correct talk page. I think I'm tired or something. Sleep is needed :-) Crowleys Aunt 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was fine for you to answer here.The material on the German study was archived on discussion so I just put it back on the discussion.(olive 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Dreadstar RfA

Thanks for your support and the congrats, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

The reason I've said, " Maharishi and others believe..." is that the book, which I've cited, shows that others do in fact share Maharishi's belief. In other words, I don't believe that my use of "others" is simply a weasel word. Therefore, I'm undoing your deletion. Sueyen 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Jean-Paul Ney

I see that you have expressed concern on this article's talk page [[1]] about the edit-warring and lack of proper citations. I wanted to let you know that I have expressed my concerns on these issues on the Administrators' notice board.

Hello Littleolive oil. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked this site this morning and I think all was quiet. Whew! What a mess in a short time .... although things were difinitely building up to this I guess . Thanks for assistance on the article and for notifications . I am not a major editor on the article just a cleaner - upper but will be nice to see things progress in an appropriate manner.(olive 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Jean-Paul Ney

I've decided to take a slightly different approach to this article than usual. The edit warring is not that severe and the article needs work. I don't think locking it down is the best approach. Instead I am going to institute a state of 1RR. Anything more than 1 revert by any user will result in a short block. Any type of threat, personal attack, or harassment will also result in a block. I have also blocked User:82.67.185.164 for the legal threat on the talk page. Anything disputed should be discussed on the talk page, but the dispute and a slow edit war should not stop needed improvement. I will copy this comment to user talk pages of those involved in the dispute and the article talk page, so there will be no "I didn't know" excuse for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Olive, thanks for your note. I left a note on CSX's page asking him to stop the legal threats, personal attacks and generally uncivil comments. If he persists he may have to be blocked. I hate to do this because I'm afraid this may lead to more unsourced libelous material being added to the article - I'm hampered in this because of the language barrier. I've asked a few French-speaking editors to weigh in, but no response yet. We may be better served by putting up a request for comment and asking for help on the WP:BLP talk page. What are your thoughts? Dreadstar † 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Great idea asking the Wikiproject France to weigh in! Dreadstar † 01:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I also left a note here. Dreadstar † 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mine sword doth ever be at thine disposal, dear lady! I thank thee most humbly for thine divine compliments...! Dreadstar † 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Check this out. Dreadstar † 08:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Gymnastics Wikiproject

Your edits or discussions show that you may be interested in the new Gymnastics Wikiproject. Please join and help to start this new wikiproject. We need lots of members and lots of help. Wikiproject Gymnastics also contains the related sports of cheerleading, power tumbling, and trampolining. Maddie talk 21:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much, Olive, for the barnstar, your kind words -- and your excellent work on Wikipedia. It's great having you as a contributor. TimidGuy 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, dear Olive, for the note, and you were fine to blank the page in that case. It will soon be deleted, no worries! Thank you for watching out for things! (There is also a User:Ariel., but that isn't me, either.) Ariel♥Gold 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back and for worrying about me. I had a bout of either food poisoning or stomach flu...but I'm doing much better now! Dreadstar † 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How sweet! My very own frozen Cod! I shall thaw it (being most careful not to poke my eye out) and make us barbecued Cod Steaks with Lemon & Spam Crust and Spam over an open flame...or perhaps I'll make a keepsake out of it in my very own freezer...;) Hey, thanks...always good to hear from you! Dreadstar † 03:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly walks

D'oh!, just shoot me! No overloading, just my silliest of walks, I forgot to tell you that it was taken care of last evening. Then I got distracted. No worries and no apologies, it's what I'm here for..! Dreadstar † 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gymnastics Wikiproject

Your edits or discussions show that you may be interested in the new Gymnastics Wikiproject. Please join and help to start this new wikiproject. We need lots of members and lots of help. Wikiproject Gymnastics also contains the related sports of cheerleading, power tumbling, and trampolining. Maddie talk 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maddie. I will probably not have a lot of time to edit, but I keep a watch for vandalism and every now and then do some copy editing. I seem to be editing several articles right now so don't think I can do any actual writing but count me in for copy editing.(olive (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

Compliment

Hi Sir Dread...I really want to go on record as commending the leadership you once again gave the Bleep article.I believe that you were completely neutral, patient, tough if needed, but in a civil way. There is a fine line it seems to me between maintaining neutrality, and skepticism, and you I thought were very aware of were that line is/was.(olive (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))'

Oh, why thank you so much Olive! What a nice message to start my new year off right..! And thank you for your helpful comments and support..that article is an amazingly hot button issue..especially for a film like that...! Dreadstar † 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jean-Paul Ney

An editor has nominated Jean-Paul Ney, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Ney and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What the bleep?

You said on my talk page "I wanted to mention as per your comment on the Bleep talk page that the suggestion that some will not accept pseudoscience," I actually said the opposite, "some folks here will not accept the removal of the term pseudoscience." I believe that is a fact based upon my involvement with these editors in the past. If you think that statement is insulting, then I will consider refactoring. Thanks for your opinion. Anthon01 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were put off by Antelan's comments. I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. Please consider commenting here. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I responded on Bens page. Anthon01 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

Did you think the process we were moving forward before was helpful? Anthon01 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Anthon I'm not exactly what you mean by before ....e-mail me....I may not be checking here.(olive (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been named as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Appologies

Olive -i feel very guilty if I in anyway "upset" you regarding the TM discussion. Re-reading it you are correct and I may have come across as a "little harsh". This was not my intention nor is it my "manner". Please do not assume it was in anyway personal. For that full apologies. Peace Really2012back (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

edit: Sorry! [[Image:http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-fUj4_Sx-VLW9M:http://criss.site.voila.fr/terragen/medit ation.jpg]]

Thank you, Really. I appreciate the apology, and the lovely little picture.(olive (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

TM

LG/TG - I assume you are just two people but anyway this is also addressed to both. Every time I comment on the TM article I feel a tad guilty. The reason for this is that I feel am denigrating peoples spiritual beliefs. This is not something that I wish to do at all, I can assure you and is why I always keep away from religious debates in WIKI and else-where. The reason that I am commenting at all is simply due the financial side of things. Because TM is treated as a commercial venture - IE a charge is made, products sold etc - it is important to me that the article in question is understood in this framework but more importantly is written and constructed on this basis.

However, The Sidhi Program, etc. deal, IMO, far more with your spiritual beliefs and on that basis I have decided to discontinue my involvement in these.

Anyway, I just felt the need to let you know that I an no way wish to insult, denigrate or whatever your spiritual beliefs and just hoped that that could be understood Really2012back (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Really thank you for these comments . I do not in any way feel you are denigrating my spiritual beliefs. I expect we are all trying to be neutral, and I haven't seen you make remarks that indicate you are making comments about my belief system. The editing of the article is a neutral issue for me. I can't allow my belief system, whatever that may be to get tied up with the article for personal reasons but also for editing reasons.I think your comments on the article have helped us all look the thing from multiple perspectives and that can only be good for the article.(olive (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

I'm leaving this on both your pages. I have only just heard and I know this isn't the place no-doubt but I have felt I have got to know you both - if slightly. Just wanted to give my condolences - ad it was reported in the Times I will assume - at this stage - that it is not a continuation of Internet rumors. As this will nodoubtt attract the vandals to your pages if you are bothy busy I shall attempt to keep track of them for a day or to and revert any "nonsense". Peace Really2012back (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No not a rumour and thank you for your thoughts . In reality, as many have noted he seems to continue on. Huge numbers of people from all over the world are converging on India where he will be placed in the Ganges River.The great Indian saints from all over the country are expected to converge and the shankarcharya will officiate. Its not a sad time it seems, but a time of great celebration for a life lived to the highest of standards.(olive (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

hello

Like a fool stepping in where angels fear to tread, I probably triggered off the recent spate of edits when I altered the article. I still find it difficult to see where each of the individual editors are coming from. Would it help if I discussed with you? The Rationalist (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss at any time. Just drop by here. As to where editors are coming from; I'm nit sure anyone knows that, but the best idea might be to just get to know them and their work. I believe this takes time as it does with getting to know anyone, anywhere.(olive (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
You said there was a version of the intro that you liked, or was attached to, or something like that. Which was this version. Thanks The Rationalist (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rationalist . I'm getting over some kind of flu so am not ignoring you. I will respond tomorrow if that's OK . Still trying to rest.(olive (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

Just dropping by, with an observation

I thought this comment was a little questionable. If this is an ongoing problem, please let me or someone else know. WNDL42 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Namaste, Loo.

I was absolutely not referring to your comment. I was referring to the sentence beginning with "Perhaps all those that believe...". It seemed to be a denigration - low level incivility, but I could not decide who it was aimed at. User:Jimbo Wales has been noticing that low-level incivility has been driving good editors away and is taking steps to stop it, read his final paragraph. Don't allow yourself to be mistreated. If I took this the wrong way, please forgive me but the editor who made this comment has behaved "questionably" elsewhere regarding people's beliefs. WNDL42 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WNDL, and to you. I am aware of Jimbo's concern with incivility and the notion that some good editing excuses some poor behaviour. I don't think there is a solution for a voice not heard unless it is that the voice shows up more often . There is a point where one makes decision to do that or not, and I don't think we can protect the less heard voice except by encouragement and civil behaviour. I don't think it helps to discourage the more frequently heard voice. No don't worry. I will not allow myself to be mistreated, nor do I bite at every bone that goes by.(olive (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
Thanks, and ok...but editors in these situations have been known to voluntarily adopt a 1RR rule explicitly for the purpose of slowing things down, so there are solutions, and my appeal to the group to "slow down", and stop loading the talk page with noisy diatribe is an appeal to just plain good "table manners". Indiginous americans sat in a circle and passed a "talking piece" to encourage similar respectful discourse in multi-party disputes, and we should at least talk about the lesser heard voices even if nothing can be done. The noisy diatribes (talking past one another), smoke screens, Straw Man attacks, and "mild" discrediting, taken in total must all be refuted, as "low level" forms of discrediting warfare. You may be commended for not taking the bait, but I decided to bring it up because (as Ghandi wrote) "passive resistance" must include speaking out when necessary, and I chose to speak to you rather than at the talk page. We may agree to disagree on whether talk page headings should or should not be used to shout above others, perhaps I've seen it happen too often, but it IS happening at Bleep. Anyway, thanks for welcoming me on your talk page, I needed a dose of civil discourse. Thank you (again) WNDL42 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of what you have mentioned as to what has gone on this article. I'm not sure in this case if we have unheard editors so much as editors who choose to come and go dependent on what is going on in the article. I don't have a solution, but I like the idea of civility and of taking all voices into account . I'm not sure how that translates into a practical solution. Visit here anytime.(olive (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

Being clear

I decided to leave a longer version of my message, here. I actually had started to believe the nightmare might be over, too. Coming to some kind of terms with you and MartinPhi on the lead seemed like a major accomplishment, and I hoped it would last for a while. I was happy when I got up in the morning and looked at it, and it was the same. I wasn't happy to see that it was protected again, and that the edit warring took up again within hours, however. I liked seeing that SA put back the version that the three of us had worked on, but didn't like seeing the edit war break out again. I'm only half joking when I say to delete and salt the article ... I'm not sure that it will ever stop being a tug-of-war, and I don't need the stress. I think it's important that the article reflect the scientific viewpoint, but I don't think it's all that important that there be an article at all.Kww (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree also that the lead should reflect the scientific viewpoint, and yes I too thought we were in the clear and had something that would please everyone. I don't know who reverted what since the whole thing happened quickly in the space of 1/2 an hour, while I was away from my computer. Thanks for your explanation and visit.(olive (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

BarnStone for Littleolive oil!!!

No fancy picture of a star, just my little "thank you" for all you do. You are truly a Wiki-gemstone. WNDL42 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wndl for your "Barnstone". I am honoured and feel humbled if I am seen as someone who can help the Wikipedia project in even the smallest way.(olive (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
Hi again Loo...we are getting nowhere at Bleep, and we are stuck exactly where we were here. The issues are identical today as they were then, but I think we will get a unanimous agreement to mediate this time and we should go for it. WNDL42 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I doubt that SA will go to mediation, that has not been his style.Can you compromise on the lead in any way.(olive (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, but fyi my response on the matter of compromise, just for completeness (essentially, WP can't compromise on WP:NPOV. WNDL42 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia can't compromise on NPOV but unfortunately NPOV isn't objective... thats "the rub"(olive (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

Mediation

Well, I think I have offered dozens of ideas for compromise, each one rejected explicitly or stonewalled. There is no compromise on WP:NPOV, as you know, and as long as the lead flagrantly attempts to set a "tone", it will never pass WP:NPOV. Here is what I mean:

Authors set a tone in literature by conveying an emotion/feeling or emotions/feelings through words...In literature an author sets the tone through words. The possible tones are bounded only by the number of possible emotions a human being can have.
Diction and syntax often dictate what the author's (or character's) attitude toward his subject is at the time.
An example:
"Charlie surveyed the classroom of dolts, congratulating himself for snatching the higher test grade, the smug smirk on his face growing brighter and brighter as he confirmed the inferiority of his peers."
The tone here is one of arrogance, Charlie refers to his classmates as "dolts" and the quip "inferiority of his peers" shows Charlie's belief in his own prowess. The words "surveyed" and "congratulating himself" show Charlie as seeing himself better than the rest of his class. The diction, including the word "snatching", gives the reader a mental picture of someone quickly and effortlessly grabbing something, which proves once again Charlie's pride in himself. Characteristically, of course, the "smug smirk" provides a facial imagery of Charlie's pride.

I can't accept the "tone" as the current lead (and proposals) convey. They need to be "toned down". Now, as two editors have clearly stated their absolute and unmoving desire for such a tone, I see no way out except for a mediation. If an individual editor wants to kill it again (I think he'll have a hard time given all the compromises that have been offered), then so be it. I was proud to vote in favor of mediation then and I'll be proud to vote for it again. WNDL42 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my undergrad degree, and some of my graduate work is in Literature. I have been at this for a very long time and the tone is much improved over some other versions . I guess thats where I am on this. I could compromise, because I feel the tone is approaching neutrality in some places Please note I do offer another version, somewhat more neutral. If you want to go for mediation go for it, but a mediation does not mean that anyone will agree with the comments from the mediator. (olive (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Don't panic

I didn't delete your vote ... I just deleted my version, put your version in its place, and moved your vote to line up. Since we were the only two that had registered an opinion, and I didn't mind your version, it seemed better to have only one version listed that two people could support.Kww (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol... Ok, Kww, you had me there for a minute.... good ....(olive (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Olive?

You added a new section to the bleep article - regarding offending section - to which I responded. However,now loooking, your comments there - valid ones - seem to have gone. If i have accidently deleted them, while inserting mine this was completely in error. I hope this was not the case but I hate WIKIs use of HTML. If this is the case it was not deliberate and please re-insert - I know that they can be brought back up form the history but have no idea how to do without a complete set of undos. Sorry Really2012back (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section as per your request.(olive (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Thank goodness - I mean that it wasn't me. I shall stop looking embarrassed now. Thank you.Really2012back (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

bleep

Well good luck with it. At a certain point, fanaticism becomes just too disturbing to be around. No big deal; at least in the real world, science types aren't anywhere nearly as fanatical and rude as their Wiki counterparts! Cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi LoO...

Returning from a long and beautiful weekend drive yesterday with my vso, I heard this:

on the radio..."The Inner Landscape of Beauty" about John O'Donohue (who passed last month) and I thought you would like it...very beautiful and relevant to Bleep (in a sense)...

You can download the mp3 here.

References to Reinhold Niebuhr and other great works too...

Cheers WNDL42 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wndl .... this looks wonderful .... I being part Celt and all...and being in pursuit of beauty(olive (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Too wierd. I am part Celt too, and on my trip to Ireland (business) in 2004 I managed a two day side trip to Limerick and County Clare (O'Donahue's home)...wow...I was blown away there! Strangest thing is that I was so excited to hear the NPR thing yesterday that I was sure I was going to share it with at least a half-dozen wiki-acquaintances, and you were the first I thought of...and only one I wound up dropping it to. Just wierd. !!!! WNDL42 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Click on the Celtic knot here for a daily dose of beauty and wisdom. There are hundreds of messages if you keep clicking the knot. WNDL42 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice Wndl .... thanks.(olive (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
You were right...see you (I hope) on another topic. WNDL42 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No apology necessary! You didn't leave anyone high and dry, you had the good sense to walk out of the room. Took me a little longer. WNDL42 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bleep article

I think we've finally managed to calm The Rationalist down. My personal take is that he hasn't gotten skilled at keeping track of the different editors and remembering each one's positions. I think he has gotten you confused with Wndl42.Kww (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to excuse the behaviour, just explain it. Unfortunately, sometimes there's a world of difference.Kww (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I know. Thanks. I really appreciate your comment.(olive (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
I hope that you don't let this kind of thing run you off forever. If the article gets done without your input, it just is going to wind up back in a war later because your perspective wasn't adequately represented. Believe me, I know how necessary a break from it can be.Kww (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Olive - while I know that we often don't agree - I'm with Kww in his comments and support your return if you have the "energy" :-). I think the problem that may develop at the moment that the remaining editors maybe so critical - no matter how good the intentions are - that this is reflected in the article. The one thing about you is that you will always only use reliable sources to support your arguments. Really2012back (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can summon up the energy, please say "yea" or "nay" here. If I ask an admin to edit the page in a protected state, I'd like to have one handy section for him to look at to determine people's stance.Kww (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll support whatever is agreed. The Rationalist (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry. The Rationalist (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Remote viewing

This is to inform you that I have filed a request for informal mediation on the article Remote viewing, and named you as a party. Best, ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

edit summary

Hi - regarding your "Apology: edit summary" on wp:civil... here's a trick you can use if you ever need to revise an edit summary;

Add another separate edit after the one you did that lost its edit summary. Make it an invisible edit, like add a space with a blank line near the bottom of the page.

Then, you can write in the new edit summary; "null edit for comment - " and then mention your previous edit and add the edit summary. That way it goes into the page history like a regular edit. That can be a useful method in some situations...

thanks for your help on the policy page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [3] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ermadog response

Ermadog. My non reponse to you on anything in the last 24 hour simply means I am very tired, have a very bad migraine, have to stay off-line, and shouldn't even be here right now. There was no request for consensus on anything and non was given from my side. I am not sure what you are talking about, actually. If you are referring to my warning on civility ... such a warning is a courtesy since your behaviour was blockable.(olive (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

small addition to Remote viewing article

Hello, I have been discussing with User:JzG about changes to the lead of this article. Since Guy seems to respect your opinion, could you go to the talk page and opinate on the changes that have been done on the last days? Specifically, could you assess about adding "without the use of the five senses" to the first sentence? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just be happy if you comment on Guy's talk page to convinve him to use that. Getting him to accept "apparently" as a replacement for "ostensibly" would also greatly reduce the chance of another edit war. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tutankhamun

Hi, I have protected it for 6 months given the constant vandalism it gets when unprotected. It is a very high profile target it would seem. I had noticed it was getting vandalised more and more, once again. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You should know

Olive, you all should know that Shoemaker's Holiday has accused you of being Martin's meat puppet. [4] Tom Butler (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusation

I apologise for the accusation, I've never dealt with meatpuppetry before, and the only rshouldn't have made even a tentative question about it publicly, as I suspect that any editor who was familiar with it would tell me I was wrong wrong wrong. Sorry. I'm still concerned about Martinphi, but mentioning you was a severe lapse in judgement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

I remember you from the Simple English Wikipedia. What a surprise to see you here! Cheers, Razorflame 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Essay idea

Hi. I really like what you said here. I wonder if you know about the m:Dispute resolution analysis group we've set up at Meta? If you'd like to join, you're certainly welcome, as is anyone else who you think might be interested. Not much has happened there yet, but these things can move slowly, or in fits and starts. I'm currently mulling over some thoughts about article-based strategies versus editor-based ones, and I think I may post them there, to centralize discussion a bit, and try to generate some energy around the project. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Edits Per Day

Wikipedia:Edits Per Day, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edits Per Day and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Edits Per Day during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Just a note that you may want to be a little more careful in your copyediting - a couple of them (out of a dozen or so) actually added grammatical errors. Otherwise, there is nothing objectionable about them, that I can see. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Though as a reader of Victorian novels I like to shove in commas everywhere, so it looks a ltittle odd to see 'em missing =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Adding your essay to civility page

I certainly don't mind; please feel free to use it in any way you desire. :-) Kirill (prof) 00:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Response

I responded to you at User talk:Vassyana. Cheers! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi

I'm sorry if my comment wasn't sensitive, I just thought it might help to remind Martin that there were reasons that he was being treated differently from other people, which might help calm him down and stop some of the drama being created. I've refactored it, hopefully to a less confrontational wording. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just thought that he was going a little over the top with his upset, and making a situation that he could have dealt with and come out of smelling like roses (by simply being very careful for, say, a month or two, then going to Vassyana and asking for the topic ban to be repealed) into a huge wikidrama by making such a big thing out of it. He has every right to object, but he isn't objecting in ways that are going to help himself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Those would be good diffs to bring up at WP:AE. --Elonka 00:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

I agree your version is a good start, but think that it'd be better to hash it out on the talk page - otherwise we'd all end up communicating through edit summaries. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC template

Hi, Olive. Got your message. Should happen automatically, but apparently it takes a while for it to show up. Has it been over an hour? TimidGuy (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like there's a problem, then. Will try to take a closer look this afternoon. TimidGuy (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I took your revert of me to be very rude

This diff indicates an edit I find particularly rude and condescending. You essentially do the following:

  1. Accuse me of deleting without discussing.
  2. Proclaim that such actions should be discussed on talk before being done.

Now, the problem with these things is that I indicated quite clearly in my edit summary why I was doing what I was doing and it was more than just simple "deletion". Secondly, the appeal to the talk page looks really obnoxious considering that you didn't make any comments on the talkpage yourself when editing the article. Why do you not have to use the talkpage but I have to? Instead of dealing substantively with the edit and explaining, perhaps, why you think the other version is better, you appeal to the base motivations of wikilawyering and obstructionism characteristic of the feet-dragging I often see employed by people who consistently refuse to work collaboratively with me.

Frankly, I find that diff a stinky violation of WP:POINT, WP:AGF, and a flagrant lack of collaborative spirit.

I'm very disappointed.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I thank you for explaining. Just know that in the future it's nicer when someone who asks for discussion to be had on a talk page starts the discussion themselves. Otherwise it just feels really like I'm trying to negotiate with mute ghosts. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the Dreadstar RFC

Thank you for providing those comments, as I too felt very uncomfortable with the tenor of the accusation made against an admin. I did not want to comment on the talk page to inflame the discussion further but I did want to commend you for taking a reasonable position and enunciating it well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC).

Invite


WikiProject Visual arts

You are welcome to join WikiProject Visual arts, a collaboration between like-minded Wikipedians in order to improve visual arts coverage.

Ty 03:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Comment on the page on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Hi Olive,

I saw your comment on Mike's page, so here's a copy of my post there.

Re "this is an encyclopedia, not a means of distributing slogans"

I added the section headed "Themes", and I'm sorry you don't like it. One of the things that makes Maharishi interesting is his contribution to the discussion of consciousness. The extracts I added are headlines for topics he dealt with in hundreds of hours of lectures and a number of books. There is a large community (and not just Maharishi's mob) that is expert in such matters, and I feel the article is unbalanced if it doesn't give a brief pointer to his thinking.

If you think I've gone about it the wrong way, instruction welcome: this is my first go at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.21.249 (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing for us to do is take this to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi talk page. We can work this out there. Thanks for the post here, and for keeping me informed.(olive (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)) OK, thanks, Olive. See you there. Ber (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC format

Hello, can I suggest you take your comment into a section of your own? It normally goes under "Outside view". The section you posted in should not get expanded at this point, because it's already been signed by several people (who may or may not agree with your passage). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

Littleoilve oil, we've been through this before, and I don't want to have to take this to arbitration. You don't own the page for Transcendental Meditation, nor are you authorized to police the page for edits that you do not approve. My edits were clearly within WP guidelines, my edit summaries clear and precise, and the page is not under any kind of protection. Your reverts, however, are against WP policy. If you'd like to discuss my changes, do so, but you are not empowered to revert capricously. Naturezak (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The massive change as you just made ... please read the tag at the head of the discussion page... on an aspect of an article that has been discussed before is not an appropriate action to take on a contentious article. Yes, please take this to arbitration. This section in particular has been well and completely discussed in the past. As well I consider your tone and comment to be threatening. Not good,
I haven't even looked at the other changes. Lets take a look there too shall we to see what is happening there.(olive (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

Please note this specifically refers to the discussion on you action, and so I will be posting this on the discussion page of the TM artilce as well as here and on your talk page for your convenience. Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC))

I'm sure my irritation will not be misconstrued as a threat. You have an established record of discouraging edits at the TM article with wikilawyering, and I would be pleased if either you could be brought to realize that such habits are contrary to the spirit of WP, or that your behavior be reined in through administrative action. In any case, that is the source of my irritation; the point in contention asks whether your reverts were arbitrary. If you feel the need to take it to arbitration, you should do so. I'm confident I've acted within my rights as a contributor. Naturezak (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Naturzak. I will be answering this post on the TM talk page, and will not continue this discussion here.(olive (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
Thank you for the courteous message. I am confident that my changes were within WP guidelines, and that yours and TG's were not. If my changes continue to be "revoked" without discussion, we may have to bring it to external arbiters. Naturezak (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

However, I have made one revert - alas each revert is separate because it was a revert to a separate revert.

Can I also point out WIKI guidelines about members of a commercial entity editing that entities wiki entry The7thdr (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)?

AfD discussion

L, I wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I understand your concerns, but maybe we should stop talking about them in an AfD discussion. For my part, I kind of think I was right to point out the failings in Dreadstar's position, though I admit (and have admitted in the discussion) that I could have been less sharp about doing so. When someone says that A is wrong to do when they have done A themselves and are proud of having done so, it creates a contradiction, and it is appropriate to point that out in a discussion where A is being discounted as a practice, though perhaps more politely than I did. It might have been fueled by the fact that Dreadstar had previously preemptively closed the AfD in less than six hours after it was opened (most AfD'srun for about five days). As well, Dreadstar proved to be quite resistant to relisting the AfD, and only did so after many of his fellow admins pointed out that he made a mistake. Maybe I should have afforded him more good faith; maybe I could take a lesson from this. That said, when I see a contradiction, I am going to point it out. - Hexhand (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility essay

This is a courtesy note to let you know that I've added your essay on civility to a category. As someone who has written on civility on Wikipedia, you might also be interested in the latest discussion at WT:CIV. There are a number of threads from the last few days - see the bottom of the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget

to sign your comments. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on WP:SYNTH

Since you have previously been involved in discussions about the policy WP:NOR, it appears that you have a depth of understanding about this policy. I would appreciate your comments concerning an application of this policy's section WP:SYNTH here. Thank you. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

CONTENT

Your continued wikistalking of me to unrelated areas strikes me as rude and your singular attachment to my account is getting out-of-hand. Your defense of Wikipedia-defying editors who wish to see Wikipedia as something other than a mainstream encyclopedia has only sharpened as I've followed your activities. Why do you always oppose me?

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

SA what a lot of assumptions you make. What wikidefying editors? The last comment I made in support of an editor was a case filed by Sheffield Steel, not by you. I have supported Martinphi rather than opposed you. I do watch the policy pages because I have strong interest in collaborative communities and I edit there because of that interest . Don't take it personally if you should happen to be there too. There is no one on Wikipedia I oppose for the sake of opposing them. Ever. I do support certain situations,if, contrary to what you think I feel, that the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not being applied fairly and if I feel that some small comment by me could make a difference. I don't see Wikipedia-defying editors SA . I see editors doing the best they can and if its not fair, in my mind, I am going to try and help make it fair despite what it might cost me. I support neutrality on Wikipedia above all. Why are you following my activities, I might ask. Hmmm ... an interest in Rauschenberg's paintings or Odd Nerdrum perhaps.(olive (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help!

Nothing worse than when some yahoo gets on this site for sole purpose of trolling. Your gratitude sure does make me glad I have rollback privileges.  :) Talk to you soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I noticed that you have been involved in previous WP:SYNTH discussions at Wikipedia talk:No original research. Would you care to comment on the section Wikipedia talk:No original research#Insidious OR? Thank you. --Thermoproteus (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CIVIL=CIVIL

A belated thanks for making the changes regarding the use of "civil" to define and explain "civil". IMHO the article reads well. --Buster7 (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Olive!

I hope you have a great evening, and get to spend the time with friends and family, dear! And thank you for everything you've done this year for me, it means more than I can ever say. I just hope you know that your help and support have meant the world to me. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 02:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rauschenberg

I didn't add it, I simply moved it to the left to stop it interfering with the info box. Anyhow, moved it as requested. It would be nice to include an image of his earlier work... tyre print, dirt pics or grass at the stable gallery? Might try to sort it later if no one objects.Franciselliott (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences comment

I took extreme offense to your comment at List of pseudosciences. I commented there, but would like it if you would retract or reword the statement which is NOT based in fact but rather based in your own romanticization of China. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

SA.I will apologize to you for one thing and that is for not having the will or time to play this game with you. Traditional medicine is alive in multiple countries and China is one of them. If you feel I have a romanticized version of China, then that's fine. I fully respect the fact that you have a right to your opinion. This conversation is finished for me(olive (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Be careful what you do

Some people who look for socks do it with good intentions. But some accusations turn out to be wrong. Wrong accusations chase people away from WP so the accuser becomes a sneaky vandal. I urge you to look at people's edits and comment on the edits and stop this sock nonsense. I was blocked for being a sock until the person said "oops" and unblocked me. The damage is done; I don't want to edit anymore. I continue to comment and help others with editing but won't do so myself.

Please be mature and just comment on editing and help with editing and help others with editing. Don't be a busybody and accuse people of being socks, run secret checkusers (which nobody can verify, it's just witchcraft).

Spevw (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Spevw.. I think you misunderstand. Martinphi is not this sock, and I know that. The only way to clear him is to have a Checkuser check the account. No worries ... But thank you for your concern and I'm sorry about your situation.(olive (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Then do not proxy the problem to the checkuser. Simply say that this Martinphi is a good editor and any accusations of sockpuppetry are inappropriate (assuming he is a good editor). The checkuser is given dictatorship powers and the information cannot not publically verified due to privacy reasons. So let's just evaluate people on their edits. Spevw (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Be sure that I act in the very best interests of this user.(olive (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Category "Wikipedia style guidelines"

Hi,

Did you know your userpage is showing up in Category:Wikipedia style guidelines here ?, Regards,  Badgernet  ₪  17:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks, I didn't.... not sure how it got there.... but I changed the only action I made recently, and if that doesn't work I'll go over and delete it .... is that OK.(olive (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
OK, all fixed  Done, Best wishes,  Badgernet  ₪  17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks.... strange....(olive (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC))


Notice

Hello Littleolive oil. You've been mentioned at WP:COIN#Article: Transcendental Meditation, Users TimidGuy and Littleolive oil. You are welcome to join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Littleolive oil, is there some reason that you are not responding to the complaint?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI calls upon editors to behave in a certain way. There is evidence that you have not followed that guideline. If there is no evidence to the contrary, I will move that both editors with COIs be asked to comply with the guideline, in this case by not editing TM-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The WP:COI noticeboard is the place to discuss this. The guideline calls on conflicted editors to not edit in their areas of conflict so it's incumbent on you to show why you've done so anyway.   Will Beback  talk  05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
To clarify further, it would help if you can show instances in which you've "edited for the enemy", which can mean adding or improving material that is contrary to your own POV or removing material which promotes your POV. Considering that you've made almost 300 edits to TM alone with another 124 to MUM, the presumption is that you have been making substantive edits and the burden is on you to show that they haven't skewed the articles. The mere agreement of several editors on a talk page does not override the requirement for NPOV, so it may not be helpful just to say "that was discussed". Also, this isn't about the other editors. This is about your personal responsibility to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No disresepct is intended, but the guidelines strongly discourages editing in fields where you have a conflict of interest, and you chose to do so anyway. I'm not sure how that demonstrates the "highest regard". If you've been as careful as you suggest, then you should be able to deomnstrate that.   Will Beback  talk  06:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked closely at your edits, but this is one of the first I checked.[6] It does not appear to be NPOV. I hope you can explain how it improved the NPOV of an article about an apparent TM practitioner.   Will Beback  talk  06:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What!!! I have an MFA and work on artist pages. Bill Viola is a well recognized artist in the field of electronic media. I know very little about him since I am a painter, and only landed there by accident, but will attempt to clean the article up and learn something in the meantime This comment came out of a source I have not ref. to yet because I was overwhelmed in the TM article. Bill Viola as far as I know is not a TM meditator. I have never heard that if he is...The edit was a replacement for one that had no source and was very general. My edit was a direct reference for the Whitney Museum ..... Sheesh .... Absolutley astounding....POV? (olive (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
I may have misinterpreted this page.[7] Regardless, it's always a good idea to cite POV statements.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is TM and MUM. If Viola is unrelated then that edit is irrelevant and I apologize for bringing it up.   Will Beback  talk  07:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that, after our discussion on WP:COI, that you are making edits which promoted a particular POV regarding TM. I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism. As I explained on the article talk page, this is not a clear-cut case. Promoting one view by deleting another isn't consistent with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Will with the utmost respect.. I know this court case and my edit was as I just said on the article talk page a clear case of OR. The puja is controversial at the best of times but this addition was made without an inappropriate source, in a section that is a simple and informative in terms of the teaching. This is OR even if the source given was any good which it wasn't. I have to function stringently within policy. I have to or I couldn't argue the aggressive and personal attacks that are leveled against me. I won't attack the editors as I have been attacked but I must attack the edits if they aren't compliant. I have no other recourse but to be stringent . When an editor makes multiple edits as 7th did while he knew I was under scrutiny and most if not all of those edits slants towards a religious view of TM when in fact that is not necessarily how it is viewed in the mainstream, then I am mistrustful of that kind of action. I did not consider the edit to be controversial, but a simple one word edit that had clear OR concerns. If a source is found for that statement then I think another discussion would be appropriate. Had I been trying to skew the article somehow beleive me 7th has given me lots of fuel to create all kinds of edit wars, reverts . I didn't do that. I took the clearest, simplest situation and with clear explanation removed it with the intent as the heading says to bring up the other concerns one by one and discussing them. Pages of discussion on one word are pretty exhausting and I hoped that the clear concerns would be apparent so we could move onto the more difficult situations, discussions and edits. Npov means to me that both sides of a situation are presented.There is literature, refs., sources on both sides of the TM and religion discussion. The teaching procedure section needs to be neutral and it is that if religious is left out unless a long diatribe is place in that section showing both side again as is neutral. Why do that when there is already another section in which material on religion on TM is dealt with.(olive (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC))
I don't object to moving material that's in the wrong place, but you know perfectly well that it is viewed as a religious ceremony by reliable sources, so it's a bit unfair to say you're deleting it because of an inadequate source provided as a citation. The main point is that this is a issue strongly related to POV, and that WP:COI calls on editors who are closely connected to a topic to avoid getting into these kinds of conflicts. I've asked the other editor to seek consensus before making contentious edits. If you guys could simply agree to stuff beforehand then this wouldn't be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought you said you were familiar with the topic, so when I spend three minutes on Google and find reliable sources I have to wonder why there is a dispute over the sourcing. I again urge you to read WP:COI. You should really only make edits whose neutrality is unquestionable, unless you want them to be questioned. The matter of whether TM or its elements constitute a religion is obviously contentious. In the future, in this circumstance, maybe it'd be better to post on the talk page a question, like "we already discuss whther puja is a religious ceremony in a later section. Do we need to mention that here too? If we do we should give both sides". That's better than saying, "I deleted the text because I don't agree with that interpretation," which is a loose interpretation of what you said. It's better if everyone tries to work cooperatively.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess there is no sense in my saying more. I did and still do consider that edit to be neutral. AGF mean we don't all think alike or react and work alike . Because I edited in a particular way does not mean its wrong. The edit created neutrality in that section because it did not label the puja one way or the other. Adding religious shifts the balance and defines it in one way. Only if one sees the truth as being that Puja is religious would my edit seem to be non neutral. I see it both ways so I removed anything that created a POV one way or the other. Whatever I have done in the past has not worked in terms of discussion and for the most part jut brings attacks ....Whatever(olive (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

(olive (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Happy Littleolive oil/Archive 1's Day!

User:Littleolive oil/Archive 1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Littleolive oil/Archive 1's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Littleolive oil/Archive 1!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

TM discussions

Thanks for your patience. I'm busy and don't have the time to participate in the discussions as much as I'd like. Addressing your surprise: The old external links were there in an attempt to address the NPOV problems, which is inappropriate. However, that doesn't mean that some of those external links are not perfectly acceptable sources with which to address the NPOV problems in the article itself. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I am not available for Mediation on the TM Article. Fladrif (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to be included in mediation.--Kbob (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of notes re TM

Sorry about my comments [8]. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was referring to you specifically with regard to focusing on content. I've refactored it.

Did you start a mediation request yet, or were just checking to see who'd be interested? Have you considered WP:NPOVN instead? --Ronz (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Regarding mediation, there is a set of dispute resolution procedures, and formal mediation is the last step for content disputes, not the first. Better first steps include posting requests at relevant noticeboards or filing RfCs. Only after those have been done should informal mediation be requested, and only after that has failed should formal mediation be tried. So I don't think a request for mediation would even be accepted. That said, I'm willing to participate in any dispute resolution procedures that are appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  23:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I will be applying for Formal mediation. If its not accepted fine, but I will be applying.Thanks
Meantime, please explain your deletion of sourced material. A pending request for mediation is not a proper reason, and I haven't seen any offered on the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, our edits crossed.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see the TM Talk page, and at no time did I say or suggest that mediation was the reason for the deletion.(olive (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
I'm sorry to hear that you've had phone calls, which I presume are harassing. Unfortunately, there's really nothing that folks at Wikipedia can do - it's a matter for police and I encourage you to contact them.
Regarding the article, please don't make accusations, sich as saying that I'm playing a game. You deleted material saying it isn't neutral so it is your responsibility to say how it isn't neutral. Also, it's probably inappropriate to say that an editor "forced" material into the article when he first asked for input and then didn't receive any substantive, specific objections. If that's the definition of "forced" then almost every edit on Wikipedia is also "forced".
If editing Wikipedia is causing stress or anger then my best advice is to take a break. Best wishes.   Will Beback  talk  01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bugatti or Bugatto?

Are these two painters the same person? I stumbled on these two while fixing listas and living parameters on the WP Biography template. Perhaps you can untangle this.

Sorry About TimidGuy

Olive, thanks for the info about TimidGuy. I see your last few outreaches to him on his talk page, was hoping it was just a temporary thing. Luckily for the issue at hand, I have sent a message to more recent Neanderthal editor, and maybe I will hear back. In closing, I wish it weren't true that Wikipedia seems to be "no place for the timid".Middle Fork (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I picked him to contact about Neanderthal after reading back through some really tense discussions. His was a voice of reason and fairness. (Damn, its like we are talking about the dead. I am sure he is just resting.)Middle Fork (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Words

Well, thanks <blush>. It's only words; but words are all we have...

I suspect that the "apologies" envisioned by those expecting them here vary according to the same idiosyncratic viewpoints from which each of us seems to envision "civility." Then again, however unworkable and broken Wikipedia's Civility guidelines may be, at least most folks here try to come up with better words than "your stoopid." Steveozone (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi-of course I understood what you meant. I share your opinion of the situation; GTB is good and trying to do good. I think he tried a bit too hard, gave in to a "demand for an apology" (a complete nonsequitur), and "apologized" only in order to correct an unfortunate choice of words and prolong a discussion that should have ended at that point. Like you said, sometimes its the pacing and silence between words that makes all the difference.
Wow, my talk page has stuff on it now. Interesting. Steveozone (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Now you need some pictures... nothing like a picture or two to liven things up.(olive (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
Yeah, I guess my space is a bit spartan. Maybe I should try to find something to complement the tangle of computer wires, threadbare futon, empty cans and Doritos bags. ;) Steveozone (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So?

I don't need a nanny to count for me. But, since you seem to enjoy this passive-agressive exercise, let me turn the tables and remind you that, notwithstanding your nice little trick of having your profile history deleted, you are still subject to the COI rules, which you repeatedly and doggedly refuse to abide by. Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And, no, my reminding you of the COI Policy and the decisions that were made at the COI noticeboard by WillBeback is not, in any way, shape or form, harassment.Fladrif (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Just scroll up a bit on this very page. You don't even need to go the COI Noticeboard archive. Will told you not to edit any of the TM-related articles, not just the MUM article.15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll repeat. Will has no power to limit my editing abilities, but can offer advice. I was referencing the COI Notice board as were you. As well, Will, on the articles he edits , as he has on the TM articles, cannot use any of his admin tools, and is another editor just as we all are. Were he to use his "tools" he would seriously jeopardize his adminship. I notice the COI issue comes up again when you are in the middle of an edit conflict with several other editors who do not agree with your deletion of 7 1/2 paragraphs of sourced content. That smells a lot like harassment to me.(olive (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


David the next time you decide to accuse some one of lying please get the facts straight first, especially that you are posting the accusation in a public place. COI refers to edits not the editor. My edits are as neutral as I can make them, as any one with the time to look through my contributions will see. I have been accused of COI but the accusations both times came to nothing because I am a stringently as honest about my editing as I am about adhering to Wikipedia policy. My user page was oversighted because I have had anonymous phone calls that coincide strangely with the editing environment at the time . In such cases an editor can ask that any information that will lead other unscrupulous editors to harass off Wikipedia be deleted. I have also had other information removed off Wikipedia. I actually find your accusation quite astonishing since you didn't even ask but assumed then then proceeded to lecture. Not a nice experience.(olive (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, I would like to apologize for my unwarranted lecture. I assumed that what I found on that page was correct because it was an official W page. You are certainly entitled to your privacy and should only be criticized if you do a bad job as an editor. Although I have not always agreed with your editing decisions, and although I have misgivings about you and the other "permanent" editors "owning" articles (because it results in really badly written articles and an atmosphere of conflict), you certainly aren't personally responsible for the sad state of this article and have made positive contributions. Furthermore, I myself have absolutely no knowledge of your situation and I should not have injected myself into your business like that. Please accept my heartfelt apology. I certainly know what it feels like to be attacked in public, since I am currently being attacked on multiple fronts. I will be much more careful of jumping to conclusions in the future. David spector (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, David. I try to remember that almost all of Wikipedia can be edited by any editor even policy pages and Jimbo Wales page, so we always have to keep our eyes open, I guess, for error, or at the least opinion.(olive (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC))

183 IQ?

Littleolive oil, Is it really true that you have an IQ of 183? [13 August entry in Talk:TM] That seems impossibly high. If true, it's extremely impressive. Too bad editing is egalitarian :) because it would be nice to keep people of lesser intelligence (or at least, of lesser writing ability) from continuing to dither over and mess up the TM article. David spector (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

David we were joking about IQ'S. I have no idea what my IQ is. I've spent about 9 years in university and that's about all I need to remember.:O)(olive (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

Reception to or Reception of

Hi, Olive. Please explain why you changed of to to. My understanding of what this title means to convey is that it is the reception OF Hagelin's comparison by others, in this case by scientists as viewed by a reporter. Reception to does not make sense to me at all. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Chem I originally went in to clean up the section. There was a signature there for some reason. The section as I understand it is about the reception this apsect of Hagelins' research has received from others ... the reaction to or reception to his reseacrh from others. One reacts to something. I think the syntax of "reception of" is not quite right.
I had made that change before so just changed it again. I'm not attached to it, but I think its a syntax question.(olive (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC))
Aren't we talking about the reception OF his comparison by others? "Reaction to" and "reception of" mean almost the same thing in this context. Other scientists have "reacted to" his comparison. That statement makes sense to me. The "reception of" his comparison by other scientists (how his comparison was received) says almost the same thing, but is a passive state. It's just the nature of the construction. Either the section is about the other scientists reaction to the ideas or it is about how the ideas were received by the other scientists. One is active and the other is passive. The active needs a "to" and the passive an "of" to make sense. To me this is the choice. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

TM Vandalism

Olive, when you come across vandalism like today on the TM talk page do you do anything to report that editor's activity etc.? Just wanting to know what is correct procedure.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. It could we be short lived, and looks pretty much of the adolescent variety. If it continues I'll leave a warning on the talk page and then if still continues notify an admin. to warn and or block. An IP vandalizing a few times may not even look at a talk page. Generally this kind of vandal just disappears, in my experience anyway. (olive (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC))
The vandalism continues [9]-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked by Will.[10](olive (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC))
That's good, as Bob Dylan once said "the pumps don't work cuz the vandals took the handles". Words to live by :-) thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 11:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility policy

Thank you for your advice on this. I wonder if you could help me identify the other policy pages where notices would be appropriate, as I don't know what they might be? I have added an RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies. Thank you. Brews ohare (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions; I believe I have followed them through. Brews ohare (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copywrite

Hi Olive, I came across this older version of the Wiki article on TM, on the web. Does Wiki allow this? Do you know? [11].-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob. There are versions of Wikipedia articles all over the web. I'm not sure it matters whether the version is older or not, I'd say not since Wikipedia articles are in constant flux. Is this some kind of copyright violation? I 'm sorry, I don't know, but if it is it would be massively difficult to enforce given the number of "encyclopedias" that use Wikipedia articles. User:MBisanz is a highly knowledgeable admin. who might be able to help you on this. (olive (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

Thanks for removing the duplicate cite tags. I forgot to do that when I added the cite banner today. My brain was tired. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Playing fair

It's usually considered proper to leave a note announcing a noticeboard thread so that other interested editors can participate.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I always suggest editors read the discussion... and perhaps ask me if i've posted a notification, and if not, why not instead of assuming I'm not playing fair. Since I've always notified editors when I went to a Notice board and since you know that, why not give me the benefit of the doubt. The assumptions from some editors in these discussions that I'm not honest is beyond tedious. I'll bold the post notification incase it was hard to see. Thanks. (olive (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC))
My apologies - I missed your notification.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it's the bare external link that made it obscure, not the lack of bolding. When folks write, "There somthing important here: [1}", I'm much less likely to follow it then when they say, "There's something important at RSN, see here []". I tend not to follow every external link offered, both because of the time it takes to see something of unknown relevance, and because on-Wiki discussions are best kept on-wiki. Anyway, I'll try to pay more attnetion to your editing on this matter to avoid confusion in the future. Apologies again.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

David Anthony Kraft

Hi, I noticed that you removed DAK's birthdate and age from his article, citing "owner request" to do so. I'm just curious: is that Wikipedia policy to respect the subject's wishes in regard to their age being posted? Or is it generally Wikipedia policy to include all relevant information, when available and not slanderous or libelous — even if the subject of the article doesn't like it? Thanks -- stoshmaster (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

COIs

Year after year, editors keep complaining about COI on the TM-related articles. The issue hasn't been resolved in the past, and editors appear committed to keeping it unresolved. As an admin, I try to solve problems that are preventing Wikipedia from achieving its aims. I'm sorry if you perceive my efforts as harassment; they aren't intended to be. I couched my requests in ways that didn't require any personal disclosures and that afforded a face-saving exit. The rejection of the those requests leaves fewer avenues for resolution.   Will Beback  talk  07:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

A face saving exit, from what? You imply shame. For what? Editing in a neutral manner. How insulting to equate your stated Wikipedia mission with editors who work as hard as you do to advance Wikipedia as if they do not care about Wikipedia, and its aims. What an assumption of bad faith. You continue to mischaracterize: Nobody said this, made this comment, "putting TM ahead of Wikipedia is itself a COI" . Its an invention. For what purpose? How does this kind of mischaracterization of other editors advance Wikipedia. You know very well that on COIN found no fault was found. yet this comes up again and again Why is that? is that the fault of the editors who in the middle of some discussion, face another editor who gets frustrated and leaps over to the COIN to see if they can have the editors removed from the discussion. This is what happens again and again. I'm sure you are a good admin. Consider these points.
You could take this to ArbCom. I'm not concerned to have my work scrutinized. Are you? Is Fladrif? (olive (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

so is this how I do it

Olive -- just learning here. Another question... I assume I don't have to sign since you will know it's me because it shows up I made this change? well just in case I will sign yoaniedits <-- formerly... now I'm happily leaving it to others!!!!! oh and what's with signing with 4 tildes? Yoaniedits (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... looks like the tildes made my name and the time appear... very clever... I will try it again to be sure. Yoaniedits (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiepolo Question

Olive -- I am new to wikipedia, and I would like to help clean up the Giovanni Battista Tiepolo page. I was just wondering whether any of his paintings deserve their own page, and whether pages for particular paintings are frowned upon. My sense is that they are since their seem to be so few them. Juliensorelnyc (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability so if there are enough WP:Reliable and WP:Verifiable secondary sources, an article could be written about any individual painting. For example, there is an article on the Mona Lisa. You might want to work on the Tiepolo page first and develop it somewhat. You may find as you do that you come across sources for the individual works that you could then develop into articles of their own.
As an aside parts of the Tiepolo article are written in a rather flamboyant, non encyclopedic style I had intended to fix but never got around to it. If I remember some of that kind of content may be plagiarized too, so it should be rewritten and sourced. Anyway, great that you want to work on that article. If I have time I'll join you.(olive (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC))

Tawny Owl

Hi, I thought I should explain why I reverted your edits to the Tawny Owl article. While I enthusiastically appreciate your intent, I think in this case it didn't work.

For example, this edit with the summary 'run-on sentences'. This is not an example of a run-on sentence; as our article states, that would involve using no conjunctions or punctuation (or possibly just a comma). The conjunctions here make it already perfectly grammatical, while adding 'the' before foxes is wrong (unless foxes refers to several species of fox, but the link is just to red fox).

Again, this edit. I'd guess you were trying to remove the use of the passive voice. While this is often (not always, though) a good idea, in this case your edit retained the passive in practice but made the sentence ungrammatical. One can't say 'claims are'; 'there are claims' would be OK, but no better than the original. In any case, here the passive is only a problem if the claims haven't been sourced later in the article (I haven't read that far, so I don't know the answer to that).

Cheers, HenryFlower 06:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. For what it's worth, I left your first edit, which I thought was fine; WP:OWN is at any rate not an issue, as I hadn't seen the article until today. HenryFlower 17:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Signpost?

Monday's Policy Report is going to be on WP:Civility, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Mohammad Atrianfar

Thanks for jumping into Mohammad Atrianfar. It looks much better now. Keep up the good work, Madman (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Progress

Thanks for your note. I think the TM-related articles are getting better and better.   Will Beback  talk  23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Category

Per common courtesy, I notified the creator of the category.[12] Per Wikipedia policy, I placed a banner on the category announcing the discussion. The discussion was open for eight days. If you'd like to propose a different name, or moving it back, then you're welcome to open a fresh discussion.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Border Collie article

Hello! Just a note, I noticed your recent edit to the referenced article and have a minor concern. I created a section on the talk page, Talk:Border_Collie#Recent_edit that I'd like you to take a look at. Thanks. Vulture19 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New User

Thanks for you comment on the new editor. I just wanted to bring this to an admins attention. It seems our new editor is quite familiar with TM and the history of the TM and TM related articles. It will be interesting to see how this develops. --BwB (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

I don't understand why you're confused. Here's what I wrote at the beginning of the thread.

  • Why are we adding a whole section devoted to a single study that hasn't received any attention? If we were to add a paragraph for every study we'd overwhelm the article with primary sources. The appropriate weight would be something more like a sentence in "other studies".   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why we added this study to the article and why we're devoting so much space to it. You won't say if you think the Canada study is primary or secondary, but two other editors have said they think it's a secondary source. Until we can come to an agreement over which sources are primary and which are secondary then it will be hard to agree on how to treat them. Does that help clarify things?   Will Beback  talk  03:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We've discussed several aspects of this study. The reason I'd assumed you were saying that it wasn't a primary source is that you rejected the definitions in WP:MEDRS, even though they seem to apply equally to other scientific studies. If you want to keep the discussion going while Luke discusses his views of PSTS then that's fine, but since he tends to reply sporadically I don't think there will be a quick resolution. TimidGuy is also asserting that it's a secondary study. And there's a parallel dispute over at the MVAH talk page, so we should settle the primary/secondary issue. I linked to a discussion between you and DGG last September. If folks want to assert that any of these studies are secondary sources then the burden is those who wish to add the material.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
That discussion was an attempt to explain to Kbob the difference between first second, and third party sources as compared to primary, secondary, tertiary sources. DGG did a much better job of explaining it to Kbob than I did. The discussion wasn't between DGG and me, but was a response to Kbob 's question.(olive (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
If you think you understand the difference between a primary and a secondary source then I can't argue with that. But I disagree that the papers we're discussing are secondary sources for the studies.   Will Beback  talk  04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There are many kinds of reliable primary sources. Papers reporting studies in peer-reviewed journals are one kind. Other kinds include court documents, tax records, census reports, interviews, and memoirs. That fact that some of these may be reliable doesn't make them secondary sources. WP:V is just one of the core policies, all of which work together. WP:NOR says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."   Will Beback  talk  11:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I think we are at cross purposes here. I know what primary sources are, and I am familiar with the policies. I have never said peer reviewed studies are either primary or secondary sources. However, I have a published, scientist friend who asserts that the actual data and paper are the primary sources while the publication in a journal becomes the secondary source. I haven't specified where I stand. WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR both say peer reviewed journals are reliable sources. Both are two "of three core content policies", and as such must be taken as dominant policies. WP:Verifiability says,"Verifiability, in this context, means that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, and both Verifiability and NOR clearly say that peer reviewed studies are reliable sources. As an aside: WP:MEDRS says, "The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles.", another place we have to be careful of. One wonders how reliable Randi or a popular press newspaper article is as a source for comment on medical related research.
Pigeon holing anything is in my mind a somewhat futile business, and in the case of medicine possibly a dangerous business, one of the very reason WP:MEDRS was created. The issues in such articles is the safety of the reader so a single study may not be the most authoritative source for something like cures for cancer, in which case, sources that cite multiple studies for example, are probably better. We can call these studies anything, even lollipops, but we have to discriminate rather than pigeon hole to use them . I am suggesting that if the studies are used as information about themselves, for example, the Maharishi Effect is only a meaningful topic if we lay out the ME effect studies, then single, peer-reviewed studies are not only acceptable, but are necessary. If we want to use a study to support a claim made in an article of some kind, especially a medical article where the information may affect a reader's health, and in claims made in an article beyond the boundaries of the study, then multiple studies and published comments in reliable sources are the best kind of sourcing per WP:MEDRS.
In adding studies on the Maharishi Effect the issue is not what we call the studies, but how we use them. They are descriptors of the study, and are not so-called sources used to make claims. The real concern is "weight" and if, we are using the best studies we have to describe the ME.(olive (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi

Olive, hi. As a long-time (but inconsistent) WP editor with a special interest in the TM article, I was very concerned to stumble across some references to harassment and other obnoxious behavior toward you and TimidGuy (at least). I'm sure none of the current TM editors would do this, thank God, but this news worries me. Would it be possible for me to talk with you directly about this? I feel that it would help my job as an editor to understand what has gone on here. I am particularly interested in talking with you about this (and perhaps other topics) interactively by phone or Skype. Please let me know how you feel about this. Please contact me in private by using the Contact Us form at www.nsrusa.org . No one sees such messages except me. Feel free to delete this section after reading. I assure you that everything said between us will be kept private (I am a mature adult) and that nothing said between us will have a negative influence on my functioning as a WP editor. Thanks, David spector (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The best would be for you to email if you have questions or anything you would like to discuss. My Wikipedia email is enabled.(olive (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

You've reverted the TM-Sidhi page 4 times this afternoon

Three reverts and a "rewrite" which reverted an edit from the prior day. Since you seem to regard noting these things as a courtesy, I thought you'd like to know that you crossed the bright line.Fladrif (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice. I appreciate it. (olive (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on TM-Sidhi program. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. NJA (t/c) 08:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite.php on talkpages

I cannot be bothered to edit-war over the toc of a talkpage, but I must ask you again to please stop using cite.php references on talkpages, and to stop moving the trailing {{reflist}} to the talkpage bottom. Since unlike articles, talkpages are read "from the bottom", it is extremely annoying to have a list of cite.php references at the bottom of the page. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be direct in your talkpage posts.

Other editors have commented to me that they believe you are making oblique references to me on WP:FTN in this diff. If that is the case, I would ask you to not do that ever again. If you have problems with me, take them up with me directly. If you were not referring to me, then I apologize for bothering you with this note, but recommend that you stop writing in vague hypotheticals that can easily be misinterpreted.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SA. With alI respect, I really have no desire to discuss anything with you. I find your comments on the Fringe NB to be too uncivil, and too based in, at the best, misunderstanding for my time. Perhaps in the future if we must discuss something we can do it in slightly more collegial manner than is now evident on the Notice Board.(olive (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
If you feel that you cannot "discuss anything" with me, then simply do not talk about me directly or indirectly. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Your'e right SA, I should have asked you directly why you were changing the Fringe Theories guideline while you were engaged in a contentious discussion on the Fringe Notice Board, and advising the very deletion of studies in the middle of a discussion on them. I assumed an oblique reference was gentler, and I assumed good faith but felt a notice was warranted. In the future should the environment be civil I will approach you directly rather than make a suggestion that was meant to be more of a concern than an accusation. If however, incivility is the environment you prefer I will continue to address my concerns in the way I feel is necessary. (olive (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
Well, not that you asked (though you stated you should have asked), but I've been working on this particular "evaluating claims" section of the Fringe Theories guideline for some time before I became involved in the conflicts over TM. Right now, the collaboration regarding the wording of that particular section is being done between four different editors on the talk page. If you see any impropriety in my proposals there and my insistence on taking WP:PSTS, WP:REDFLAG, etc. seriously, please show me where it is. I advised deletion of a selection of prose on the TM-Sidhi page for reasons that I outlined very clearly in the section. I'm open to alternative proposals and, in fact, stated that deletion should be the last thing considered.
As for "gentler" environments, there is this ongoing problem at Wikipedia that people think if they just talk about editors in the third-person rather than directly, they'll somehow be immune from WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. I, however, find this kind of third-person discussion to be rather rude when it is explicitly directed to me. I cannot find any other editor to whom your "concern" applies, and simply broadcasting it to a noticeboard in an oblique fashion only seemed to me to serve to raise the temperature of the conversation and confuse a variety of editors. Just coming to my talk page and saying, "Hey, I'm concerned that you are editing WP:FRINGE at the same time as being in a conversation on how to edit TM articles." I could respond with something like, "Is there any particular edit you find problematic at WP:FRINGE, or is it just a general feeling?" And we continue the conversation in that way. But making it anonymous and third-party strikes me a little bit like someone who is setting themselves up for plausible deniability. What feels to you like a more "gentle" approach looks to me like a passive aggressive attack. We are different people with different personalities, and I admit that some others may prefer your chosen approach over the one I'd like you to adopt, so I'm just letting you know. I would prefer it if you had a disagreement with something I'm doing or something I said to tell me directly so we can have it out right away. If you could keep that in mind when dealing with me in the future, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Likewise, I'd like to extend to you the same courtesy. If there is a manner in which you would like to be treated that is different from the way I have been treating you, please let me know. You've called my comments "uncivil", and I take that criticism seriously. We can discuss exactly what you find to be uncivil about my comments and try to find a model for interaction that you would appreciate better and would make you feel more comfortable. In fact, I have a three-step process for enacting exactly that. See the top of User talk:ScienceApologist for that process.
Best, ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for a mature an civil comment. The temperature on that Notice Board was no more raised by my comment than Bedlam would become nuttier with the arrival of a fly. However, I prefer direct talk rather than beating around the bush, and probably the attacks I have dealt with in the last few days led to a more oblique approach. I make the rules for my editing environment. I've found that just as I would not tolerate gross incivility in real life, I've decided I will not tolerate it here , but will remove myself from it while not removing myself form editing. You walked into the middle of that decision.(olive (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
I respect your decision, olive. Disengagement is a rarely-used option in the dispute resolution process, but I've found that those who use it at Wikipedia are some of the most highly-respected editors around. You've put yourself in good company. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Please either provide diffs or remove your comments from my talk page. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Transcendental Meditation. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. You have made multiple edits against wikipedia policy and against consensus. [13] [14] [15] [16] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcendental_Meditation&action=historysubmit&diff=339945666&oldid=33992177 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of these edits were made two days ago and are not in the revert warning period. Further, there was only one revert on Jan 23th and one revert today Jan 25th about 48 hours later. Note that today on the TM article, you removed content based on an inaccurate understanding of WP:MEDRSand WP:FRINGE which another editor Fladrif agreed with. Your comment above is false information. I will assume good faith, and assume you made a mistake, while striking your post. (olive (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
If edit warring is happening, you do need to be careful that while copy editing you're not reverting the work of another editor - it can be construed as a revert per WP:REVERT, any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. As you both know, this is a very contentious group of articles, while WP:BRD can be accomplished, it needs to be carefully done, making sure it doesn't devolve into edit warring. Always wise to be cautious. Dreadstar ☥ 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dreadstar. You're right. It is a contentious situation, and I need to be more cautious. Thanks for the warning.(olive (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
This is disturbing. I believe it's this type of editing, where small pieces of paragraphs are stealthily removed, without consensus [17], is what's eroding (often slowly over weeks and months) the neutrality of TM-related articles. The original paragraph, before you deceptively edited it, was much more informative and balanced. Please stop this species of edit warring. Thanks.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala, I have no idea what you are referring to, but in the future please do not comment on my talk page. You have said very little that is fair or neutral, and your agenda is obvious, so I strongly suggest you take those comments somewhere else. If you are making a comment to the admin. User:Dreadstar, please be more direct. I'm sure he'll appreciate the directness of your comments on his talk page.(olive (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

From Risker (arbitration): After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case. With this in mind, I do not foresee any arbitrator proposals relating to sockpuppetry, restrictions of ISPs or IPs, or anything similar. We recognise that a significant amount of work went into gathering information relative to this issue amongst those who have participated in this case, but unfortunately that information will not be helpful in resolving this matter.

Untruths, biases, agendas, and incivility

Olive, in the past week you appear to have accused me of spreading untruths and mischaracterizations, of having biases and an agenda, and of engaging in incivility. When I asked you to substantiate those charges you said that you would only do so in a forum like the ArbCom. You are free to file an ArbCom case, but whatever you choose to do please don't continue to make unsubstantiated allegations against myself or any other Wikipedia editor.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Will. I will substantiate those points if you want when I once again have time. I don't believe I've called you uncivil but if I did I apologize. You are civil.(olive (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Over at the SPI page you left a message about "false accusations". I think the only accusations I've made there are that a groups of accounts are using IPs belonging to MUM to promote a pro-MUM POV, and that those accounts may or may not belong to separate individuals. Obviously, I don't think those allegations are false. While folks have said they are separate people, I haven't seen anyone denying the first charge. If there are multiple users promoting the same view from the same place then that's a problem on its own. I hope folks will address the actual evidence.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality is subjective. Collaboration creates neutrality not the view of any single editor. Neutrality is not a stable element but is in flux shifting back and forth and depends on multiple inputs to make sure that no one editor attempts to still the ever ongoing process of looking for the balance point.
No one is promoting anything, and is a misunderstanding based on assumption. And for sure, collaborative processes do not flourish and cannot survive in environments where incivility is allowed to intrude. (olive (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC))
You've asserted repeatedly that you are a neutral editor, and here you're saying that neutrality is subjective. I disagree, but according to that premise it's reasonable to say you may think that you are neutral, but that is not how it appears to a more objective observer.
If no one is promoting anything then why do the Fairfield editors keep addng positive material and deleting negative material? It may be to make the articles more neutral according to their subjkective interpretation, but if that's the case then they shouldn't be editing because their view of what is neutral is not, in fact, neutral.
I'm still looking for you to provide the evidence for your charges that I have engaged in untruths, biases, agendas and false accusations.   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Will. It will have to wait for arbitration. I've done my best to be honest with you, went out of may way in fact, and nothing in what you've just said, your tone, the implications, or your comments on the sock page, deserve anything from me in terms of response. (olive (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

If you're unwilling to provide the evidence then please don't repeat the charges.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • " You've make wildly inaccurate assumptions concerning me and my positions, and inaccurately characterized what I have done on Wikipedia. "

I'll ask you again to please provide evidence of these "wildly inaccurate assumptions" and "inaccurate" characterizations. Otherwise, please stop making unsubstantiated charges. I consider these comments to be personal attacks as you are effectively calling em a liar.   Will Beback  talk  23:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No I wouldn't ever, call anyone a liar. You are however, misinformed. You are free to continue with this topic. But I am done with it. Thanks. (23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
What am I misinformed about?   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for offline communication

Olive, is there any chance that you would be willing to talk with me in private about the article Transcendental Meditation? Please? You can send me your email address at my contact page. David spector (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please. David spector (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Check your email.(olive (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

[18]

[19]

Mischaracterizes

/Rebuttals Will Beback

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

Hello Littleolive Oil. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1500 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan. I've refactored to 982.(olive (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

Re: Border Collie

I will definately source that info...I just need to remember where I got it from. Here to do my homework...not sure if it will get done. (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Natural Stress Relief

An article that you have been involved in editing, Natural Stress Relief, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Stress Relief. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Useful templates

Rounding

I have a question about your edit to Round. Another editor started a related thread at Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Rounding - Explain this Edit, so I added it there. I haven't seen "rounds" used commonly in the literature.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

  • All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
  • Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
  • Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
  • Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
  • From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
  • User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
  • Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Re: Bhuttos

Hi Olive. Thank you for the efforts you’re making, in relation to the Wiki entry on the Bhutto clan. The following articles may also need to be semi-protected, as they are constantly being vandalised by those who are determined to fallaciously classify this clan as being of Arain origin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindhi_Rajput (The name of the Bhutto clan, along with the picture of Benazir Bhutto, is constantly being removed by individuals with the aforementioned agenda).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Nawaz_Bhutto

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutto_family

The names of prominent Bhuttos are also often added to the Wiki article on the Arain tribe, though there are those who have been constantly policing that particular article, and having to periodically remove the names of these personalities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arain Gill Jat (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. MBisanz talk 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Peremptory removal of sourced material

You deleted reliably sourced material without first placing any appropriate cleanup templates, such as {Verify source}.[20] You apparently did not check the source carefully either since the material is obviously there. This is one of the behavioral issues addressed by the ArbCom:

  • Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

Deletions like this are disruptive and harmful to the content. Consider this an informal warning not to delete material peremptorily again. If there are repetitions I will request an official warning and enforcement.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do assume good faith, but the issue here does not concern good or bad faith. The issue is deleting sourced material without any prior discussion or warning. It doesn't matter how much good faith you're bringing - the net result is still the deletion of sourced material. As you point out, there were actually two instances of peremptory deletions by you since the ArbCom case finished just one month ago. Deleting properly sourced material and then daring other users to revert your edit, or requiring them to go through a long discussion to get it restored, are not great ways to relate to your fellow editors and their contributions. In the future, if you have a question about a source, please use one of the many specific templates before further peremptory deletions of cited material. If you think that the ArbCom decision does not apply to you then maybe we should go back for a clarification.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've said what I have to say. I made clear moves to find reliable sources for content that in the first instance was apparently not reliably sourced, and a new source was indeed found after we moved the content, and another editor was aware of a source, and yes, in the second instance the content was sourced but I made a mistake and didn't see it in the source. It's that simple. Anything else is just not an accurate representation of what I did, and of what happened. There are lots of ways of doing things, Will. Yours is not the only way.(olive (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC))
Yes, I agree. There are many ways to approach editing. But the collegial approach does not include peremptorily deleting sourced material added in good faith by other editors. That's the aggressive approach. Anyway, this is merely an informal reminder to use templates and discussion before deleting sourced material so this won't be a problem again. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  08:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Removing content that is reliably sourced is per the arbitration, to be avoided. Moving content that is, in the first case here, not reliably sourced rather than removing it completely is not aggressive in the least, nor was it meant to be, but is, and was meant to be, a collaborative move. Readding that content when sources are found is also collaborative. Further, moving non reliably sourced content especially to a talk page is not covered in the arbitration, and why should it be. Moving content that appeared to be non reliably sourced to a talk page until sources could be found was and is a mistake, and in future I will attempt to be more careful when checking sources. (olive (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC))
Moving material within an article is not covered. Moving material out of article space entirely is just a euphemism for deletion, and is addressed by the decision. This deletion was not a case of finding a source - the source was right there in the citation. Anyway, please don't do it again.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Will. Editors make mistakes. Perhaps you don't. I missed the content in the source, and posted on "talk" to get editor input. Please do not imply anything else. I will absolutely edit in compliance with the arbitration, and thank you for further acquainting me with the procedures preferred.(olive (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

ArbCom

In this edit [21] you violated WP:DUE. This may result in discretionary sanctions per ArbCom [22]. I request that you revert your change. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. I simply reverted your rather extensive non consensus change. Please indicate how that is a concern.(olive (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC))


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

I have filed a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement concerning the recent edit warring. [23] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that under the discretionary sanctions rule I have imposed the sanctions I drafted earler at the AE noticeboard [24]. You will therefore now be bound to a collective 1RR/24hrs revert limitation together with TimidGuy (talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs), on all edits related to TM topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding above and your edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement at 18:58, 9 August 2010, please note that for appeals, an appeal can be made, in the form of a separate new request (per instructions at the top of the page WP:AE), through use of {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meditation mediation

Please let me know when you file the request.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Is that a yes or a no on taking part.(olive (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
If you don't tell me you want to be part of the process, I won't include your name.(olive (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
The process depends on what kind of mediation you request. Just let me know when you file it and I'll see if my participation would be useful.   Will Beback  talk  04:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
We both know that if include you and you then decline, the mediation cannot go forward. For that reason I will only include those editors who tell me they want to be part of the process. I intend to ask for help in sorting out the research section of the lead; in determining if the sources are correctly being referenced and as well if the lead accurately summarizes what is in the article proper. Simple and neutral. Its up to you.(olive (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC))
I can add myself, if that's easier.   Will Beback  talk  05:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
So I will not add you, and you can add yourself if inclined at some point. Is that right?(olive (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC))
Yes. It's not that I don't want to participate, but I'm not sure what the issue will be, which is why I'd like to see the request first.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up, but do not list me. Fladrif (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indenting

Hi Olive, can I ask that you properly indent your replies on request for adminship. Formating on these pages is not the same as say article talk pages. Also make sure there is no blank lines between one comment and the next otherwise it will not format properly.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No warning required?

Do you know what RexxS means by "... save that an admin doesn't need to warn any of the involved parties before applying discretionary sanctions." Does he mean that no warning is required? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Self-selection, Rfc, NoticeBoard and mediation

The self-selection process for involved editors and external editors (in Rfc and Noticeboard) creates a bias. There are very few editors that have a neutral view and at the same time think that TM is an important article. Therefore, those who self-select themselves do it in accordance with a bias. Now, in the current environment, the editors that have a pro-TM bias and are not yet labelled as such might be hesitating to take a chance to be labelled as such. What remains are those with the opposite bias. This is why Rfc and NoticeBoad work against us. If the mediator is also self-selected, it will be the same thing. He might not see its own bias himself. He will just think that he is using his "good judgment" to help Wikipedia. What would work is a Rfc in which the external editors are chosen at random among a large environment of editors with various interests but a good grasp of the policy. It should not be restricted to admins because the admins are not representative of all the editors. You need some special characteristics to want to be admin and then to succeed. This kind of Rfc does not exist. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Second thought: It is still possible that we get a mediator that would not self-selected himself on the basis of a some hidden bias against one side. Therefore, I should put aside the above logic and assume that the mediator is neutral. We have to give to the process a maximum chance of success. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation is the obvious next step in the discussion on the lead. One has to assume fairness and neutrality and hope for a knowledgable mediator. Mediators do not dictate anything. Their job is truly to mediate a process so we the editors can arrive at a solution that everyone feels satisfied with. Sometimes nothing comes of a mediation. The parties still do not agree so that's a possibility too. In the end this project is a group effort, and the majority rules. One does hope the "majority" has done their homework. :O)olive (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC))
I disagree. Mediation is not the obvious next step. What would have to happen anyway is that we go a few more times through the same arguments. What would be wrong is that we go through these arguments several times without making a little bit more the connection with the policy, at the least a little bit, each time. We have to hope that the patterns that violate policy and need to be corrected will appear more clearly. Mediation will only be useful after that these patterns of policy violation are clearly visible, but I feel we are not yet there. The weak point is that this notion of a "unique science" [25] is very appealing. Of course, we know that even in fundamental science, there are debates between different theories. In applied science, because of its impact in our daily life, finance, etc. debates are even more expected. Yet, this notion of a "unique science" is very appealing. Editors and even admins break the policy all the times, being driven with notions like a "unique science", etc. and other non policy related considerations. Many admins and editors quickly think in terms of which side they should take, not in terms of an in depth and impartial application of the policy. So, they ask which side is violating this unique science? Is it the POV in reviews from Ospina (AHRQ), Krisanaprakornkit (Cochrane) and Canter? Is it the POV in other reviews and studies, many of them with some TM affiliated authors? So, we have to progressively bring a stronger application of the policy and focus on the central point: the reliable sources, peer-reviewed journals, systematic-reviews, etc. and a systematic way to evaluate them in accordance with policy, without an undue weight given to TM affiliation. If we mention WP:LEAD, we must at the same time brings this central point. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Lead: Transcendental Meditation, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Away for two weeks

For the next two weeks, I will be traveling and will not be active in Wikipedia. Since I am an involved editor in a mediation where you are also involved, I thought I should inform you. Just a quick opinion before I leave. The last edit of Doc James was a distraction from the main issue, which is the research on TM. You made a good point in your first reply. It is a question of how much weight it is acceptable to give to the connection with Hinduism and also, as you pointed out, of the different understandings of this connection. Ask him to revert and, if he does not want, I would, if I were you, postpone at a later time a discussion on this issue. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the article contains content on the origins of the technique, it is acceptable to summarize that section in the lead. I did have concerns about the placement since it is tacked on and is a non sequitur in terms of the opening content. I am being the technician here in terms of syntax rather than arguing weight. The "lead" content on the research should probably not be discussed further until the mediation. At that point everyone will have a say, and hopefully we can hammer out something everyone will be happy with. Enjoy your trip.(olive (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC))
In my understanding, the context of a phrase in the article (e.g., the sentence where it is placed) is a fundamental aspect of its weight, as important as the space used. However, I agree, the context might be wrong because of other aspects. It can promote one possible understanding (or misunderstanding) associated with one POV. Anyway, the basic point is that it should have been discussed in the talk page. I feel like you that making these edits without any discussion was not a way to collaborate. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts in last 24 hours

This is a note to inform you that you have made three reverts of content in the last 24 hours on the TM page. [26], [27], and [28].Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't consider any of these "reversions" so I am asking for input on the last two at least. [29]Thanks for your note.(olive (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
per ANI input I'm at one, and by my own reckoning possibly two reverts. I didn't ask about the first one. It was a syntax change, but may be considered a revert.(olive (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Witch of Pungo Pre-FAC

See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC PS, you need to archive some of your talk page ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood - Witch of Pungo FAC filed

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your help, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee

[30] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I took the liberty of changing the heading of your request to add the case name and to remove the long URL (which made linking harder). If that's not to your liking feel free to change it to something other pithy title.   Will Beback  talk  06:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is a clarification of the TM arbitration and a request to deal with a AE.(olive (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC))

OK, but "clarification" isn't a helpful title on the "clarication request" page. And URLs in headings (or even templates, for that matter) make it hard to link the anchors using wikilinks. Anyway, feel free to change or revert.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

RFARB

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Littleolive oil/ AE diffs

Thanks

...for the GA button you added to my page. Very nice work on the article, yourself; its Interesting and informative.(olive (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC))

You're very welcome! Very nice work on the article! Dreadstar ☥ 02:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect warning

  • Moved from Will Beback [31]

This is a courtesy warning issued prior to a formal warning per TM Arbitration: Violations of WP:CFORK, in which you supported through misrepresentation and mischaracterization the creation of a forked article created on the second day of an RfC, [18] without consensus and despite editor objections, [19] [20] [21] violating WP:OWN, and the TM arbitration here. [22](olive (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)) "You supported through misrepresentation and mischaracterization the creation of a forked article created on the second day of an RfC, despite editor objections". (olive (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)) With out going into an elaborate collection of diffs( thread here and to discussion page end) [23] you supported and endorsed the forking off of content by saying no other solution had been offered which was untrue, and did so in the second day of an RfC. As you know RfCs are meant to build collaboration and consensus while ignoring editors who expressly did not agree with the creation of a new article, is not in line with the Arbitration demand for collaboration. You were courteous enough to offer me an informal warning when I had made an error. I'm doing the same for you.(olive (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) Please reread what I've written, and apply it as you want to.(olive (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) The warning I added here is not the same as I gave to James. I feel you misrepresented and mischaracterized discussion to support James' unilateral edits ignoring editors who specifically said they did not agree with the changes being made. Your experience with RfCs should lead you to know unilateral edits are not appropriate in a consensus building dispute resolution process and mischaracterizing other editors does not help collaboration. This is ownership of an article, not a collaborative situation and not one supported by the wording of the TM Arbitration.(olive (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

  • Moved from Jmh649[32]

This is a courtesy warning issued prior to a formal warning per TM Arbitration: Violations of WP:CFORK, in which you created a forked article created on the second day of an RfC, [8] without consensus and despite editor objections, [9] [10] [11] violating WP:OWN, and the TM arbitration here. [12](olive (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)) It was actually you who suggested having an article exclusively about the technique and as TM refers to both the movement and the technique it is only fair to have an article on each. But I am tried. Please continue this at ArbCom as you wish. As you are under sanctions per ArbCom I view this as little more than a retaliatory effort. As the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC) BTW all your concerns are all about a month old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC) This is a warning. Please see it as such.(olive (talk) 03:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)) I can't get Olive to even show what part of Wikipedia:Content forking was violated. She put the same warning on my page, without even bothering to add any links to any edits I'd made. It seems more like harassment than a serious effort at dispute resolution. Will Beback talk 03:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Unless she is able to clarify I must agree with you Will. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I've dealt with this over at MedCab,treat it as nothing more than harassment. The Arbs are sensible people. Ronk01 talk 04:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The Arbitration requires warning by an uninvolved editor and if the behaviour continues then an AE may be filed. Giving an editor a pre warning is not only not harassment, it is a courtesy as it precludes an official warning, is itself not official, and as such cannot be used to warn per the arbitration or to file an AE. Doc James did not extend me the same courtesy, and had I wanted to retaliate I could have held on to this warning, and had an uninvolved admin warn him.(olive (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)) What behavior? You haven't shown any violation of guidelines or policies, despite repeated requests. Will Beback talk 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC) For James: I don't play games especially retaliation games. I have been disturbed by actions which seem to indicate what I hope is a lack of understanding and which impact other editors. RfCs are meant to build consensus, and aren't license to make massive edits in the face of editor objections on a second day of the RfC. Such non collaborative actions run against the TM Arbitration stipulation for good collaborative practices which affects all of us you included. I hope this helps explain why I'm giving you a "heads up" on such actions.(olive (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

I'll be happy Will to give you more information. I'm not editing right now but can later tomorrow.(olive (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks for your note, but you put it on the wrong user's talk page. I assume you meant it for user:Jmh649, since you linked to his edit.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I also assume that you linked to the wrong policy page. The link you gave goes to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean to link to Wikipedia:Content forking? If so, I don't see any violation. The TM technique article isn't a POV fork. Can you cite the the text in that guideline which was violated?
Also, I see you haven't deleted the mistaken warning from my page. Yet there is still no link to any edit that I made. Can you show where I did anything wrong? If not, I'll start warning you about things that other editors did. ;)   Will Beback  talk  02:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any rule against putting supporting comments on a talk page. Can you point me to it?   Will Beback  talk  03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, just because you removed a warning doesn't mean it it was never given.   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for you note, but you didn't answer my questions at all. Let me repeat them more directly. 1) Which part of the forking guidelines was violated? Please cite the exact text you're concerned with. 2) Which edits did I make that violate that guideline or any other? 3) Where in the ArbCom case, or any guideline, is it considered a violation to agree with someone else?
If you can't answer these reasonable questions about your complaint then I'd be forced to view that complaint as spurious. Spurious complaints are a form of harassment.   Will Beback  talk  03:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
So even after a request you still refuse to justify your complaint. Sad.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your posting, but it still does not address my two basic requests: links to edits that I made, and the text of the policy, guideline, or ArbCom remedy that was violated. Without those the warning is empty.   Will Beback  talk  18:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on the amount of information in my posts. As I said, use it as you will. Its up to you.(olive (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
Did you provide that information and I missed it? Or do you think it's unnecessary to provide that information in a warning or complaint?   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Littleolive_oil/Archive_1&oldid=1259405699"