User talk:Eaglizard

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #289

25 April 2024
In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS) Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives

/Archive 1

Hi Eaglizard,

Thanks for your nice note. I didn't take offense at all at your edits. For me, there's an entirely different feel or tone to edits or talk page text for those who are making good faith edits in line with Wiki principles versus those who want to push a specific POV. The former engenders absolutely no reaction in me at all and I see your edits in this class. Thanks again for the note -- that was nice of you.

Renee Renee 02:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a major update to the biography. It contains new sections and a reorganizing of headings and subheadings in way that more closely approximates AAB's life and work. It is throughly referenced and with some new references throughout, together with quotes and paraphrases that closely matches the citations. It includes many new details and documentation on her life and conflict with the Theosophical. Kind Regards to all. James 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the article would degrade over time, but I'm a little surprised at the speed of it. The Jewish theme continues to obsess the editors to the virtual exclusion of all else and conditions the editorial direction. The whole thing is a mind-boggling example of the failure of the Wiki system. There does not appear to be anyone with the time and interest to enforce Wikipedia rules. James 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've now come up with a reinterpretation of Wiki rules to support the hypothesis that AAB can not be cited at all. Imagine that... James 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline on categories is WP:CAT. The general idea is that articles should be placed in the narrowest applicable categories but NOT in parents of that category. For example, Bailey clearly belongs in Category:Esotericists, a category for people. Therefore, she should not also be in the parent Category:Esotericism. She would certainly not be placed in parent categories of Esotericism, like Spirituality. In general, people should go in associated people categories, like Category:Spiritual teachers or Category:Spiritual writers. Another thing we do is narrow by nationality. If a person is in Category:English occult writers, they don't also go in Category:Occult writers. The categories would get too full to be useful if that were done. Hope this helps.... GlassFET 14:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eaglizard

James has taken to outright edit-warring now, including wholesale reverting of material I added that has new and specific references from books. He's doing this without discussion, even though I invited discussion on several of the topics, and, he's reverting large numbers of edits all at once, making it hard to go back and address the particular issues.

My desire is for the article to be correct and NPOV, and my edits are in that spirit. His edits are clearly based in conflict-of-interest bias.

Would you please review the article history to see if you agree that the reverting James has been doing is inappropriate? If you do agree, please help maintain the balance by reverting some of his major changes (especially the ones where he blanket reverts many edits, causing loss of references).

I can't do this on my own. If others care about the neutrality of the article, this will take a community effort to stop the conflict-of-interest biased editing.

I don't want to do a formal COI report yet, though now with his recent blasting of referenced changes, I am getting closer to feeling that may be needed. First though, it would be best if the community of wide-topic editors would help with the reversions. That way it will become more clear what's really going on. I might post this request on a couple other editor's pages, I haven't decided yet.

If you don't agree with my changes, then don't undo his reversions. I'm not trying to influence or convince you, but I am looking for support from policy-based editors to help stop the disruptions and the attempts to bias the article. --Parsifal _Hello 20:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. Parsifal and Kwork tend to be anti-Bailey editors and their personal bias conditions their edits. They make nice little format fixes, but where anything significant is concerned, their bias is likely to control. I have fought their selective-misquotations and distortions and lack of perspective for a long time, and struggled in the face of it to create a biography that is accurate and that contains a just amount of reasonable criticism. It is no use, unless others with knowledge, interest, and authority show up to change the situation.

I am done with editing this article. Without administrative intervention or other knowledgeable editors with a scholarily interest in the subject, it is like writing in Beach sand and there is insufficient support to warrant continued painstaking efforts. There have been a few people who have given mostly moral support and discussion contributions, and for that thanks. But there is no real community of active editors willing to join me in shaping the article.

My friends in this karma, those identified with the Jewish issues, will now control a subject they are averse to and which they have limited knowledge of. The pro-Jewish editors, those I've called anti-anti-Jewish folks, have won and I predict the result will be apparent in the near future. What progress I have contributed will be dismantled. The order and relative sanity I've sought to foster will be undermined. Sections will be cut away until the article bears little resemblance to AAB's life and thought or the contrasting thoughts of a community of reasonable critics. How could it be otherwise when people work on a subject they do not know and are averse to identifying with, even on a temporary scholarily basis.

Yes, the situation in the AAB article is analogous to that of a case where two atheists descide to write a Wiki article on Christianity. It is absurd, and no amount of Wiki rule quoting will avail. For any complex and controversial subject, and in the absence of knowledgeable and clear-headed editors, the Wikipedia process breaks down.

I will not be coming back to the article unless word reaches me by email that the situation has changed. It will likely be some time before I sign on to Wiki again and I will not be checking for response to this, my last post--there is a direct non-Wikipedia email link on my personal page. If anyone should need to contact me, use that, because after I click "Save" on this message, I'm out of here and will not look back. James 02:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. "Omit the negative propositions. Don't waste yourself in rejection, nor bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good. (R. W. Emerson)

Hi Eaglizard, you wrote on Parsifal's talk page:

There are other, equally questionable edits. For example, I wonder that you don't notice what appears to be non-consensual removal of, I think it was, 4 or 5 "pre-summary" paragraphs on the grounds that paraphrases are "OR" — even tho friend Kwork also added two quotes, including his own paraphrasing pre-summaries. I don't expect you to be Kwork's conscience, but are you sure you're examining everyone's edits equally?

If those are the edits of mine I think you are referring to, I thought I was right (and rather still do) in removing OR. However, I asked AnonEMouse for an opinion. She said I was wrong, so I stopped. Parsifal may not have said anything because the problem was over in a day, and he was busy elsewhere, and had done no editing of the article during the period of time involved. I had, in fact, requested his opinion also, but after AnonEMouse had replied there was little point to saying more on the subject. Kwork 12:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you can still see my request for Parsifal's opinion about that on his talk page, under the heading "Original research?" My request to AnonEMouse is, likewise, on her talk page. I would not have listened to you opinion because I do not trust you. Kwork 14:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglizard, I left you a parting note on my page. Sparklecplenty 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for your comments re: Gimli Glider - very kind. No problem at all with your excellent edits. --FactotEm 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Just to let you know that I changed some of your copyedits to Omaha Beach, specifically those made to the Engineer Landings section. They just didn't read as well to me, but if I'm so far off beam that you want to change things back I'm not going to press the matter. It's largely semantics really, but the one that really did stand out as wrong was the use of the word "undaunted" - strays a little too close to POV in my view (at one stage the narrative reported that the engineers suffered "grievous" casualties, but this was identified as POV during the FAC - hence my thinking on this one). Cheers. --FactotEm 11:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looked as if you were having fun. I agree - I chose this article precisely because it is an awe-inspiring event, but the downside is that does tend to lead one into POV traps, which I did quite a lot of in the early edits (forgot to add anything from the German perspective at all). I'm afraid my other edits pretty much put things back the way they were, but like I say, it's not so important to get into a fight over. Have fun. --FactotEm 12:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken at all. --FactotEm 13:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked back at the article and don't plan to, but a friend informed me that you were still working on it, so here is something that might provide some perspective:

J.J. Dewey, Answers For The Critics Of Alice A. Bailey, 2007 Answers For The Critics Of Alice A. Bailey The above is in eight sections; click links at bottom of each section to read all. James 20:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglizard, a response to your note on my page. And a note to Renee that you might or not be interested in. Sparklecplenty 00:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglizard, I don't live here anymore and flagged my personal page for deletion. You seem to have some mysterious unresolved issue with me that I'm suppose to know about. I've no clue what that might be. If there's something you need, feel free contact me directly: James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesd1 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you and Parsifal are the key to holding the article together from both perspectives. Please hang in there . Wiki is social experiment more so than it is an Encyclopedia. The more I remind myself of that less important the actual content becomes. This is not to say that I do not get angry or frustrated. I do.

I also realize that in terms of civility you and Parsifal are exemplary. I just thought that you may need a pat on the back, You deserve one. Danny Weintraub: Albion moonlight 06:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew is doing well thanks I will show him that you asked about him. He is a preschooler but he was taught to read as soon as he showed an interest. He doesn't do it very well yet mind you but he is very fascinated by computers and their uses. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 07:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad your edits still stand. I am not sure wheter you were responding to me or Kwork pursuant to your comments about Jewish Humour. I assume it was Kwork. If you were makeing a belated reference to something I said then I missed your point. Please feel free to explain. I hope I didn't say anything that was in the least bit insular.

As for wiki being a group meditation I tend to agree but I also see it as a great big dysfunctional family. It all depends on the circumstances Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand. People can in fact be Jews just as they can be snobs or snobbish. I think you may be referring to the fact that we are such a diverse ethnic group and therefor very puzzling. I am an Atheist but I am none the less a closet Zionist who is also critical of Israeli foreign policy. I still do things that make me seem as if I am religious but I only do them out of respect for my family. Christian are very similar to us but most Atheist who were raised as Christians do not call themselves Christians. I am not sure I understand. People can in fact be Jews just as they can be snobs or snobbish. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your usage now. I had never thought of it that way. I love Woody Allen too. One of my twin brothers sons married a Southern Baptist. I think all cultures use guilt as a tool. It can be very abusive when it is over done. I come from a dysfunctional family as well. I hope my kids do not feel the same way but I am afraid to ask. LOL.: Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eaglizard,

Thanks for the comments and thoughts on my talk page. I appreciate the advice. I didn't know that editors involved in a dispute with one other editor (i.e., where Kwork was reverting my edits only, and in my perception to antogonize because it was such a simple template) should discuss these things on a talk page before filing a report. (and apparently I did put it in the wrong place -- I just followed the post "leave a message at the bottom" and thought that was the wrong place)

I see that Jossi and Vassyana are now on the page and I respect them greatly. I hope they can help, along with you, to get the article into good shape. I don't mind criticism of Bailey at all; what I object to is giving extremist sources front page status (it's ethically wrong in my view). If a scholarly source or mainstream publication says anything negative, great, include it. Also, it's hard to assume any good faith with Kwork since he has gone on record that he will not let anything positive about Bailey appear on the page and that he has no respect for me. How much more hostile can one be?

Thanks again, Renee Renee 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, I needed an admin's opinion, and you were the first to come to mind. A user I know of has placed a speedy delete on his User Talk page. It's my understanding that this is incorrect, but for personal reasons I prefer not to remove it myself. Would you have a quick look and take that action (if it is, indeed, appropriate)? Thanks for considering. Eaglizard 09:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eaglizard. No problem, I'll look into it. Regards, El_C 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. For the previous matter. Btw, can you explain the chipoll? It baffles me. Eaglizard 10:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Think of it as woodland interpretive dance of chiprotest! El_C 11:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<baffle-smile> Eaglizard 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eaglizard,

I just read your very kind note on my talk page and wanted to tell you I really appreciate the information and advice. (By the way, I did respond to your notes of the previous day, right here -- wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated them too.) I can tell you're speaking the truth from the heart.

I read today's post several times and contemplated it and I think you're right on. I need to not overdo or overstate things built up from several months of frustration and will follow that advice. What really sent me over the edge yesterday was the name-calling to Vassyana and the incivility to Jossi (by Kwork and Cat respectively). It's wrong. But, I guess I can only control myself, huh?

Thanks again, it's really nice to feel heard and I feel like you heard me.

Renee Renee 10:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree. Some people are just so superior that they must let everyone else know how stupid they are in the meanest way possible. In school we used to call them bullies. Renee 13:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the appreciation. But really, some things ARE just plain funny, no? Rumiton 00:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! Sparklecplenty 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worry about nothing. And thanks for your support with Jossi. I apologized to her or him. It is her or his right to over react and take comment out of context via wiki policy. I have seen this kind of behavior before. But I can walk on eggs with the best of them. I My apology was sincere. I do have concentration problems.: Danny Weintraub. : Albion moonlight 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do sincerely hope that if Kwork is guilty he will confess and get it over with. I am very likely to believe him if he denies it but I am not naive. His explanation will have to make good sense. I do think it is possible that he is being set up but I will need to ask a computer expert about this. I know one personally. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 10:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly Jossi was one of the admins who helped see to it that a user name Igor the Otters was blocked indefinitely. Igor deserved what he got. So I am not surprized to hear that Jossi self-identifies Jewish. I did not realize it until you mentioned it but it does not surprise me. we are everywhere. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 12:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eaglizard, you could have let me have that last protest without saying a word. oh well, better you than someone else. But I would have preferred the silence. Sparklecplenty 21:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - I have responded on my talk page. Maralia 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pull!

Thanks for your help in getting the good ship SS Christopher Columbus to Good Article status. She would have been sunk without everyone's help, it's really swell how we all pulled together.

anchors aweigh!

++Lar: t/c 23:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask for the checkuser. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I call a significant edit in the case of Sparkle Plenty and her husband is an edit that either reverts or undermines the edits of others . We are in a very strong position to take action. If they want to continue to disrupt that article they will need to get someone else to make those disruptive edits for them. Anyone who does do that will then fall under suspicion of being considered a straw man or a sock puppet or a meatpuppet. Danny : Albion moonlight 07:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sparklecplenty 01:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your question on Parsifals page and could not resist answering it. I have included a sentence that may help you understand why some Jews take criticism of their religion by non Jews so seriously. The Jews have suffered a long history of persecution in many different lands, and their population and distribution per region has fluctuated throughout the centuries  :

Our religion and our culture are so tied together that even atheist like me find themselves acting as if an invisible bond exists between us. I think even Chomsky secretly cheers on the Israelis at times. We have been spoon fed this stuff about the Holocaust by our relatives and many of us grew up knowing people who survived it. I also believe that our rituals play big role in it : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only have you down as recieving one email from me. I sent it a few days ago. You didn't receive one more recent tan that did you. ?? Albion moonlight 10:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any way about my friend. I will send him one thanks for asking.

I don't think that Zionism is evil. I think that all cultures have a right to there religions and to a homeland. I just wish they would not fight wars over a piece of land. People say all kinds of stupid things. This may be even more true of people who have visions.

I must go to sleep now But I will continue my response later on today if I get a chance

Danny : Albion moonlight 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eaglizard, those are interesting questions, but unfortunately, my time is limited so my response must be limited too. To me, the "negative and disturbing" character of those words and ideas is self-evident, no matter whose religion it is that's being attacked in that way, and even more so when it's a religion that has undergone historical attacks for a couple thousand years. For the subtle elements of your exploration and about the connections between orthodox religion and related secular culture, I recommend asking Albion or Cat to offer their thoughts. I would be happy to explore it with you, but the time is not available, sorry. --Parsifal _Hello 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only Major difference between Bailey and Bert views on religion is that Bert almost certainly rejected astrology,channeling and any thing remotely esoteric. The man rejected Metaphysics out of hand]].

Did you no that Heidegger was exposed as a Nazi sympathizer ? There are lots of Jews that buy his books and consider him to be a great Philospher. I think is part of the reason that I am mildly stunned by those who believe that they need to protect Baileys reputation. Danny W : : Albion moonlight 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes and you also asked this question, As an atheist, don't you find it somewhat necessary to agree that "the Orthodox Jewish faith" is, at least, outmoded? Here is my answer; If you mean do I think it will die out. The answer is not necessarily, Humanity is using up so much energy that a return to the horse and buggy days cannot be ruled out. It is very hard to predict the future. But it is fun to try. Danny Albion moonlight 08:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sparklecplenty 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had never thought of using grep for wikipedia before (its an application I use at work). Good idea, I ma downloading the complete works right now and will indeed try it out (I generally find reading paper books frustrating as there is no search button), SqueakBox 18:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole situation could turn ugly very quickly, The Cabal will need to be a lot more powerful than it appears to be if it wants to own that article. If Cat were willing to stay and fight we could blow the lid right off of it and or render it useless. I will respond to your remarks on Teleology later on. I am hoping that Cat is wrong. : Danny : Albion moonlight 08:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is supposed to be about reporting on Bailey Hermeneutics can not play a major role. It does help to know these things however because it may lead to finding more source material Plus when I think about trying to understand the lyrics to a Robert Johnson song without knowing what a Double entendre is every thing changes . In cases like that I Think OR can be overlooked.: Danny W :Albion moonlight 08:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given hts, I thought you might be interested in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.73.1 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I'm not interested, thanks. Eaglizard 20:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were OR but there are a lot of Google search match ups for both of them. If she sources them correctly I would not be opposed to using them What are your thoughts on this and how are you doing these days ?? : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linda made some more edits. I think you may like them. And by all means do talk to her even if it is only to say howdy.

I also want to wish you and yours a Happy Holiday season. : Danny W. : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of putting history of evolutionary thought through FAC for a 2nd time. I would like to know if you have any issues with the article that have not been addressed or if there are any other improvements you think need to be made. Your input would be very much valued since your copyediting improved the article greatly, and if you want to leave any comments on the article talk page or on mine they would be appreciated. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have (self) nominated this article at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SS_Christopher_Columbus. As one of the significant editors of this article by number of contributions, as well as a participant in its GA candidacy, your input would be valuable. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob :) It's the magic of new pages. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said "MOS is non-negotiable, innit" No, it's just a guideline, and sometimes the people writing it get away with making changes that the rest of the editors of the encyclopedia don't support because they aren't paying attention to what the people there are writing. They also try to insist that we use British style punctuation rules for all articles, even the ones with American spellings. Some of the people there have no common sense. As it's a guideline it can be ignored when it makes suggestions that do not make sense, and this was another case. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, DG is wrong here; ignoring it when it "makes suggestions that do not make sense" means leaving it not making sense. If MOS does not make sense, that should definitely NOT be ignored. Eaglizard (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You caught my overlooking the atheism of Jim Jones. I have to own up; I was wrong. I'm currently researching American atheists and have been taken aback that a few notorious people have been classified as atheists without known proof. I did overlook the contents of the article and jumped to conclusions. Thank you for your diligence in the constant fight to keep Wikipedia as factual as possible. Gimmickless (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! ["Man in tweed snorts vaguely in contempt, and turns to find other amusement"] ↜Just M E here , now 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Han van Meegeren/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eaglizard. You have new messages at Leonard^Bloom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message about your planning a major rewrite of Kids from Caper. Let's put it this way: No, you're not. While I did my last edits as an anon, I'm PatrickLMT, and I created that page. You are not rewriting it. Editing is fine. Throwing out my work, which is true and accurate and fine as is, is not. (Unsigned comment by User:PatrickLMT 00:04, 19 July 2009)

Bye. I've decided that Wikipedia and I are parting company, as soon as I figure out how to delete this name for good. And I will not be referring to this site for any reason in the future. So, whatever happens to the stuff that I contributed couldn't concern me less. Best of luck to you. PatrickLMT (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For anybody who happens to read this, the guy really has left editing WP. And, I feel very bad about this. I feel I was way to quick to "correct" the guy as a WP editor; I should have been more gentle. Not that I take sole responsibility, but I surely didn't help any. I hope he changes his mind. Eaglizard (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to editing the Manson article, Eaglizard. Good work. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does need to be split up, I also agree it shouldn't happen too quickly (it will take a lot of good editors working *together* making it happen correctly and smoothly - as I'm sure you're aware, that ain't gonna happen easily and needs to be an "evolutionary" process ;-). Preparing for a transition in what's recently been such a volitile environment is probably a good move - so that everyone who cares about the article will know what's happening, when, and how and there is agreement before it all transpires. I know I don't have time to devote to that kind of huge change right now - and waiting just seems to be a good idea for the moment in general. That being said...in order to make a transition where no one is surprised or taken off-guard (and tempers explode like recently), the split should be talked about a little here and a little there, don't you agree? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Committee to End Pay Toilets in America has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Hoax (see talk for comments). I can verify a word of this.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Scott Mac 20:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, I read it. Again. "...a physically large retail establishment, usually part of a chain.... Large, free-standing, rectangular, generally single-floor structure... Floor space several times greater than traditional retailers in the sector, providing for a large amount of merchandise..." That they only had 50 individual lines on their 1968 opening day is immaterial - this was a mail-order warehouse carrying large stock to fulfill their, largely mail-order, business, that also catered to the 'walk in' customer. And even 50 products - "stacked deep, sold cheap" - meets the big-box concept. Keristrasza (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ILOVEYOU, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trojan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blank expression, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marcus Miller may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, re: your edit to Ben Kweller: I've tweaked it further per User:Giraffedata/comprised of. Graham87 01:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Reduce Full Protection time of Bundy standoff article. The thread is Page protection at Bundy standoff.The discussion is about the topic Bundy standoff. Thank you. —DHeyward (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Thanks! I'm not involved in the topic, just found it odd that an evolvinge current event protected. I guess I came across too abrasive. My own assessment is Barek is an excellent RPP admin but this article intersected two approaches (PP vs. sanctions). Glad to see sanctions lifted and decorum regulated. Good job. After ten years I haven't given barnstars or figured out how they work (and I won't waste my few remaining brain cells to learn it) so this is your barnstar. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cause of Yasser Arafat's death may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• - that it’s actually the environment outside which explains the presence of polonium 210.”<ref>{http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/12/french-experts-rule-out-arafat-poisoning-
• out-arafat-poisoning-2013123145211499109.html Al Jazeera: French Experts Rule Out Arafat Poisoning]</ref> Later that same month, a Russian investigative team from the Federal Medico-Biological

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Dead Boys may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In 2003, after the release of ''The Day the Earth Met the Rocket from the Tombs'' (remastered , Chrome reformed Rocket From The Tombs with David Thomas, Craig Bell, with Steve

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David H. Koch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Highland Park Village, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ragtime may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Ensemble]] (then a student group called The New England Conservatory Ragtime Ensemble) recorded [[The Red Back Book[[, a compilation of some of Scott Joplin's rags in period orchestrations edited by conservatory

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had a chat once about BoyHowdy, I'm looking for an experienced Wiki Editor to help me battle overzealous mods. For instance, I try to keep Wiki up to date, when I find a notable person or topic that doesn't have a page I try to make one (at least a stub). I'll admit I'm not the best or most saavy but I spent a lot of time working on an article, sourced from multiple places across the web, which got snagged for "Speedy Deletion" and pulled in less than 12 hours. What can I do about it? I know you are just a random person I'm contacting in hopes of getting help and/or learning more. Thanks you Zoinksjeepster (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you to add "a fuckton of anything" Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eaglizard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi User:Eaglizard, I apologize for removing your recent addition to Burning Sun scandal, here [1]. It might have been hard to see, but the information about Yang's resigning was already in paragraph 2, along with other effects on YG Entertainment. And as Yang is not a big participant in this page, I didn't think the lengthy quote from him was needed, too. And his brother was never mentioned. Again, sorry and Thanks.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Colonel's Bequest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mustard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Patrice Pike has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ploni (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Omaha Beach for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]