User talk:Sfarney

Hello, Sfarney, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Divine right of kings. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. You need sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS for this, not the Bible itself. Dougweller (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Acts of the Apostles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ADD personal opinion -- I REMOVED doctrinaire opinion. If I erred in this, please cite a sentence in which I erred and I will happily correct that sentence. That would be the correct way to approach this dispute.~~sfarney

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from User talk:JudeccaXIII into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that was done the first time around.--Sfarney (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)sfarney[reply]

I have proposed that discussion regarding this topic be continued on the article talk page. I acknowledge up front that wikipedia almost certainly could have enough content related to this topic to create a complete book in small print. That tends to be the case when the articles in the leading relevant encyclopedias are even longer than our longest articles here. There is not a lot of real question in such cases whether a lot of content merits inclusion in wikipedia somewhere, the question is where. In this particular case, I honestly have to say at this point I don't have a clue myself what would be the optimum structure of the article, having not looked at the appropriate recent reference sources yet. But the article talk page is probably the best place to discuss and resolve such concerns. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit about Aryanism. Your comment was "Racial theories: There is no logical support for saying that the Nazis believed in Aryanism, hence Aryanism is a "primary motivator" for war crimes and atrocities." Do you really believe that Nazis didn't believe this? The article actually said "and hence a primary motivator for numerous war crimes and atrocities." Your edit left the article saying it "was one of the core tenets of Nazism, some proponents of which were found guilty of numerous war crimes and atrocities." Do you mean some proponents of Nazism, or Aryanism? Myrvin (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "of which" always refers to the most recently used noun, in this case "Nazism." Sfarney (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are saying that there is no source that says that "Aryanism is a "primary motivator" for war crimes and atrocities." Myrvin (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As originally worded, the statement was erroneous. I.e., Nazis believed X, hence X is a prime motivator for war crimes and atrocities. And yes, I am saying that it is ridiculous to assert that "Aryanism is a 'primary motivator' for war crimes and atrocities." No Nazi has claimed that Aryanism is the prime motivator for the War, the camps, or anything else. Aryanism is only one of many master-race doctrines in the world, and none of the other resulted in a Holocaust. Sfarney (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation and quote for the original words. Myrvin (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter what source said that -- many hysterical claims have been published about the Nazis, and Wikipedia has to be somewhat discriminating. For an exacting use of language, read the intro for Aryan race. Sfarney (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move this to the article's Talk page. Myrvin (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conspiracy theory. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfarney - I reviewed your contributions, and you are pretty inexperienced in WP. You are writing things on the Talk page, that are not based on how Wikipedia works.

I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, Wikipedia has developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it.

One of the hardest things for new or inexperienced users to get their heads around, is understanding not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I emphasize the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various drama boards and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones.

PAG are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our policy on edit warring is here: WP:EDITWAR not here EDITWAR). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space".

The most important policy we have is WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. People are citing links to policies and guidelines in the discussion, and it is important that you read them and take them into account - they are the foundation for what we do here. Please do read them, and if something doesn't make sense, please ask real questions about how other editors are understanding the policy or guideline. Please discuss. Please only start to actually argue once you understand the policy or guideline.

If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.

Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that your remark ("by the way, folks talking here should be aware of this: [2]. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)"^[1]) is deliberately ad hominem. Is that a part of the "letter and spirit" of Wikipedia, as you see it? Slade Farney (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this note to try to help you. You appear to be committed to being argumentative. That is the bed you are making, and we all have to lay in it. C'est la vie. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to reply to your question, I don't understand why you would consider it ad hominem. If I called you ugly or stupid that would be ad hominem. Is there something ugly or stupid or otherwise embarrassing to you about your sandbox? If so, a) I am sorry for embarrassing you (really I am) and b) you should know that everything in WP is public. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is ad hominem in the same way that reference to my voting record, my choice of ties, or anything else about me other than the topic at hand is ad hominem. If you had honorable intentions and were simply misunderstood, feel free to explain your actions. Slade Farney (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox is directly related to what we are talking about on the article Talk page. In any case, I won't try to help you here any further. I do hope you read what I wrote above and consider it... but you will do what you will do. however, please do base your statements on Talk, on policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox content is troubling since it will never have the potential to be placed into article space and would not be of any benefit to the encyclopedia project. Included in the "list of conspiracies" are US legislation such as the Intelligence Authorization Act and FBI reports such as ‪Project Megiddo‬. A list article of events characterized as "harmful or illegal acts" would need multiple, reliable sources for each entry. It would also have to conform to WP:NPOV, which would rule out personal editorializing, such as publishing Lord of the Rings quotations as "alleged objectives" of the US Project SHAMROCK and NSA warrantless surveillance. Wikipedia is not intended to be a free web space for original research or a platform for soapboxing fringe opinions and viewpoints. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie Be not overly concerned, Lucky. Or should I call you "Louie"? You will have adequate opportunity to comment, and edit, anything that is published. For now, I have freedom to insert POV when and where I wish. The sandbox page is in the process of maturing. I note that you have not edited anything on the List of Conspiracies page as it stands now. Slade Farney (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your list, for example, cites the US Post Office alleged objectives as "in service of the surveillance state", so you're apparently flaunting WP:POLEMIC. - LuckyLouie (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie Please be assured that by the time I request comment, it will be as Wiki-compatible as I can make it. I am taking multiple passes through the material, carefully researching each item to harmonize all statements with the pages dedicated to each item. To the best of my knowledge, the material was never on the Wiki search engine. You have added code to ensure that it is not searchable, and I have merged that code with my work. I appreciate your interest in the page, and your helpful comments. There are still another two dozen entries to be tested and tried for inclusion, and more are discovered all the time. Slade Farney (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. For example, there's no source that could be applied to the Border search exception article to cite the subject as "a conspiracy to commit a harmful or illegal act" or that "it directly violates the Fourth Amendment, hence is an illegal violation of Civil Rights". In other words, without reliable sources that make such broad assertions of fact, this is all just soapboxing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LuckyLouie Please be assured, you are making yourself clear. This is, as you no doubt know, an extremely contentious subject. How does one deal with a contentious subject from a neutral point of view? In the first passes, I have been granting those who call them conspiracies every opportunity to make the case of conspiracy, their best shot if you will, and recording those cases. But even so, some have not succeeded. Alexander's death in the first row is not unequivocally a conspiracy. As you will see in the new intro, it doesn't meet the bar. So that row must be removed, marked with bold font. Now we come to the rows about which you are concerned. I have made the best case I can. I have compared it with the Wannsee conference, which was totally legal, and yet harmful. Is the Border search exception totally legal, and yet harmful? In the same way? Well of course not in the same degree, but degree is not the question. I know my own view, but what will be the view of the Wiki consensus? The wiki has already spoken through the pages devoted to each subject. And so I am moving through these changes, and the page is moving through these changes. It is changing every day, and I have not yet asked for a review. When I do, will you be willing to review and offer your comments? Slade Farney (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you will be submitting it to WP:AFC I'm sure there will be no lack of comments from others, and pending availability I may offer review comments as well. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Volney Mathison page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E-meter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Resistance and Ohms. 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) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the E-meter page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:L Ron Hubbard Messiah or Madman 1st Edition.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. B (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E-meter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conductance and Impedance. 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) 09:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Volney Mathison page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slade! Thanks for all the wikipedia-ing you've been doing! What a great project with which to volunteer our time! :-) If I can ask only that you try to focus talk page comments only on article content. It's in all our best interests to keep everyone happy, cooperative, and collaborative for the highest quality encyclopedia possible. Thank you fellow wikipedian! Stay awesome! :-)

OnlyInYourMind^(talk) 23:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OnlyInYourMind (talk · contribs), Good advice, dude. Thanks. Slade Farney (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you soon forgot it, it seems.This comment isn't acceptable. Please try harder. Bishonen | talk 23:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Rider ranger47 ^Talk 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HI SFarney, just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your removal of uncited material, adding sources to it. I also wanted to point you to the guidelines on removing uncited material.

When removing unsourced material (other than vandalism, or any other sort of material with specific instructions), it should not simply be deleted from the article. Upon deletion, such material should be pasted into the talk page and a discussion begun. You should clearly state why it was removed, and participate and encourage discussion to find sources for that material, so that it may be restored to the article.

— Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material

Thanks, Kage Acheron (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to WP:DRN, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.I would have read the request in your section also. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series) about moderation. I am not a moderator there. I agree that some of the editors are out of control, but I can't control them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your restoration of spam on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. The information the editor brought up would not be usable even if they were the author. See WP:TPNO and WP:SOAP. VQuakr (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't advisable to start multiple threads on the same issue - I have left a note at WP:3RRN to the effect that the issue has been raised at WP:ANI, and I suggest that it should be dealt with there. Incidentally, you appear not to have notified Scottperry of the ANI thread, as you are required to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andythegrump:, Scottperry was notified on his talk page appropriately and he has answered on that page. Multiple postings was an error: I thought I had deleted it from the ANI page because it might be more appropriate on the RR page. Apologies. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it may be stressful and frustrating to be falsely accused of having a "pro-Scientology" bias by User:Scottperry, but going over the discussion, it appears — oddly enough — that he is not actually aware that the Scientology E-meter was not invented by Hubbard or that variants of the device have been in use before even Hubbard had been born! I could be wrong, but this is what appears to be the case, and I have responded to his accusations on both ANI and Talk:E-meter. Laval (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Laval: In the discussion since June 5, I have requested Scot to review the sources on the page and designate any (a) sources not correctly represented, (b) improper sources. I also asked him to familiarize himself with the facts of the E-meter from those sources and the text in the existing page. He did none of that; his neglect is not excusable. Wikipedia is not a pinata. ;-) Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Survey

Maybe merge or remove one? OnlyInYourMindT 21:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC) @OnlyInYourMind: thanks. Guess I had my mind on lunch.[reply]

Hello Sfarney, I just wanted let you know you have already reverted twice in the article. Please try not to violate WP:3RR. I'm not saying you're being uncivil or anything wrong. I'v been watching the article for about a few days now, and I can tell the discussions are quite...well...deeply discussed. I will be watching for now on those reverts in the article. That would go for the other editors as well so don't feel misplaced about this message. Happy editing & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, [User:JudeccaXIII|JudeccaXIII]. However, I am following WP Policy:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

And I have raised the issue on BLP noticeboard.

Whatever the case is, do not violate WP:3RR. This policy comes before any other when it comes to disputes in articles. If you violate, you will be looked at as the "uncunstructive" editor and blocked most likley. As I said before...I will be watching for ANYONE who does so. You took it to a notice bored, good...be calm and patient. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intent is to be firm but friendly. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JudeccaXIII, the policy Sfarney quoted directly says that 3RR does not apply in such cases, you can't respond to that with "well whatever you do don't violate 3RR". The only valid argument here would be to explain how the specific material that is being removed is obviously not a BLP concern. Which I think it is, and I really don't understand what's wrong with the people who feel that the material has to be so urgently restored that they can't wait for consensus to form. I re-removed the material once but I was reverted by an admin so I'm butting out of this specific issue now, don't really want to get yelled at for doing the right thing. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck. This article has been a mess for a long time. It is now under a lockdown, but I am now recommending that it be sent to ArbCom to identify and sanction disruptive editors. By the way, it is true that BLP violations are one of the exemptions from 3RR, but it is also true that using the BLP card aggressively to edit-war is also considered disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I understand that any tool can be abused. I try to do what is best, and keep the faith that my intentions will be recognized by the greater community. Between a rock and a hard place on BLP because we have the responsibility to protect WP from the effects of wrongfully libeling living persons. At the same time, edit warring is a drag -- and pointless. Thanks for participating in the ANI. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you were abusing a tool. I assume that you mean that the BLP exemption from 3RR can be abused. I agree that the article and its subject are between a rock and a hard place. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, while BLP is an exemption from 3RR, it is not an exemption against the rule against battleground editing. I know of one case where an editor was banned by ArbCom for, among other things, battleground use of BLP for battleground editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Zeitgeist (film series) and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a statement as to whether you think that arbitration is necessary, and as to who you think the offenders are. I don't think that you are an offending party. You were one of the editors who tried to collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit removed several comments, so I reverted you.--MONGO 10:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to make it clear that I object very strongly to you removing/moving or editing JWilson0923's comments on noticeboard. JWilson0923 is free to strike them through himself, as is an uninvolved admin should they wish. This is anyhow standard protocol.Pincrete (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you looked into it deep enough. See Mongo's Talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, is free to come to any decision he wishes (he does not speak for me!).Pincrete (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, I expected more of you. I did not remove or edit Wilson's comments, and I think you know that. The purpose of the link was so you could learn what had happened. And I have as much responsibility to advise Wilson as you have been advising me. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Zeitgeist Movement.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfarney, the Zeitgeist (film series) arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of political conspiracies

added links pointing to British, German, Henry VII, Japanese, Polish, Mayan, Henry Tudor, Caucasian, John Mitchell, Iraqi, Serbian, Cuban, Dreyfus, Sir William Stanley, South Slavic, Cambodian, Goodyear, High Mass, Lewis Powell, Jewish Temple, Macedonia, Patrick Magee, John Wright, Black September, Thomas Percy, Laotian, John Latham, Palestinian, Operation Spark, David Hale, Black Room, ITT, Iranian coup d'état, George Brooke, Henry Brooke, Charles Matthews and Lancaster

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I have been an editor on the Business Plot page for many years. You may note that the first line of that says:" The Business Plot was an alleged political conspiracy" Given that the list is supposed to be "confirmed" conspiracies it had to be removed as having failed verification. Note also the prominent places the term "hoax" appears at Business Plot. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalismojo, Thanks so much for catching that. I am embarrassed that I missed it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theories by nature are thought up by individuals and posted on the internet via blog, chat, social networks and every possible medium of content hosting. how does wikipedia's reliable source policy even apply to a list of them. this appears as an oxymoron and irony.

Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs), I agree with you totally. These pages becomes showcases for the orthodox elite to list all their pet peeves and to ridicule people who "fail" to believe what they are told to believe. Why is there no signature on your note? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• because I leave it to sinebot to do that work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs), I understood that to be the case, but in the first comment, the bot failed. Thought you might know why. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• returning to the OP, the reason I made it is that you happen to be one of those "orthodox elites" as you are the one who undid revision 681333245 in List of conspiracy theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 06:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk · contribs), without rancor, you are entirely too elliptical for my understanding: "... the reason I made it ..." Made what? Second, as explained in the edit note, I believed your edit was in good faith and I do not quibble with the statement -- it is most certainly true. But in Wikipedia we need sources, not just true statements. If I had not reverted it. someone else would, and not so politely. Please find a reliable source for the statement that there is such a conspiracy theory. Third, do you want your statement to appear beside the con-trail theory, the water-fueled perpetual motion automobile, and Rastafarianism? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfarney: first answer, made the OP as in this post in the talk page. second answer, conspiracy theories are mostly made on internet blogs, chatrooms and imageboards, which are not considered as reliable source from what i noticed, so how is it even possible to have a RS for conspiracy theories?

• IT's stupid, but that is the way it's done. You find an RS with credentials who says such and such is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't matter whether it's stupid, right, wrong, or only the RS's fantasy; it's a conspiracy theory if and only if an RS says it is. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have seen that you were with User:Nimit(Jain in hindi or Marathi) talking that you liked Jainism, here I need some help on an Jain article will you help me please that articles name is 'Gajpanth' ? If you are willing to help or support(It's ok if you don't know information on it but you can support that article, even if we need help about any rule or media etc. you can help). I also follow Jainism, please help! thank you for giving your necessary time for my message. Regards BOTFIGHTER (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to support or help us please send a message on Gajpanth talk page please. RegardsBOTFIGHTER (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Real Life Barnstar
	You have an heart of gold because of the Talk page of Nimit you should what are your thoughts, not because you were liking Jainism but because of your thoughts of peace. You are man with a Golden Heart I appreciate you!!!!! Keep it up! Spread peace in whole world!!! BOTFIGHTER (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to elaborate upon the tool's terse edit description, to make it even more obvious that nothing was deleted.  I reported that bug to the author.  Thxxxxx.  

— Smuckola(talk) 16:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

Smuckola, I would love to know the context of this communication. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I got it now. Thanks. And the meaning of the kitten? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your edit to the Scientology article and associated comment. Please see my comments on the Scientology talk page.

--D'Andria (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gentile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. 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) 09:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shurat HaDin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. 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) 09:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Please use extra care to ensure your edits to biographies of living people such as Rick Alan Ross comply with Wikipedia's policy on BLP's and the Neutral Point of View policy. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 15:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, Jason Scot and Rick Alan Ross are actually living persons and all articles must obey the policy of WP:BLP. Do you understand this? Collect (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collect (talk · contribs), I presume you are asking whether I understand what you are saying. I understand the statement but I do not agree that it justifies reversion. See [1] on this incident. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Scientology, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Jbh^Talk 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A conviction of conspiracy to defraud 40 years ago, at age 23, for which Rick Ross has obviously made reparation, shouldn't be part of the article IMO. Least of all in the form of a separate section with the eye-catching header "Criminal record", high up in the article. BLP articles do not have the purpose of shaming people, and it's not reasonable to insert so prominently such long-ago events, long since lived down. Compare WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Compare also this comment by User:Newyorkbrad when the material about Ross's criminal record was last discussed, in May. Thank you for only edit warring once to reinsert it, but you shouldn't have added it at all, let alone in that form, and twice, and certainly not without discussion. I'm glad to see you have already been alerted to the discretionary sanctions in force for BLPs and for scientology-related articles. I hope you realize that if you edit Rick Alan Ross with an obviously hostile agenda, you can be topic banned from it. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. [2] [3] --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has commented on it directly, please remove, "If serving as an expert witness causes a person to become then and ever after a tool of the lawyer, by his own argument Ross has many masters, his intellect and integrity compromised by each." from your comment. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz:, will Ross be removing his comments on living person Shupe? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're talking about. How about going ahead with the refactoring, then we'll look at whatever you're concerned about? --Ronz (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually by the looks of your talk page, you could probably use something stronger. Frankly, I don't get "warnings" since it just creates animosity. (Unless one thinks of them as awards like I do!) Cheers! MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 04:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs

Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process

David Schoetz is, in fact, a known journalist. And an employee of ABC News when he wrote the post. Also has worked for the NY Daily News and MSNBC (where he is currently an Executive Producer).

The AP article he quotes states " His bond has been set at $5 million, a figure his attorneys say is "excessive and oppressive."" which is, it would seem, quite clear. Finding current weblinks to individual AP reports from 2010 is not all that easy, so the RS blog is sufficient. The AP has suspended searches for archived articles - so the fact is that the blog is the best link as a reliable source. It is not an "opinion blog" for this sort of material, and is done under the auspices of a highly regarded news organization.

Is this quite clear? Would you prefer the exposure of your position on the WP:RS/N noticeboard - or is this sufficient for you to self-revert your deletion of the reliable source? Collect (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:, please confine these discussions to the topic talk pages. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- did you read my dang post here? It is about your misuse of the WP:RS which is at issue - but I am gald to bring this to WP:RS/N as you seem deaf to this head's up I offer. Collect (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Guru charged in sweat lodge deaths says he's broke

" Author: FELICIA FONSECA Associated Press Writer Date: February 19, 2010 Publication: Associated Press Archive

"A man who built a multimillion-dollar empire with a motivational mantra that teaches people to create wealth contends he's broke and cannot post bond in a criminal case that threatens the survival of his self-help business.

"James Arthur Ray was charged earlier this month with three counts of manslaughter stemming from the deaths of three people following a sweat lodge ceremony he led last year in Arizona. His bond has been set at $5 million, a figure his attorneys say is "excessive...

Direct from the AP via nl.newsbank.com so your cavil about a "blog" is officially bogus. Kindly reinstate the material. Collect (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:, please confine these discussions to the topic talk pages. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's this edit doing in the bio of a deprogrammer? Either it's a sly implication that Ross's deprogramming work "results from an impulse to rectify a perceived violation of oneself" (which would be offensive psychobabble), or else it's utterly irrelevant and undue in the article. I look at it as a transparent attempt to make Ross look bad, just like the "Criminal record" edit that I warned you about above. One more and I topic ban you from the article. Bishonen | talk 22:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:, Perhaps we should rename the Wikipedia, Flower's Blog: If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. Deprogrammers (in this case a "public figure") are being protected from all scholarly discussion and analysis, while the targets of deprogrammers are open season. Can you explain what is going on here? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about forwarding Ross's theories without criticism, it's about how the criticism is done. Do you not see how offensive and intrusive the choice of a quote about "violation of oneself" is in a biography article? Please try to apply the "high degree of sensitivity" that WP:BLP requires for biographies. If you find that difficult, perhaps you had better propose changes on talk instead of putting them straight into the article. Bishonen | talk 10:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen:: Despite Collect (talk · contribs)'s complaints, I have not suggested any criminal conduct by CAN or anyone affiliated with CAN. CAN's decision to spend the insurance money on appeals rather than the judgment is a documented fact, and no one has produced a contending source. That such an act by a corporation might be thought "criminal", or that the action would be attributed to people who are not owners, founders, shareholders, officers, or employees -- shows a profound miss-education on the civil legal system. But that bizarre structure of presumptions is the foundation of Collect's complaint against me. Perhaps you can address the issue with him -- he seems not to understand simple words when they are followed by my name. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion that a NPO deliberately bankrupted itself is not in any way criminal? Really? Note the source you love to use was by Shupe who was the one who quite erroneously claimed Ross was not acquitted - and where you repeatedly sought to have Ross's BLP state he was not acquitted. Until others pointed out that not only was he acquitted, it took only two hours for him to be acquitted. Where a source has been found to be errant in statements of fact, other facts asserted in such a source fall under a teensy cloud. I trust this clears up your apparent misapprehension about what is and is not a reliable source when dealing with living persons. With glorious cheerfulness, Collect (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "deliberately bankrupted itself" -- those are your words -- no one else has asserted that. It is a straw man.
• that CAN did anything that was "in any way criminal" -- that is your idea -- no one else has suggested that, not then and not now, and not in the RS. It is a straw man.
• bankruptcy as a deliberate strategy (if we must presume CAN did so) is not considered a criminal act -- or not usually.[4] Again, this is something you have added to the subject and the discussion that is not inherent, not in the RS, not in the reverted edit, or anywhere else. It is a straw man.
• the crimes of a corporation (if there were a crime here) rarely reflect on individuals. When it happens it is very notable and exceptional, like Enron. And in those cases, the crime reflects only on officers or staff members who personally commit egregious fraud or other crimes. For example, BP was convicted of criminality for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but the individuals are charged only for the acts each individual performed as an individual. But none of the people you name are founders, owners, officers, or employees of the corporation. The whole line of argument borders on preposterous.
• "Where a source has been found to be errant in statements of fact, other facts asserted in such a source fall" -- so you have stated many times, but you have never quoted WP policy on that point. If we applied that principle universally, Singer's discredit in the DIMPAC should completely discredit deprogramming as a science and Ross as a practitioner of deprogramming, given that he continues to admire Singer and quote her on just that erroneous point. But you resist universal application of that principle.
• On the BLP/Notice board you asserted that an error on a fact of the case should discredit a source on all other facts of that same case. I attempted to show you that the bankruptcy was not associated with the same case as the one in which Ross was acquitted. I will indicate the same again to you now. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC) (updated Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

At this point, it's almost like you're just pushing to see how much you can get away with before you are blocked: "The Church of Christian Science and the Unification Church are also registered as 501(c)(3) corporations, as are most of the groups that Ross & Co. has undertaken to obliterate" [5]. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well played reviving the section. Most of my work here is over at WikiCrime, as that is my background (though I suppose the parent topic is related). Anyway, since you stuck to your guns and got the green light on the section, I will help you out if you would like. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Supaflyrobby: I would like that very much, thank you. Editing is real work. Thanks for digging up the initial text. Let's start with that, drop the Icke page references, and go on from there. I found books, too. Like this. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well written, concise, and covering what needed to be covered. It does not need copy editing, and I am not sure how much more detail is really needed. We do link to David Icke's page itself, where a reader could get more information if needed. --Supaflyrobby (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page of another editor, not all disruptive editing is vandalism. The removal against consensus of an entire section of an article is not vandalism. It is disruptive editing, and, in the case in point, it is subject to discretionary sanctions, but it is not vandalism, and you weaken your own case that the other editor is disruptive (and they are) by referring to the edits as vandalism. Use arbitration enforcement, not the allegation of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:, as noted on King's talk page, though it may be a distinction without a difference, I won't use the V word any more in these cases. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you accuse the text of being WP:OR. It is about as much OR as a claim that the day after Monday is Tuesday. It is perhaps reasonable to ask for a reference for the statement in question, but hardly reasonable to make an accusation of OR in the process.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chjoaygame: Yes, my summary was an error. I intended to say WP:SYNTH but I must have blinked. The statement is a very strong philosophical conclusion ("... but any ontology must give an account ...") with no citation. I hope the editor who put it there had a citation and can add it. Otherwise it should be pruned. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes, it is a bit too strong. Maybe something like 'an ontology may give an account'. Still, as you say, a reference would do no harm. I didn't post that one, so at present it's not high on my agenda list to get the reference. But I'll mitigate the statement.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chjoaygame: Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the sources - he used "Olsen" in credited comedy roles - and never in any other usage. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Ever the nasty comment, eh? The source cited mentions the Olsen name in the same paragraph with a string of off-stage activities. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I was noting his use of "Olsen" was never with regard to property etc. but was absolutely and purely a "stage name". How do you find that to be a "nasty comment"? Sigh. Collect (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Take it to the topic talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit text that has been collapsed. No one can see it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I fixed a missed word. I presume at some point the text will again visible -- you did say it would be a discussion of content, not of editors? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That particular text will probably not be visible again, but I am not sure. When the case is opened by a volunteer moderator, they will probably instruct the participants to be civil and concise. That post isn't concise. DRN always has a rule to comment on content, not on contributors. If you want to comment on contributors, go to a conduct forum such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I do not want to comment on contributors, except in the Dispute Overview, which is necessary for understanding of the issues. I do not understand why you wanted Rick Alan Ross here as a part of this discussion since he is not a contributor. His presence makes it difficult to discuss his page objectively. My concise statement is in the dispute Overview. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that I wanted Rick Alan Ross as a party. Another of the parties said that he should be added, and he should have been added, and was. He is not and should not be a contributor to his BLP, but he does have a right to comment on his BLP. You are expected to discuss his biography objectively with any member of the community including its subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on contributors should not be necessary to understand the issues if the issues are content issues. Are you willing to discuss content without discussing contributors? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my statement above was clear. The DR process requires the naming of other contributors involved in the dispute. I did that. Ross is not a party to the dispute because he is not a contributor, so I did not name him. Now it is time to discuss content. This will necessarily involve comments about Ross and his activities because he is the subject of the page. If Ross is not discussed, there is no discussion of page content and we are done. That is why Ross should not be involved in the DRN. Let us please proceed to a discussion of content. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I read your filing at DRN, where you said "Ross was pleaded guilty to embezzling conspiracy, imprisoned for a year or so, and later exonerated by a judge." (I guess the "was" was in the wrong place.) I don't remember hearing of Ross going to prison before. Can you give a source for it, please? Bishonen | talk 23:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen: You are correct, there was probation only. I misremembered the details of his conviction when I wrote the DRN note, though the statement I put in the edit was fully sourced.[6] Have you been canvassed to participate in this DR? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged.[7] So you'd say something like that without even checking? I'm just going to bed; I'll decide tomorrow whether it is now time to topic ban you from Rick Alan Ross, broadly construed. I'm sure you realize that all pages on Wikipedia must be free of BLP violations. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Prison and parole both involve a criminal conviction, and the crime and conviction are the character blemishes in the real world. Most people do not have criminal convictions in their histories. Ross has two. ("I was convicted of one felony and a misdemeanor. These were both non-violent crimes. My misdemeanor conviction was for "Conspiracy" to commit a crime. This involved an attempted burglary of a vacant model home in 1974. No one was hurt or threatened in any way and I received probation.")[8] The sentence is a detail. If a criminal conviction were falsely asserted in civil society, it would certainly be libel. If the sentence were misstated, it would not be libel. One of the issues on the article is blanking of all mention of Ross's criminal convictions. But you will do what you will do. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's principles for BLPs (and for all other comments on living people, such as your DRN filing) aren't based on whether what you say would be "libel" in civil society; they're considerably stricter. I disagree that "the sentence is a detail"; that somebody has been in prison, versus that they have been paroled, are two things that make very different impressions in the world I live in. I've warned you before about the way you've been going on about Ross's 40-year-old conviction (at age 23), specifically about the disproportionately prominent way you inserted it in the article earlier.[9] Given that, I'm really surprised that you would misstate it as you did here. I thought at first you had to know what you were talking about, but your carefree wording "a year or so" (my italics) suggested that you didn't in fact know, and that's why I asked. I'm topic banning you from further comment on Ross, on any page. Of course this ban is not placed for this latest misstep; that's merely the last straw in the campaign against one of our article subjects that you've been waging. The entire tone of your DR submissions is inappropriate; here's some more of it. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

you are indefinitely topic banned from Rick Alan Ross and all related pages and content

You have been sanctioned for persistent attacks on Rick Ross in the article, on the talkpage, and in your WP:DRN submission. Compare my first and second warning on this page, as well as this elaboration of my second warning and my response to you immediately above. You have also been warned by other people, as can be seen above on this page.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never attacked Rick Alan Ross. In fact, I have supported his requests in opposition to other editors. I have insisted on the truth with fully supported references -- with the exception of the last, which was an honest mistake. Since this is a "BLP" ban, "all related" seems exceptionally broad and opportunistic -- like a deliberately outstanding arrest warrant left in place to conduct personal searches at any time and place. As the record shows, including the "warnings" you cite on my user page, other partisan editors have used BLP like the DoJ uses the Commerce Clause. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"All related pages and content" is the nature of a topic ban. Please check out WP:TBAN for details of what "related" is intended to convey; you're banned from editing content related to Rick Alan Ross, nothing else. As an example, I would say that probably includes all editing of the Jason Scott case, but not Scientology articles in general, unless the context of your edit directly involves Ross. Please feel free to ask if you're uncertain of a particular edit you wish to make. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Apologies are cheap to give, but often valuable to receive, so please accept mine. I did not intend to offend you with my comment, only to characterize what I thought was a poorly constructed bit of logic. I take "comment on content, not on contributors" seriously, but sometimes I fail to clearly establish to what I was referring when I say something disparaging. I wish I could say that it would never happen again (to be honest, I'm not even sure I offended you, but there's no harm in apologizing anyways), but I know myself too well. I have a habit of characterizing arguments used against me, and what seems obvious to me -that I was referring only to your argument- is not always obvious to others. To that end, please accept in advance my apologies for any future cases in which I fail to make myself completely clear.

P.S. I will expect those apologies to be repaid in ninety (90) days, with a compounding interest of 1.3% APR over prime to be accrued weekly if they are not used. I accept cash, checks, money orders, random declarations of my amazingly handsome manliness and variations of the Shaft theme song with my handle substituted for the choir chant as payment. ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, no blood drawn. Hope we are on the same track now. I should haul my creaky old bones over there to clarify my meaning in any case. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lysergic acid diethylamide, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Phenomenologically and Cerebral. 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) 11:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I tried to answer on my Talk page, but you probably didn't see it. I would be grateful if you can tell me whether this version is gramatically correct (unfortunately I am not a native speaker):

Amway has been subject to several investigations whether it runs a pyramid scheme. The investigations took place in the United States[31], the United Kingdom[32], and two states in India.[33][34][35]. Court cases involving the FTC in the United States and the High Court in the United Kingdom[36] cleared the company of the charges. Best regards,--Historik75 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry I did not follow your page. You can ping other editors with the code @Historik75:.) Consider this:

Amway has been investigated by several governments for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. Amway was investigated by the United States,[31] the United Kingdom,[32] and two states in India.[33][34][35] An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[10] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[36] cleared the company of suspicion of pyramid practices.

According to this page, the Amway case in the US was not a court case. It was an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). That was my initial concern -- there were no "charges" (a term criminal proceedings) filed. Note: always put the footnote after punctuation. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, still learning how Wikipedia works. :-) Thank you very much for your corrections. How about a more "condensed" version (just not to repeat investigated-investigated-investigation)?

Amway has been investigated by governments in the United States,[31] the United Kingdom,[32] and two states in India[33][34][35] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes. An investigation by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States[11] and by the High Court in the United Kingdom[36] cleared the company of suspicion of pyramid practices.

I would like to suggest this one for RfC.--Historik75 (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! @Historik75:, thanks for asking my opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: do we have to say "by governments"? Isn't this a redundant info when we are later talking about FTC and the court? How about leaving that out? It's for the lead, not for the article body.--Historik75 (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Investigation" does not imply government investigation. What about this:

Amway has been examined the Federal Trade Commission in the United States,[31][1] the High Court in United Kingdom,[32] and governments in two states in India[33][34][35] for possible violations of the national and local laws against pyramid schemes.

Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I assume you meant: "examined by"...--Historik75 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did. and the governments of two states ...

if no charges were files or complaints issued, we should mention that as well. And "civil charges" is a correct term for complaints by the FTC (which is a "government agency"), etc. Collect (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about "civil charges" if the complaint was never filed in court. Was there a complaint filed in the FTC? I don't think we can characterize all investigations by Federal Commissions as "charges." Let's take this discussion to the topic talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Hi, and welcome to the discussioon. :-) I assume you were talking about India when you wrote "if no charges were files or complaints issued". Am I right? The problem is that the Indian case hardly can be considered controversy because it was raised only because India has still not adopted regulation regarding direct selling. I understand that the critics would like to make a mountain out of a molehill, as the India is the only place in the world that still gives them hope, but I personally would leave India completely out. The court said that the Act did not prima facie apply, the Indian Minister apologized... Should we put all this information into the lead? I doubt it. But two other editors strongly disagree even with the quotation above (don't know why) let alone if we leave out the India. ;-) --Historik75 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfarney: I agree, but can we move it there? There is a dispute resolution process running and the moderator asked us not to make any edits there.--Historik75 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re FTC: I believe the complaint was filed. See the document[12]. It says Complaint on the very first page.--Historik75 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I have just noticed the word "court".--Historik75 (talk) 21:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yup, the moderator asked for no more discussion on the talk page. (2) This appears to be a hearing before the FTC, not a formal court, though it uses the formalities of speech and actions of a court. (3) I do not see the word "court" used in reference to the current action, only in reference to precedential cases. But you are correct that it characterizations the accusations as "count" -- as though it were citing to counts in an indictment. Maybe "charges" is not that far wrong. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be correct to say, at the end of the sentence: "cleared the company of charges"?

Still don't know whether to include India or not. If so it should be explained that the court said the Act did not prima facie apply. What do you think?--Historik75 (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no sources on the India thing -- and I don't know how the courts operate there. However, if the law "does not apply," then AMWAY was cleared of charges -- if it was indeed charged. That is the way the law works in most countries. Charge: "You broke this law." Judgement clearing charges: "You did not do as accused." OR "That law was not applicable to your actions." Sorry I can't help any further. Be glad to help with English phrasing, though. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem. The court said that it did not prima facie apply, then said: "if the allegations contained in the report of C.No.1474/C-27/CiD/2006 dated 24-9-2006 are taken on their face value they make out an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Act." In August, 2007 the Indian Supreme Court ordered the Police to complete their investigation within 6 months, so the case could proceed. After 7 years it still has not been completed.

In short, according to the sources[13][14][15][16], including the Indian official,[17][18][19] the case is clearly a misuse of the Act that could only take place because of absolutely no regulation for direct selling in India. India promised to create it years and years ago, but nothing happened. Amway, in its statement regarding this issue stated: "It is pertinent to note here that content of all the recently filed FIRs is identical to each other and have been filed by advocates or activists."[20] So all of these events appear to be one person's activity.

Controversy? Yes, but on the part of the Indian law, not Amway.--Historik75 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In U.S. law, that would be null pros, -- an abusive action on the part of prosecutors. They were not cleared of all charges, then. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you for your help.--Historik75 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC):Hi, Historik75 notified me of this discussion.[reply]

Just a quick note on the FTC case, it was a hearing before an FTC Administrative Law Judge. I believe they are generally considered a type of "court" but I'm not sure it's a significant issue in terms of wording. --Icerat (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your experience with the reliable sources noticeboard, I wanted to ask your opinion of some of the sources being used and abused over at R2-45. This article has long been used to push one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories regarding Hubbard and Scientology, and is a prime candidate to have all the "sources" vetted. Are you familiar with this conspiracy theory? Laval (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the topic only what I've read here. http://www.gerryarmstrong.org is a self-published source, so it is not an RS and should not be used, particularly to support contentious or controversial claims. Tonyortega.org is also self-published. These are not gray issues -- the Wikipedia:RS policy is pretty clear. The problem comes when editors hang around a page in a group and insist that consensus overrides policy, as happened here and here. WP:IAR was argued to mean that that group of editors can ignore all rules and do whatever they want to make the encyclopedia "better", while arguing minutia of the rules like lawyers at the same time in other forums -- or sometimes only a few lines away in the same forum on another topic. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laval:, some fixes with notes. Please review. Comment on talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TPG and refactor your comments at Talk:Oxygen toxicity. A talk page discussion is not a dialogue, but threaded discussion and it is important for third-parties to be able to distinguish who is saying what. I'll happily engage with whatever comments you wish to make when you have the courtesy to observe our normal conventions by keeping your comments together with a single attribution, rather than interrupting another editors' contribution. --RexxS (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC) @TPG: I'll do my best. This would be easier over a cup of coffee. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem inasmuch as Scientology's policy of R2-45 is not controversial. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Damotclese: Sorry, I lost the context of your comment. Again, please? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Damotclese (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperoxia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration. 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) 09:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued tendentious editing concerning R2-45, in particular this removal of a cited source, is blatantly in violation of the arbitration sanctions covering the Scientology topic area. I would remind you that the sanctions "can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." If you persist, you will face a request for enforcement action against you. Prioryman (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TPG and refactor your comments at Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement. A talk page discussion is not a dialogue, but an article discussion. Please have the courtesy to observe our normal conventions when discussing. That means not sharing your thoughts on Hitler and Hillary etc. as you did recently. I think it better you just remove your comment as it is blog like and unsuitable to the talk page discussion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must have me confused with someone else. I have no thoughts on Hillary that I would share or have shared with you. Grammar's Li'l Helper 07:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate and agree with your advice. Whenever things get too heated, I like to take a bit of a break, but obviously things have not improved there, with the exception that at the very least, anti-Scientology activists are not trying to impose a generic picture of a handgun. Laval (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I definitely have a lot to catch up on. I've never encountered that image before, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is impossible to authenticate or verify in any way. There are also some definite problems in terms of accuracy and verification at Scientology and the occult, the first I've just tackled being the misuse of Hugh Urban's book to allege Hubbard's "membership" in the OTO, which Urban doesn't claim or even attempts to assert. But that looks to be just the tip of the iceberg, which I won't even fact check further so I can have a chance to see what's been going on at this ANI discussion. Laval (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty sad that even some admins appear to have such a strong and unchecked bias that they would make blatant personal attacks against you as some kind of covert agent of Scientology. The same has been leveled at me several times, off-wiki as well, and just as absurdly the very opposite by the Scientologists themselves. As an aside, just for the sake of curiosity and absurdity, I was once told by a recent church defector that my real name (which they had allegedly connected to my Wikipedia handle) was on a list of top enemies of Scientology because of my editing here and my attempts to adhere to total NPOV. I have no idea if that's true, but assuming it is, just as ridiculous is that some regulars from Tony Ortega's blog comments section contacted me to let me know he hates me with a passion because of the drama that took place on the talk page of the article about him.

I am definitely impressed by your managing wikistress very well and not allowing all the personal attacks and attempts at imposing bias and POV from dissuading you to edit further, especially when they're ganging up on you. As you know, this is a totally volunteer thing and we're not getting paid, so as I get older and older it becomes difficult to justify to myself subjecting myself to these "gangbang" style attacks and such. I tip my hat off to you, my friend. Laval (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laval: Thank you for your kind words. I wish I could communicate what I have discovered about that in the last year or so — it has made all the difference to me. In a way, improving Wikipedia resembles backgammon. With each cast of the dice, a player has a limited choice among moves. Sometimes, even making the best choices, the game will be lost and Wikipedia is slightly degraded. So be it. With time, you learn better strategies.

The primary strategy for enforcing bad content on Wikipedia seems to be the personal attack. Some editors have little else in their quiver. If you oppose their religion, philosophy, politics, agenda (etc., or their anti-whatever) in the slightest degree, their response is an immediate attempt to put YOU in a box/category with an ad hominem attack. Such attacks can be very bold, even on ANI, as here and here, where a person would expect more polite behavior.

So far, I have not been attacked through any medium other than Wiki editorship. I am very sorry to hear that you have. This should be reported immediately to the upper admin or regents, however they are called on Wiki. I am coming to understand that as a primary reason we are to be anonymous, and that the OUTING of editors is punished so severely. Let me know if you need help reporting the problem. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 21:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aluminium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terminator. 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) 10:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that, but since I have someone's ear I'd just like to point out that there seems to be a lot of redundant categorization going on over there, or is it just me? I know we categorize given names a bit redundantly - "Given names" and then "<<gender>> given names" - so maybe I'm missing something here... Maybe there's a good reason for it... Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calcium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sterilizing. 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) 09:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to chalenge your reference on titanium dioxide nanoparticles. The use of TiO2NP is limited in "electronics" to the Dye-sensitized solar cell which is compared to the other uses ignorably small.

It might be possible to use a better source, which is not mentioning the electronics uses. [21] or doi:10.1007/s11434-011-4476-1

I like your work on the elements articles, although I sometimes do not understand the differences, but this is the native speakers.

--Stone (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stone: Thanks. Please edit. I didn't explore the statement in the article, as I should have, so I welcome the correction.

My edits for native English are oriented to the language of settled agreement that was spoken in the 20th Century, rather than the vernacular of our own times. My reasoning is that the language of those times have greater stability, longevity, and universality than the momentary and regional fashions on TeeVee and the chat boards of current day. A few common examples may help.

• Deductive consequence and logical consequence are often confused in language, and that confusion is further muddled by common words in English. I try to remove that ambiguity, particularly by eliminating the conjunctions "due to" and "as" (synonym of "because"), which are not a part of that older language.
• Inanimate objects:
  • should rarely be stated to have possessions or other anthropomorphisms
  • are not "responsible" for anything, nor do they cause anything.
• Numbers should not be qualified with "over" and "under", which confuse locations with quantities. Numbers should be "greater" or "more than", etc.
• Clarity is often improved by reducing qualifiers and verbiage, particularly by removing redundant qualifiers. To the best of my ability, I retain all of the sense of the text while shortening it, though sometimes the antecedent of a pronoun should be explicit when the antecedent is so distant it becomes ambiguous.
• The phrases: "such as", "at least", "referred to as", and a number of others can be difficult to parse. I work to remove or clarify these where possible.
• Modifiers should be as close as possible to the modified word or phrase without intervening text.
• Often a series of statements can be understood by the reader as a series of assertions, and the repeated occurrence of "also" clouds more than it clarifies. This falls into the general category of excessive connectives, such as "however", nevertheless", "in addition to", "as well as", "hence", "thus", "therefore", and other verbal Styrofoam. These are the words of argument and advocacy, rather than an encyclopedia.
• The borrowed word "via" (as a synonym for "by") is much over-used, more difficult to say, pretentious, and not an improvement. "By" should be used in phrases of agency and tools. "Via" has use when naming an intermediate state. Pig iron is produced by (not "via") smelting. She traveled to London by (not "via") ship.
• "Ones" is an excessively lame pronoun that rarely adds anything to a sentence. It is also an oxymoron, given that "one" has no meaning BUT singularity, while the suffix "-s" attempts to make it plural.
• "Very" and "extremely" can usually be discarded. If a text that means what it says, it does not require such intensifiers. If it does not mean what it says, we have other problems.

Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had to delete your request to the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning R2-45. It appears that you entered it manually rather than using the automated interface for the purpose. Cases that are manually entered cause the bot that maintains the list of cases to break. This is a limitation of the bot, and has no comment on the merit of your case. However, as to the merits of your case, it appears that you are identifying conduct issues, such as article ownership, and DRN does not address content issues. You may refile your request for moderated dispute resolution using the automated interface, but I suggest that, if you want to address conduct issues, you should consider relying on ArbCom discretionary sanctions for the Scientology topic area. If the subject editors have not yet been cautioned as to the availability of discretionary sanctions, caution them as to the availability of discretionary sanctions. If they have been cautioned, and they persist in editing that you view as disruptive or otherwise contrary to policy, you may report them to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Thank you. I wish there were more indication of the fussybot's personal problems when I saved the text. But you are probably right that the other forums (fora?) are more appropriate. I will study. Thanks again. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 23:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a blue button that is available to enter a case. Maybe there should be a clearer statement that cases that are entered other than through the automated interface cause problems. In the past, when someone has entered a case manually, we have seen that it breaks the bot and has to be deleted, so this time I deleted it without waiting for the bot to break. Other than that, as I explained, it appears that you have a conduct dispute that, in this case, is best handled by Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Thanks again. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 00:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, there are severe ArbCom sanctions in place and they are clearly in violation, especially if they are still edit warring over the inclusion of hearsay and other unreliable sources and removing NPOV and accuracy tags. All of them have even stated they have an absolute bias against Scientology, which is also evident from their edits, with at least one of them (Damotclese) admitting that he is a veteran anti-Scientology activist from back in the Usenet days (alt.religion.scientology or ARS). Feoffer is a very new account and has already been engaging in extremely biased editing and misusing sources, for example on the Scientology and the occult article. Slashme began the current edit war over my removal of the absurd picture of a handgun, though another editor had also put the picture back a couple times after I removed it, but they did not appear to be anti-Scientology, or even know much about it, and based on their edits seemed to be primarily focused on articles about guns and weapons. After they stopped, Slashme entered the fray, insisting on its inclusion. I don't know anything about Prioryman, but based on their comments and edits, obviously has a very strong bias against Scientology.

Keep in mind when ArbCom banned both pro and anti-Scientology users engaged in edit warring, some of the people who got permanently banned included prominent anti-Scientologists like Dave Touretsky and Arnie Lerma, among others. The edit warring of Slashme, Damotclese, Feoffer, Prioryman all reflect the same kind of aggressive bias and smearing (including accusing anyone attempting genuine NPOV as being covert agents of Scientology), but more extreme.

Considering the fact that they essentially bullied us for attempting to inject some rational balance and NPOV instead of dumping on Scientology as some kind of Jonestown or Heavens Gate type cult, ArbCom is definitely the place to take this. I haven't even looked at that article since the constant edit warring and removal of neutrality and accuracy tags actually forced me to go back on anti-anxiety meds, the chest pain was getting that bad. When editing on Wikipedia makes a person feel like crap and like they're going to suffer a heart attack, there's no point in continuing. Plus, some of the off-wiki harassment and threats (which I don't want to make an issue of here because I don't want my identity inadvertently revealed, and I'm not suggesting at all that they are in some way involved -- I have no evidence of that, and I'm doubtful they would go that far, so it's irrelevant as far as this case goes) was more than enough to keep me away from that article.

If there's one thing that always gets to me is getting bullied. Laval (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laval: I was not aware of all those things. My participation in Scientology subjects is quite recent. The mess they have made of those pages is embarrassing. I will do what I can, though it will take a while because it must be done well. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 06:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that my editing record speaks of "aggressive bias and smearing". I try to be neutral and balanced. See this edit and this one for example. I thought a picture of a .45 pistol was appropriate for an topic named after a .45, but I relented, and even removed the picture myself in the end, so I'm actually amenable to reason in the long run. If you feel that I bullied you, @Laval:, please let me know where and how. --Slashme (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But your opinion was not solicited in this conversation. 07:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

And I find it amusing that you are monitoring my talk page. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 05:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not monitoring your talk page. You put a notice on my talk page about the DRN and I came here to reply, and found a discussion already in progress, with my name being mentioned, and decided to reply. --Slashme (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that Arbcom is best venue for a definitive resolution. Earlier offer stands, can you think of ways we can make it more clear that the lectures were humorous? Would you support a fair-use audio clip so readers can HEAR the laughter? Feoffer (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pure original research. You'd need a reliable source where the lecture is being discussed and identified as "humorous." You can't just insert your own observations or even those of a multitude of other editors. If you're not familiar with the policy, please see WP:OR. Laval (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Laval. Feoffer, I have never investigated or argued about humorous intent. My objections are clearly stated on the talk page. Please address those concerns on the talk page, and desist from using this page for subject discussion. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]