User talk:Griswaldo

WP articles should have a "neutral point of view", meaning in part that statements, even from verified sources, should not be painted as if they are the only point of view. Even if other points of view are not presented, and/or do not have verified sources, the article should still be written as if the information presented is only from one point of view and not necessarily the only one. While you clearly hold this source very dear, it is not the only information or opinion on the subject, and certainly not the/an ultimate authority. Presenting Judith Martin's point of view is not more or less valid than using the reference you are promoting.

Relevance and relative authority of sources is important as well as the act of actually citing sources. Judith Martin is a current etiquette authority with 30+ years as the doyenne of etiquette in America's capital city, so I would tend to consider her opinion important, or at least valid. Njsustain (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the purpose of the article. While some people may be interested in the origin of the white dress, many (probably more, IMO) are interested in its current meaning. That's why the etiquette authority is needed here. Njsustain (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While WP is not a news source, that does not exclude non-historical sources, as long as they are verifiable and well regarded. Miss Manners herself is VERY concerned with the history of etiquette, is a staunch traditionalist, but recognizes change in culture, and, very rarely, and rightly, attempts to influence culture. None of these things exclude her from being a verifiable and reliable source of information for WP topics.Njsustain (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

I just saw your edit, what you said needed saying but watch those type of statements they can some back on you real quick...Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is what it is and calling it that way shouldn't come back to bite anyone. No worries. I just call it how I see it.Griswaldo (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I am hoping for the best but i am extremely skeptical this will work, but i have been surprised before. The consensus on the talkpage has happened before, and to no avail I am more skeptical that we get anything done on the talk page with out help from a one of the Committees. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think there are people whose patience has yet to be exhausted and I think it's worth a try is all I'm saying.Griswaldo (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be having an off-day. Thank you for letting me know ... again. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sorry 'bout that. the funny thing is, is that I saw it in the history of the page, but couldn't figure out where it was when looking at the talk page. i was still looking for it when you put it back. my apologies :) SAE (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I realized it was a mistake so no worries.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last comment on Talk:Genesis creation narrative is exactly what I point to in mine, but so much more concise. Next time I should just wait for you to reply, and put my "ditto" behind it :) SAE (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being an outstanding Wikipedian. Thank you for your level-head, common sense, respect for everyone, including those with whom you disagree. Most of all, thank you for your contribution of outstanding sources, and your patience and generosity in giving debating partners time to get their positions organized and to make their cases. Thanks for defending the positions of opponents when they are not around to defend those themselves. Your keen mind, good humour, skilled diplomacy and many other qualities not only set an example, they are quite simply enjoyable to encounter, motivating others to work as hard as you do towards producing quality free content. My very best wishes to you. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious reply. Like you, I wish Genesis creation narrative could be discussed in a literary way, rather than appropriated to pursue the culture wars you refer to. I have started a small contribution to attempting to defuse that bad habit at Wiki, by making a start on an article for a very famous book, The Myth of God Incarnate. I don't agree with the conclusion of this book, nor various parts of its evidence and reasoning; however, it is very well argued and sourced. I hope it serves as an example that academic writers from Christian backgrounds do not all "toe the party line".

Griswaldo, I think talk pages at Wikipedia are a little like tertiary level seminars or tutorials. Not only are many of us involved in subject matter beyond our fields of specialization, but many of us are new to rigorous study of the experts. We can be slow to appreciate just how tricky academics can find (or make) issues that seem so straightforward to casual inspection.

I suppose Wikipedia, as a people's encyclopedia will never quite be totally satisfactory to the more academic mind, yet I trust it will always be somewhat more sophisticated than mere over-simplification of popular culture. Some frustration for all, but substantial gain for all as well.

I'll conclude by mentioning that I actually sympathise with the secularists at Wikipedia: this is no place for religious tract–type points of view. However, I just wish they realised that not everything published by confessing religious writers is in the tract genre. I think the thing we probably need to help one another see as editors is that article content is not adequate if all it does is provide a poll of current academic conclusions: 65% for, 30% against, 5% undecided. Article content is about giving readers a picture of the sub-issues, the evidence and the arguments the reliable sources currently discuss, and how those arose historically.

Some articles have good Etymology sections, others have trivia in those sections. If only we could build a habit at Wikipedia of starting not just with the historical development of word meanings, but with literature reviews. Those need not be perfect, but there are tons of great sources of literature reviews on various topics that can be followed in articles.

Anyway, I'll not blather on any longer. It's just an idea (probably too ambitious for GCN) that might bypass a lot of time consuming talk page tension, if we got a habit of starting articles with literature reviews. Very best to you again Alastair Haines (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Griswaldo. It probably raises copyright problems to copy the text for sharing it with other editors. It should be sufficient to use the sources to draft an outline and share it here. But realistically speaking, it seems unlikely that there's much interest there for repairing what has become an almost insensible article. The edit warring has got to stop-and so should all those editing that article without a solid reference in hand first, backing up their claims. At the very least those two problems need to improve before there's any chance of any real work getting done there. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that change will stand. It's not a bad sort of wording. I don't recall exactly that wording being suggested before. Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was too good to last. Oh well, good try. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you could copy the discussion wherever you wanted. Thanks for moving it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ed please discuss on talk ... introducing supernatural here is not informative and implies that there are ancient creation stories of another sort as well, which there aren't

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that at all. Good catch!

I'll try again (on talk). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Griswaldo , when you get a chance, can you read the new FAQ proposal section and let us know what your thoughts on the matter? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edition in Monogamy article was quite arbitrary and contrary to the rules of Wikipedia to show the topics from different points of view. This section depicts what kind of monogamy was found in ancient Egypt. Anyway thank you for your contribution. I will put monogamy in Ancient Egypt more clearly. --Quodvultdeus (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep Wikipedia rules, you are deleting valid information with reference to published sources, and pushing your own vision without any literature behind you.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty happy with current edition as the dictionary first speaks about human persons (1-2) and then about animals and zoology(3) - and that's how you have put it. Technical notice: 1. the link you gave does not work, it says:"The Oxford English Dictionary Online is a subscription service". and 2. why have you removed existing text of Britannica Dictionary? You behave as if the article was your own rancho. No one has right to be a censor in Wikipedia--Quodvultdeus (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Anyway the access to the Dictionary online is limited to those who are in university networks. Many users of Wikipedia are not.--Quodvultdeus (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather that get into an edit war, I'll take this off the page.

Scientology is used in my case as a point of discussion. You are apparently LDS. In my dealings writing about the Latter-day Saints, I have seen over and over again that members of the church demand officially published LDS sources for references about the religion. That should not be the case. All viewpoints should be considered - even that of an ex-mormon who actually lived it, published a book about it, and was published in a reputable publication regarding her writings.

What would a reputable article about Scientology be without accounts of the dissidents? From [1]: "This account comes from executives who for decades were key figures in Scientology's powerful inner circle. Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, the highest-ranking executives to leave the church, are speaking out for the first time...Two other former executives who defected also agreed to interviews with the St. Petersburg Times: De Vocht, who for years oversaw the church's spiritual headquarters in Clearwater, and Amy Scobee, who helped create Scientology's celebrity network, which caters to the likes of John Travolta and Tom Cruise." Reputable publication. Scientology denies it. But the paper runs the story, because there is truth to what the defectors say.

Just because someone has left a lifestyle, a religion, a way of life and wants to tell about their experiences in that life does not discredit them. I have provided a published reputable reference. The fact that Laake was a "dissident" or an "ex-mormon" does not automatically discredit her experiences and accounts.

I could use my experiences as a Latter-day Saint about this and verify this account. I have not done so. To do that would be a violation of WP:OR. In the meantime, accept that there are teachings in the religion that are, to put in bluntly, embarrassing and strange to outsiders.

I have attempted to be WP:CIVIL about this. I hope I have succeeded. I realize this is a sore spot to faithful LDS, seeing the intimate parts of their religion discussed and dissected. You are trying to present a good face to the world. I applaud the religion for the good it has done. But to simply dismiss something out of hand because the person referenced is a former member, even a "dissident," is wrong. This is Wikipedia, not LDS.org. All viewpoints are welcome here.

Regards, --Manway (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing WP:CIVIL about starting a discussion with a gross misconception about my personal affiliations which insinuates that I would have some kind of bias in this discussion. Of course you know maybe I was just religiously confused until you came along. Maybe I'm not an ex-Episcopalian agnostic. Maybe I'm LDS!Griswaldo (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be that WP:RfCU was used, but lately WP:ANI and WP:AN have been more popular. Laying out the evidence in the form of diffs and asking for administrative attention sometimes works. If that fails, arbitration is the last resort. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Genesis creation narrative. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jess ^talk _cs 04:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and your pals are being disruptive -- just like some of your "opponents" were being not that long ago. I'll not refrain from pointing this out just because you know how to dig up patronizing templates to place on my talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered joining WikiProject Cryptozoology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's coverage on cryptozoology. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! ~~~~

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon? thought you might be interested... Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha you amuse me, fair answer to difficult situation. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one who doesn't like myth [[2] - no discussion on talk page. Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Flood legends, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Arlen22 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A summary is defined as: 'a brief statement that presents the main points in a concise form'. The summary section of the Genesis article contains most (if not all) of the original text with explanations and expansions analysing what has been written. (Analysis: 'an investigation of the component parts of a whole and their relations in making up the whole'). See Talk:Book of Genesis for a brief summary. (Definitions from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendroche (talk • contribs) 21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Genesis page's 'Summary' section needs reviewing. While the Patriarchal section is much as I had imagined it to be (a little streamlined), some have gone a little too far on the Primeval section. I was hoping you know a way to revert this without destroying the 'good' edits that people have made in the rest of the article (I am unsure whether a revert would restore just that section or the whole article). Thank You. Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to open the Historicity of Jesus RFC in a day or two, and have drafted one viewpoint on what should happen before we open this up to the larger community. It's available for view at User:AKMask/JesusRFC. I'd like you to collaborate on it to fill out the opposing side if you would be so kind, that way we can determine the larger consensus. -- ۩ Mask 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to AFD that article? Do we want wikipedia to review restaurants of no particular note, I was going to AFD it more than once already but was considering the rationale. Article is also in the queue to receive DYK wiki front page publicity. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Who put the article in the DYK cue?Griswaldo (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Thank you very much for informing me of the debates. As you said, I don't feel that I ought to participate any more at this point as I have been bullied and threatened by administrators and bureaucrats. However, I'm glad that the incident at least brought my initial concern to people's attention. I may not be as familiar with WP standard practices as some people, and may not be able to quote the "rules" and "standards" of WP like a corporate lawyer, but I can spot a puff piece when I see one, bullying when it occurs, and inappropriate use of authority when it occurs. Thanks very much for your input. Njsustain (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Griswaldo. Thank you so much for informing me of this situation. I have for months been upset when thinking Cirt, a person who has been given authority on WP, and has clearly been given a lot of leeway (in article creation, content, and improper use of administrative authority) due to his "prolific" writing, was permitted to put up such an obvious puff piece to promote a business, so vehemently defended reasons to include the article, and then suddenly didn't care anymore about the article's inclusion once the restaurant closed... and it seemed, totally got away with it. It was so obviously just WRONG what was going on that I have mostly given up editing on WP... I really don't do much besides edit a couple of TV episode summary articles. This level of what can only be described as corruption in WP has made me a big opponent of it this past year. It seems the "white wall of silence" still exists as many seem to still be defending whatever he has been doing, because he is an admin and for no other logical reason I can see. Now, a person who hates Rick Santorum as much as that can't be all bad, but really, when such blatant abuse of authority is permitted to continue with no consequence, it really shows how poorly an organization is managed and where its basic values lie, unfortunately. Has Jimbo had nothing to say on this? I'm not sure where to voice my opinion on the matter but it seems well described: for just bringing up that something looked like puff/COI, my name was dragged through the mud by an admin who did not follow the rules of WP when it came to his article... the admins all defended their own, completely irrationally... and when the business interest went away, so did all of Cirt's arguments about why the article should be kept. Is WP to become nothing more than a platform to promote businesses for those who have the power to do so? That isn't what this community was created for, and not one I would want to be a part of. Thank you for your efforts in trying to reveal the corruption. Sincerely, Njsustain (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that this episode drove you from Wikipedia. I'm not sure that "corruption" is the right word, but I do believe that Wikipedia has a problem with social capital often trumping pure common sense and the impartial application of basic rules. Do you mind if I link to your statement here in the Arbitration that is most probably coming out of this RFC? Let me know.Griswaldo (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't mind, but as you may have already noticed I decided to make a comment there already, and did not pull punches. I am really tired of the "white wall of silence" and am not interested in being a lawyer here at WP just to make some simple, as you say, common sense, edits. It seems you do need to be a master of the rules here and to go around politicking in order to have any real editing rights. If I wanted to be a lawyer I would have gone to law school instead of engineering. Njsustain (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Griswaldo, I see that earlier today I received somewhat of a validation for the compltely sensible actions I took regarding the Daryl article over a year ago. However, I don't feel the slightest bit better about justice and fairness in WP. My God, imagine the number of man-hours that have been wasted this past year... I realize the issue was not just with Daryl, but the unfairness that went on then should have been stopped in its tracks at the time, not blindly backed up by other admins and dragged out for months and months, proceeding after proceeding. It must be in the tens of thousands of hours which have been wasted at least, time which should have gone towards editing articles. This desysop of a rogue administrator was not an indication that WP works. This whole convoluted process is an indication that it is still a broken system. There were no winners here.

Regards, Njsustain (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is at least discussion going on about the issues at the RfA talk page, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus that will result in real change that I can see. But I don't happen to speak Latin so I'm not entirely sure what is being discussed. Njsustain (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Griswaldo

I personally think that the article on Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant should be kept based on any reasonable interpretation of the guidelines, or probably even any narrower guidelines that has even a snowball's chance of reaching consensus. However, regardless of what could or should be the guidelines, in a world where this outcome was reached, I just don't see any point of claiming that something with a full-length review in the NYT (the claim that it's "about" the chef, not the restaurant, is not supported by the review, even if the reason for the review is the chef--the article first notes the decor and service, then goes on to describe specific menu items; contrast this to a description of the chef's other ventures, schooling, philosophy, which are not mentioned) is too local for the plain text of the GNG to be applicable.

^Bongo_matic 05:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

Bongo regarding the chef you're mistaken on two very important fronts. 1) I said it "focuses on" the chef. I did not say it is "about" the chef. These words alter the meaning quite a bit. It is about the restaurant but it focuses on its chef. 2) The first lines of the review are absolutely focused on the chef. The decor discussion you mention comes after these lines:

• DAVID DRAKE, both the brains and the brawn behind the impeccable restaurant bearing his name in Rahway, has done it again with Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant in downtown New Brunswick, which opened in October. We should reward him and his three partners — one of whom, Daryl Sorrentini, lends her first name to this venture — with our business, but we will be rewarded as well: We will eat, drink and most likely be merry, because the food is so delicious and the experience so joyful.

This introduction does say something about the chef's notability, and I am happy to admit this. I fully support the suggestion to expand the entry on the chef and to put a small bit of information about Daryl into that entry. Regarding your own failed AfD of a local event I feel for you, I clearly do. However I fail to understand how you put that up for AfD and are not voting delete here. Another odd contradiction in my mind. Besides this I think in your arguments you're making misleading points like the fact that there are 9 million people in NJ. I can create an award that only five people know about and put NJ in the name of it. Do I then claim that clearly its well known because NJ has 9 million people in it? That's why I looked at the readership of the magazine and extrapolated from there. But I don't appreciate the fact that I had to do this. It's a disingenuous argument ... I'm not saying you're being disingenuous as you may have thought the argument was a good one sincerely, but the argument itself is.Griswaldo (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are continuously assuming bad faith on me. I would never dare do something like that on you, and having disagreements is no reason to go close attack other editors personally by implying they are "purposely obfuscating" stuff. Please reconsider your statements. I am trying to have a productive discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(If you'd rather just let the entire thing die, I'm happy to let you; that seems to be your sentiment, given the comment you removed from Jimbo's page,[3] but I felt your feelings on the matter warranted direct addressing.)

I don't feel like I "pounced". I saw a massive amount of assumption of bad faith of Cirt's actions by Njsustain, and remarked as such. Nowhere did I fail to act responsibly, because nowhere did I act at all; I voiced my opinion, that's all.

Obviously, some people feel like I shouldn't have voiced my opinion by using the word "dick", and I'm willing to accept that, but it doesn't change my opinion of the actions I was talking about, and I still think I was correct in my assessment: saying someone has a conflict of interest just because they've written an article? Sorry, but yeah, that's a bit of a dick move. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EVula, Cirt has clearly written a puff piece here, regardless of whether or not in the end the restaurant is deemed notable enough for inclusion. As far as I can tell Njsustain met with dogged resistance from Cirt as soon as he brought out the obvious at the entry. Then Cirt ran off to AN/I where low an behold everyone focussed on the frustrated actions of Njustain and no one really bothered to look into what had made him act however it was he was acting. The COI insinuation was over the top and uncalled for but really why on earth was this puff piece written? It is wholly understandable that Njsustain wondered this. Everyone assumes good faith of certain people (admins, etc.) and are quick to assume something else of those who question this. That's not how the authority figures around here should act. That's just my opinion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not Cirt, so I can't really speculate as to why he wrote the article, but honestly... why do any of us do what we do? The basic assumption (for me) is just for fun. I enjoy the edits I make, which is why I make them. Perhaps Cirt just really likes writing articles; a lot of editors do, but nobody declares them as having a conflict of interest with their subjects. I don't have a problem with speculating someone's actions, but that's not quite what happened here.

Now, could the article have been toned down some? Sure. Is it a puff piece? Eh, I'm hesitant to call it that, since I tend to think of puff pieces as severely lacking any actual sources; the article has plenty of sources, albeit mostly positive (which Jimbo commented was just how it was[4]). I haven't seen anything from Njsustain that showed an actual effort to improve the article; he remarks on the talk page that there are negative reviews, but doesn't bother linking to any, instead opting to just immediately assume bad faith on Cirt's part.[5] When asked to provide sources, he instead once again assumes that the article was written only to be spam.[6][7] (as an aside, one of the reasons that claim stings so much for me is that I had the same claim levied against me early on in my wiki-career when I attempted to improve a sub-par article for a book that I enjoyed). He even assumed bad faith on Cirt's part for actions that he had no part in.[8][9] He has showed a complete double-standard, saying that Cirt engaged in ad hominem attacks on him by labeling his edits as disruptive (which, as an aside, I can't find; that doesn't mean he didn't, that means that my quick search didn't turn up anything)[10], despite the fact that he found it perfectly reasonable to insinuate that Cirt had a conflict of interest numerous times.

So that's how I arrived at my opinion. Could I have focused more on the reasons behind Njsustain's behavior? Yes, I could have, but I didn't. I don't consider that a failing on my part; it's just how I interpreted things. My interpretation is no less valid than your frustration that more attention wasn't given to the reasons behind Njsustain's behavior; they are merely different points of view for the same situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding puff pieces here is what our entry says - "Puff piece or fluff piece is an idiom for a journalistic form of puffery; an article or story of exaggerating praise that often ignores or downplays opposing viewpoints or evidence to the contrary." They are one-sided but not false or invented.Griswaldo (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the interaction between Cirt and Njsustain I do not see the same narrative you have presented. Njsustain tagged the entry with a NPOV tag and called it a "puff piece" in the edit summary, which again it clearly is (but we don't have to argue about that). He also tagged it for COI, and once again I agree that the COI insinuations were not helpful at all and should not have been made like that. Cirt removed both tags and immediately demanded WP:RS sources. Is it really prudent for Cirt to remove the NPOV tag as the article creator and as someone who has been accused, perhaps falsely, of a COI? Would you advise other editors who are that intimately involved with the article to act in this way? Did you notice this when you reviewed the situation? Njsustain responded by actually taking it to the talk page. In his response he outlined the issues as he saw them: 1) Appears to be written for the purpose of promoting the restaurant, 2) Daryl is a new restaurant that does not warrant a Wikipedia article, 3) "a large number of references does not necessarily make an article encyclopedic nor neutral", 4) the "writers" have chosen only positive reviews for the article when, he claims, there are negative reviews floating around the net as well. Are these all points that require "reliable sources" to be justifiably made? Perhaps the last one, but certainly not the first three. Demanding reliable sources is just a clever way to use the rhetoric of Wikipedia policy in order to obfuscate and it worked. Admins authoritatively parroted Cirst asking for sources and pointing out that Njsustain hadn't supplied any as if no other issues were raised. That's a real problem. Seeing this, implies to me that those who bought Cirt's routine never gave Njsustain's position even a milliseconds chance. Sure he handled himself very poorly, but someone else wrote a puff piece and managed to get you all to bully the person who caught him doing it. That's what frustrates me here.Griswaldo (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr./Ms. Griswaldo, I very much appreciate the time you are taking to outline the situation. While I hope my paragraph below helps to show my point of view, I think that the above paragraph ("Regarding the interaction...") really perfectly describes what happened. May I please ask if you could add it to the ANI noticeboard (or would permit me to do so by quoting the entire paragraph there), not necessarily because it seems to be, overall, in my favor (even with the conclusions that I behaved "very poorly", etc., which for the record, I don't agree with), but because I think it is a very accurate representation of how the situation played out. It also brings up for the first time by someone other than me that Cirt didn't give my position a millisecond's chance, having removed the tags in less than an hour, with no intervening comments by anyone (I assume he simply removed them when he first saw them, i.e. in a millisecond, hyperbolically, as you said). Thank you very much for your consideration. And, also, I really appreciate and recognize that you are doing this for the sake of improving how WP runs, and not simply as a humanitarian gesture towards yours truly, which would be silly for anyone to do, though if were doing so, that would indeed be greatly appreciated.Njsustain (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm male) Feel free to quote me on this if you wish as long as its not egregiously out of context. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It seems to have blown over (the initial situation, if not the issue of whether this or similar articles should be on WP) so I'm happy to let it do so. Good fortune to you, sir. Njsustain (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me ladies and gentlemen for butting in, but if may point out what I see as the original source of the "wikietiquette" problem here, I had no idea that suggesting that there may be COI was the WP equivalent of calling out "Judas!" or "child molester!" Many people have agreed that the article smelled like there may have been COI, and was written as (whether or not it was) a puff piece/advertisement. I simply wanted to call it to attention, and Cirt attempted to quash the debate, which, as you know from recent heated discussions on several venues, many people believe there is indeed one to be had. He did, after all, remove the POV tag as well as the "blasphemous" COI tag. I suspected due to the way something was written (and many others saw what was obvious to me) that it appeared to be, at least by everyday, non-WP standards, a "conflict of interest," so, silly me, used the COI tag. My PhD is not in Wikipedia rules, so please forgive me if it was an abomination to have done so. But for Cirt to try to hide my suggestion to the point of accusing me of being "disruptive" was clearly utter assumption of bad faith. Just like Cirt's motivation for writing the article may be irrelevent to whether it should ultimately be kept, isn't it irrelevent whether I brought up additional sources to whether the article smelled like puffery? Lots of people have since said that the article seems like a puff piece, but not a single person said to any of them, "Oh, yeah? Show me your sources [insert WP rules ad nauseum here]." As a, let's say, casual user/editor, do you really think it was appropriate to be labeled "disruptive" (and a "dick" for that matter) to ask that the matter be looked at by anyone interested? Isn't that the point of the tags? If not, obviously something has been going way over my head for the last several years, and I really don't think I'm that dense. I think a more rational explanation is that, as has been suggested by others, that people are parroting a well known administrator's accusations toward an unknown run-of-the-mill editor, and the administrative system, in this case, did not work (at least, initially) towards bringing the truth to light and to improving WP. Did I learn something? Yes. Was I utterly innocent? I would say I was innocent of malice, and guilty of naivety about the idiosyncratic meaning of some WP tags and procedures. That admins can't ultimately give me a break after my suspicions were validated (by the debates, if not by whether their outcomes ultimately agree with my initial suspicions) only continues to confirm my belief of a "white wall of silence" which will in the end not be positive for WP's mission, IMHO. Njsustain (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

n posting to different noticeboards, Noloop has attracted more attention. Also, there are many people involved in the discussion at Jesus. Must a topic ban be decided at AN/I or can it be decided at the RS or Fringe noticeboard? If we have to take this back to AN/I, wel, i just raised it there, it is a matter of getting the people who participated in these recent discussions to know about it and show up. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I re-read the thread after I shifted it and was like "huh? how did that happen :). Thought I was going mad! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the people who "vote" at AN/I are not administrators. I have no problem of course with your refactoring my proposal. But my advice is, tomorrow, do not just look at the votes but see how many supports and opposes are from actual administrators. If the admins lean heavily in one direction, that matters. Also, it is not an up-down vote. People need to give reasons, and then an admin needs to try to see if a consensus can be formed (even around an alternative proposal). If after polling people can then disucss and reach a proposal, whatever that is, it is a step in the right direction. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not a huge chain, it is faily big. So I removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please submit this as a normal AfD request and not a Speedy deletion request? I think it should go through some due process. Kingturtle (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your opinion about by clean-up of this article. I think it might influence the AfD. If the choice were between keeping the original article or deleting it, I'd have said delete. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for bringing a fresher perspective to the current discussion, and thanks for your question on my talk page. You asked me what my thoughts were on "cleanup". I have a hard time putting aside the general notability issue in order to consider cleaning up the entry because if I did so I'd want to delete most, if not all, of what's currently in it, even after your own commendable cleanup effort. Besides the technicalities of establishing notability through reliable sources I think any Wikipedia entry should clearly communicate its notability to our audience, and I don't know how the Daryl entry does that. When I read the entry I wonder (still), why is it notable? This seems like a very average run of the mill restaurant of its kind. What impact has it had on American culture, or even regional culture? What impact has it had on the restaurant industry, on non-industry culinary culture? Is the building notable? Is it considered a regional institution? Is it notable because of a novelty (first restaurant to do X)? Is it notable because of coverage in popular culture (appearing in films, on TV shows, in novels, etc.) Is it notable because the head chef or owner is notable? And the list of possible questions continue, but I've yet to find one (personally) that can be answered by the Daryl entry. The sentence, "[i]t was one of the first wine bars to open in New Jersey," is of the right sort, but one of the first, in NJ doesn't really cut it if you ask me. Really how many 3 year old restaurants have been around long enough to make an impact on anything? Very, very few. It is amusing to ponder, as Njsustain recently mentioned, what people would think of this AfD should Daryl close in the near future. I have no idea how their business is actually going but in general, with such restaurants, it is always a distinct possibility. That in and of itself should set off alarm bells I'd think.

Now in regards to promotional content, should consensus be that the restaurant is notable enough, I firmly believe that the entire "reception" section should be deleted, or be whittled down to a sentence or two. Writing content based on local or regional restaurant reviews is a very dubious business for an encyclopedia in my opinion. These reviews are rarely (if ever) critical, and indeed are an institutionalized part of the restaurant PR game. They do not actually give us reliable information on how a restaurant was "received". They are not comparable to book reviews or film reviews. In my opinion, if we use these types of sources we're just furthering the promotion that those sources were doing in the first place. That's exactly what I think we should not do, and I believe you agree with me in principle here even if you see the situation differently. The side bar should also be whittled down drastically. I do not think that including various "ratings" or "rankings" provides us with encyclopedic information either ("dress code"?). Those tidbits, along with the reviews, are pieces of information that aid someone's restaurant decision, but I don't consider that encyclopedic. I consider that marketing. I'm not sure how helpful my response has been. What do you think about the points I brought up? Thanks again for the note.Griswaldo (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I can make a more general comment. I feel, like one editor commented at AfD, that it's matter of, for want of a better word, philosophy - one of the fundamental splits that usually are put together in the aeternal inclusionist vs deletionist debate. To me "notable" = "someone else has noted it". In this sense, it carries no sense of "standing above the crowd". My personal view is that an encyclopedia should not organize information on things that stand above the crowd, but information about things that have been documented and noted independently and repeatedly. I view notability as a technical requirement, that should leave relatively little space to choice. Many people (including our host Griswaldo) strongly disagree, and I understand their reasoning, even if I personally do not share it. The problem is that this kind of tension in WP is at a fundamental level of personal views, which is difficult to reconcile. --Cyclopia^talk 14:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair observation but I think there is also a tension between different policies. People with different philosophies tend to lean more heavily on certain policies and not others, as well as certain sections or even sentences of policies and not others. Where we tend to lean less heavily our perspectives may start to blur the boundaries between policies and guidelines in ways that make matters less clear. I'm sure I do this all the time myself, but let me pick on Cyclopia's example above because it is fresh :). With such an open stance to notability I wonder how a line is drawn between notable content and the type of content that fills up an indiscriminate list of things. I also wonder where, in cases where notability is based on certain types of sources (like restaurant reviews), the line is drawn between verifiable content that proves notability and promotional materials. These are issues that need to be hashed out I think, as our current notability guidelines leave too much room for warring philosophies. I will admit, now that the AfD is closed, that I was really displeased about the AfD ever existing. I was hoping that the conversation would take place at WP:CORP and in other venues where the relevant policies could be discussed as opposed to an AfD, which seems to be such a political process. I think we can all see how much on-Wiki politics entered this discussion, and fueled both delete and keep voting at times. That, in and of itself, is a huge detriment to improving the project and hashing out these real concerns and differences we all might have about what is appropriate content for an encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that our notability guideline is too vague. I guess it is somewhat intentional, to let it stay afloat above the inclusionism/deletionism thing, but it doesn't solve the debate: it just splits it endlessly in a miriad of AfD's, DRVs and similar venues. --Cyclopia^talk 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't solve the dabate. I think the guidelines need reworking, and hopefully in a way that is agreeable enough to people like the both of us.Griswaldo (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably both of us will have to make some concession, in such a case, but I would prefer to have a precise guideline whose content I don't like in full than a vague thing that leaves space to every possible interpretation. There has been a recent RfC about re-evaluating notability, which ended in...nothing happening. But I didn't participate on it and I don't remember it well. It can contain some suggestions and indication of why the status quo is this one. --Cyclopia^talk 16:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we agree on that point -- there should be a more precise guideline and that would most probably mean that it would not be exactly the way either of us would like it to be. But yes precision is important, and yes concessions will be necessary. The RFC appears to have been close to 1.5 years ago now. Maybe its time to try again. My concerns are most specifically related to WP:CORP concerns but I guess general notability is also important. I do think that the current guidelines and policies are better in some areas than others when it comes to notability. Part of my argument, shared by some but not others, has been precisely that the context of restaurants makes it hard to apply some of the existing language with satisfaction.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that individual guidelines like WP:CORP are usually understood to be in addition to the GNG, not alternative, so if a case can be made that X doesn't meet CORP, it can still meet GNG and be deemed notable. This is another point of known contention. That is why a debate on GNG is required anyway, because if CORP becomes stricter than GNG, its usefulness becomes dubious. --Cyclopia^talk 16:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to both of you. Would it be considered canvassing to notify every participant of the AfD of the discussion at WP:CORP and ask for their input?Griswaldo (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so, since it would be a neutral audience (especially since it ended in NC) --Cyclopia^talk 16:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complaint at AN/I. I left a lengthy statement (this is a clarification I made to one portion of that statemnt). I am trying to put thinkgs in a bigger context. If you have time to read the discussion and my comment, and if you feel I am misrepresenting the issues, I hope you will correct me. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to stay out of all this because of who the the other party is, but I'll read it over.Griswaldo (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments you made there. I am sorry I miscalculated about Noloop and encouraged you to push an issue that WP apparently just is not ready to confront. That said, i do think some important issues were aired, important things were said, and it was an important first step. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at User talk:Rossnixon. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you content with the "history" section of the Judaism article? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have a lot on your plate but I'd welcome any help you can lend rebuilding the article as we've earlier discussed to be more in keeping with the relevant content about this category and the comparisons, commonalities, themes, functions and significances of creation myth in human cultures than an exhaustive recapitulation of all known creation stories. I tried to do enough of the backwork to copyright check and identify sources for the unsourced sections in the collection that would allow pruning without the WP:UNDUE problem. And the last bits I'm confident I can see through in a reasonably short amount of time. But I'm trying to plan a holiday, and I'm not so confident I have time to rebuild much more in the new framework for the creation myth article before I go. The work involved to get to this point has been (proverbially speaking) backbreaking. But the article is now in such an unfinished state that I'm concerned that this backwork will be completely undone if I go away for a short week or two holiday. Any help you could lend to the rebuild there would be gi-normously welcome. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Griswaldo. I'm going to userfy the remaining Native American myths, which I think are all still unreferenced. They can wait while the main article is redeveloped. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. I'm going to add some subsections that can act as an outline of sorts, but nothing's set in stone. I couldn't find that any good content about creation myths was ever written in the article so we're building from scratch here. A lot to do, eh? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything Griswaldo. You've been a big help. Enjoy your weekend. I'll be taking off shortly as well. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question is most active at the historicity of jesus and the Christ-myth theory articles, but he is not alone. You know what I would say at an RfC but I wonder if it might be better to propose something to the NPOV policy that (1) we should identify the POV of texts, not authors (as we cannot read people's minds only what they write) and (2) POV should be detemined by explicit statements about one's view made by the author of the text, or descriptions of the the text's point fo view found in another reliable source. (3) one cannot assume POV based solely on biographical information about the author; the value of biographical information depends on (1) and (2). If you can draft this into something coherent and elegant I will support it.

I would still like to know what your feelings are about the "history" section of the Judaism article! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread on the talk page of Historicity of Jesus regarding my second recent full protection of the page. Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta get going for now, can you watch and report the IP for 3RR CTJF83 chat 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have to reply here. I don't have any problem with you griswaldo, and though I disagree at times with you on the talk page (for marriage) I would like that we could AGF toward each other. CTJF83 is either refering to me (DMSBel) or the other IP (beginning 71, don't remember rest of his/her IP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by DMSBel (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Griswaldo. You might not have spotted it, but Cush did make some remark on the talkpage about POV. There wasn't a direct reference to adding a POV tag, but it'd be difficult to miss the suggestion that the article was tending towards a POV. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your many comments, whether signs of sympathy or solidarity or support, as well as your own views on the matter. But you have to know this: I think bigotry is wrong. If anything at WP is "wrong" i.e. can get someone blocked, bigotry should be one of those things. I oppose it when I see it in the real world and I have to oppose it when I see it on-line. It doesn't have anything to do with strategy or tactics. There are very few things that I think are this wrong, but bigotry is one of them.

Liberals claim to be "tolerant." So the challenge of any liberal society is, what is the limits of toleration? What won't be tolerated? For me, the answer is bigotry. I believe people have the right to free speech and bigots have a right to free speech but this is one of those few cases where I think anyone of consciense has no choice but to speak back. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but I don't think its all about "tactics" either. My point is that if you encounter bigotry in the real world and your reaction to it gets you thrown in jail what good is that? I'm a pragmatist, and I think its important to consider the overall results of our actions. I can't change your mind, of course, if you believe that it is more important to stand up to bigotry and flat out call it what it is no matter what the consequences. If that's the case then all the power to you. I just selfishly hope that in situations like this we can get rid of the bad seeds more efficiently. It's just my perspective and I know you'll do what you think is right regardless. No worries.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to our articles on circumcision, you said "Who would have known this was such a POV battleground?" Really, though, it makes perfect sense it would be one. What are the underlying issues? Human rights, medicine, religion and sex (different people tend to have different emphases depending personal views). And those are all real-life controversial issues. Makes it perfect ground for POV disputes, really. That's my analysis, at least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gniniv has filed another mediation request (this time through MedCab) nearly identical to the last one in which you took part. The Medcab report has resulted in an ANI report being filed. If you wish to take part in the ANI thread, please feel free to do so. All the best, Jess_talk|_edits 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per your message, I've brought this to the talk page. — Hunter Kahn 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of this edit. I misunderstood the timing there. Sorry about that, no disrespect intended! — Hunter Kahn 19:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. When I changed the other redirect in the middle of the conversation that was hasty ... though I think it was the right move. My point is I can understand even more why you thought it was hasty given that episode. Anyway really no big deal. Thanks for the note.Griswaldo (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I been too busy to edit lately, but will help when and where I can. Thanks for the notice! Professor marginalia (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do we do? The article is battled between two sides, and each seems to be as mistaken as the other. (tears at hair) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm not interested in this category more generally and find it less than trivial for the most part. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Entries that just list things based on the interests of a small group of hobbyists do not belong in an encyclopedia. That's my view. I should mention this a second time as well, the current entry is basically a list and seems to violate WP:SINGULAR rather blatantly.Griswaldo (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If you go back to 2005, you'll see that this article is primarily an "essay" and any list of individual longevity claims can be branched out into a separate article, if need be.

Ryoung122 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a horrible comment. This is an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of facts. I appreciate that you care about certain subsets of facts, but the fact that you care about them doesn't mean that collecting them here is appropriate.Griswaldo (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Please read JJBulten's comments again. It's clear that he is in violation of WP:POINT and started what HE self-referenced as a "bolding war" to make a point. But his point is not so clear.

1. The MOS policy on bolding refers to italics in article text, but the bolding used here is used for self-contained names in a list.

2. Bulten's comments, like this below,

G, they just have their ways at WP:WOP. If you stick with me in maintaining policy compliance on the bigger issues, the little issues will be solved more easily. JJB 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

show that he is violating WP:CANVASSING. That's a clear, over-the-top statement. He is a bully, seeking out tangential "wars" because he wants to push his main point, which is the equivalent of teaching creationism in schools and kicking evolution out.Ryoung122 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your below comment:

Are you seriously linking your own masters thesis? First of all a masters thesis is not considered a reliable source. If you don't believe me ask the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Then there is the fact that its your masters thesis. You clearly have a conflict of interest here. I'd stick with outside sources if I were you.Griswaldo (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

1. You should provide a link to the "reliable sources" noticeboard that discusses this.

2. While not all Master's theses may be "reliable," that does not mean that some cannot be. For example, I could have chosen to not make my thesis available online. Instead, it has a stable URL link.

3. The thesis won the national award for best graduate paper in gerontology by a student in 2008.

4. I already had this published in a book. You can order it on Amazon.com.

Product Details AFRICAN-AMERICAN LONGEVITY ADVANTAGE: MYTH OR REALITY?: A Racial Comparison of Supercentenarian Data - Paperback (Feb. 5, 2009) by Robert Young Buy new: $101.00 $90.90 Get it by Monday, Oct. 18 if you order in the next 16 hours and choose one-day shipping. Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

However, the longevity myths section was just a chapter, not the whole book.

5. As for "conflict of interest," JJBulten is an editor on a Christian conservative website, and his reason for pushing this whole controversy is because in his mind the labelling of Noah as a "myth" offended him---even though it is. Is that not COI?

6. A lot of the "solutions" offered are from people not familiar with the subject and with little interest. Yet we find a lot of media coverage, book coverage, journal article coverage, etc.

7. I agree with you, and you noted, that Custance is a far-right fringe source. It is reliable for religion but not science. For example, an article on Custance could use these sources, but they should not be viewed as scientific.

8. We see JJBulten canvassing for support.

9. We see JJBulten opening up new "fronts" of "attack," such as his self-titled "Bolding War."

Do we see consensus from someone like this?

The first step I tried to take was to calm things down. That is NOT working as he is keeping the attacks up, or making up his own material.

I wanted to wait until the "merge" proposals were decided (they should be turned down; at least JJ and I agree on something) before we go to other issues. However, JJ continues to create more issues, such as his attempt to separate myths as pre-1955 and claims as post-1955.

A lot of what he is doing is political, ideological, and not really helpful.

Ryoung122 20:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JJB is ideologically motivated isn't relevant to the discussion you and I were just having. So you are both acting out your own various self-interested motivations ... great. How fun for the rest of us who are trying to build an encyclopedia! The fact that you have published your master's thesis is pretty irrelevant as well, especially since it's published by what seems to amount to a vanity press. I'm happy to ask the RS/N specifically about your Master's thesis.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Master.27s_thesis. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this response. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This message is for you because you passed comment at Talk:Park51 in response to an RfC raised by User:NickCT. Please note that you gave an answer to this user on alternative wording to the introduction before the issue of Wikipedia's neutrality which was raised at WP:NPONV has been resolved. If you have not done so already, please read the issues as presented at WP:NPOV and and give an answer to the neutrality question. It is my opinion that the neutrality issue needs to be resolved first. Kind regards User:Hauskalainen

Please stop with your accusations. Take them to WQA or the like. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you need to be more supportive of the consensus approach to editing. We're all trying to get accurate into on the article page, but WP:BURO can affect the notion of establishing a consensus approach to article writing and discussions. We each have a right to our opinions, and it's not any one person's job to police other editors comments. That's for admins to decide. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that some agreement seems to be forming, thanks in a large part to you. [11]. --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly warning: ScienceApologist will pretty much write forever if allowed. And he can be very annoying.

Noticeboards are for getting others' opinions, not extended discussions. We'll all be better off focusing on the article, finding new refs, etc. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I need reminding of these types of things usually or else I will also annoyingly write for ever.Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again [12]. I may have understated the annoying bit. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of refs to the article. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 01:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look. The warning specifically mentions poorly referenced sources.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

See WP:GRAPEVINE --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ronz, that is what your warning claims. The warning is not empirical proof of your position. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was made to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding here. --Ronz (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a position, I can promise you that edit warring on noticeboards over arugable but not clear-cut BLP violations is not best practices. I have left this exact message on the talk pages of both parties - I propose that you both cut it out and reach some kind of agreement as to what parts of the comment are objectionable and should be excised. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I realize it takes two to tango. For the record I've asked the editor many times now to get input at the BLP/N if he really thinks it is a BLP violation.Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is disputed under BLP. Please leave it out while we settle this. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to start the report or shall I? --Ronz (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really intend to do so then please do. I was about to do so myself since all your past actions this time and the last have been unilateral leaving me to believe you would never ask for outside input on this.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Ronz please do not duplicate the requests." I don't understand, what "duplicate requests?" --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted that I do not find your comments to be in good faith. [13]. I've done so again. [14]. WP:COI specifically references WP:HARASS for a reason. This is not the first time I've been harassed with such nonsense. Please stop.

Also, note that I don't find Hans Adler's comment which you referenced to be made in good faith either. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [15] --Ronz (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight has offered to co-mediate between Ryoung122 and myself. JJB 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you have expressed a desire to delete topics like this, could you please follow through on your stated position by commenting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest military veterans (2nd nomination), at which your stated view is being controverted by Ryoung122 et al.? Thank you. JJB 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re [16] I think we may be misunderstanding each other. I'm going to try to summarize what I see (gimme a couple minutes). It might help if you did the same, or just expanded upon the linked comment. --Ronz (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, are you responding to the first paragraph, "This does not...?" I think you're responding to the last sentence of the last paragraph, "They indicate that..." --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I'm saying that two editors, myself and Off2riorob (14:50, 23 Oct), have commented on what leeway is and is not allowed. Dougweller (14:47, 25 Oct) has also commented since.

I guess I'm discussing two different things that's causing some confusion. I'll refactor while awaiting your reply. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Now it ties in well with [17]. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful now if your refactored the (15:22, 25 Oct) comment. Maybe remove it completely?

If you want to go into detail on the topic, we can do so here. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re [18]: It was a bold move on my part, nothing more. I don't see a problem with your removing it, though the edit summary is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz you are one disruptive step from me going to a user conduct noticeboard. I'm getting really fed up with your unilateral declarations and violations of WP:TALK. You need to restore Bruce's comments where you deleted them now that it is clear no one shares your BLP concern. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:TALK rather than make threats, which are in violation of WP:TALK, ironically.

I'm doing my best to work with multiple editors that don't follow WP:TALK and WP:CON. As always, I'm happy to discuss my edits and better approaches to my editing with others. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that though you replied to my [19] comment above, where I indicated I had no problem with you removing the tag, you proceeded to remark later that you were concerned that I might restore the tag once again[20], eleven minutes after your response above, and 33 minutes after my initial comment. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion [21]. When there's no consensus, I prefer to err by being conservative and assume BLP applies. I'll wait and see what discussion develops on my talk, and follow up with the uninvolved editors. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Enough with the wikilawyering already. You are in violation of WP:TALK please restore the comments ASAP.,Griswaldo (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to archive the discussion misrepresents other editors, in violation of WP:TALK and WP:CON. I've reverted it. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the summary to "No consensus." I hope that represents the situation accurately and neutrally. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your assessment Ronz. I merely point out that even if there is no consensus and you believe so you should restore the comments.Griswaldo (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expect to see a WQA on this Ronz. I don't have time to attend to it this second but your disruptive antics need to stop. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not wording it as a threat this time! --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a threat Ronz, it is a promise. If anything it will give you more time to prepare your answer. I'm sick of your unilateral moves, gaming, and policy violations. I'm not threatening to report them, I'm telling you now that I plan to report them. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order for it to be a threat it would have to be an attempt to coerce you to do something I want you to. That is not the case. Informing you in advance that I plan to do something irrespective of what you do, is not a threat. It is simply forewarning, but your attempt to construe it as a threat is just more of the same gaming you like to engage in. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Explaining to an editor the consequences of violating Wikipedia policies, like being blocked for vandalism, is permitted however." - WP:TALK

I won't be preparing anything. I think the comments on your talk page are enough. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, just like on the various noticeboards you can't simply assert that something is the case without some evidence. I've done nothing like what is described in your quoted policy text. 1) Threating you with "admins I know" -NEGATIVE. 2) Threatening to have you banned - NEGATIVE. In fact, as I've pointed out, I've not threatened anything at all. Please familiarize yourself with what a threat is in actuality. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. The quote from WP:TALK gives multiple examples, including how to properly handle the situation. In comparing your comments to the quote, I agree your comments could have been worse. They appear to be more like the examples of what not to do rather than what to do, hence my bringing it up at (15:45, 26 Oct) and then quoting it above. --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your refactoring [22]. I had notified him of the discussion [23]. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GRISWALDO, don't you think you should close the thread on the noticeboard now? I think it's over now right? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 18:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WQA[edit]

As I promised here is the WQA discussion - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Ronz.Griswaldo (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FTN is not RSN. Do you believe there was consensus at RSN?

The question that you put to FTN is whether or not the Quackwatch ref is UNDUE. What do you believe the consensus is to your question? Do you believe other questions were asked and resolved that are within the scope of FTN? --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [24]: It would have helped if you had responded to my comments directly above.

I explained that summaries should indicate what comments they were derived from. I'm doing my best without such a summary.

I hope you'll remove or refactor your comment. We were making good progress. I'm not objecting to anything, so how about removing "Regarding your objections." "Are you serious?" is, I hope, just an expression of frustration. Please remove it. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be extremely helpful it everyone focused what we clearly agree upon first. Any agreement would be progress, and there's no reason that we can't continue discussing unresolved issues that are important to editors. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re [25], Basket of Puppies placed the template on my talk page. I've warned her. --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You warned another editor for "misuse of a warning template". The irony is nearly drowning me Ronz.Griswaldo (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the support [26]. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basket of Puppies 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz and company own the Price article. Best of luck, I'll probably delete it from my watch list so I don't have to watch the butchery. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to chastise me now for not indenting the way YOU wanted. My indent was proper under the post I was replying to. Sorry if you don't agree with that. Best wishes. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 13:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to leapfrog someone's comment then you ought to make it clear that you've done so by way of indentation. It's not just my desired use, it's for the sake of clarity int he discussion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to me when comments line up they point toward the comment less indented, and I didn't want to appear to be speaking to you for those less perceptive. I meant no harm. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also not sure why you've chosen now to bash me (i.e., "as personal as some other frustrated parties seem to be"). I supported you the entire time, never once insinuated anything about you. Sorry you felt it beneficial to say this publically. I'm sorry if I offended on the noticeboards. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 14:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bashing you. I didn't indicate anyone in specific. I just don't share some of the outrage I'm seeing to the extent I'm seeing it. Do you want me to refactor that?Griswaldo (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No of course not, just don't want you to judge me. I think I put almost as much time into this as you. I just wish I had been as smart as Bruce (who knows when the hell to get out). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a major article on the modern version of Focal infection theory and not only provided a link to it but also included every reference it uses on the talk page. This should help firm out the gaps in the current article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at the above noticeboard with regards to our recent discussion on Weston Price. [27]. Yobol (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated there and on the Weston Price talk page the reliable source material doesn't seem to suggest the existence of more than one focal infection theory. Rather what I think I am getting out of the material is that it was there it was used to explain the majority of infections and that aspect of it was disproved and a more moderate version where it was used as the mechanism for a much smaller set of diseases survived into modern times.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a major rewrite of Focal infection theory. I think I have captured what the material is saying--that it started out as a general theory that became popular in the field of oral medicine and that this specific application of it dominated dental and medical articles of the 1910 to 1930 period and then returned to just one concept among many others from 1940 on. Take a look and tell me what you think.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you couldn't just move the break point to a better location then just outright deleting it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought, but Bruce used an "outdent" (see this response from me as another example of one). It requires a continuation from the previous comment visually or it makes no sense. Sorry.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't create an edit point, so you have to scroll two miles to the top to hit edit. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. I'm simply saying that it's not a good place to break for that reason. Definitely not in the middle of someone's comment, but also not when someone is trying to tie their comment to the previous one. This is pretty common sense and I'm unsure why it is an issue. Comparatively speaking the thread isn't even that long either. Why not break it just after Bruce's comment? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered why you just deleted it, that's all. Seems an odd thing to do. Obviously I meant to place the break in the correct location, it's not like I wanted to screw up Bruce comment. See ya. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought you did. I just edited it because however well intentioned it was it ended up messing with the formatting in a way that is not good for the reader. It isn't a big deal like I said. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Jan Goossenaerts, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Article was created immediately after subject turned 110. JJB 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Griswaldo. I actually chose BLP on purpose, since I was looking for clarification and background on the general policy before posting a case to BLP/N. I was looking mainly for the historical/policy precedents rather than a specific ruling on the NCAHF situation. I do think your advice is helpful, and could definitely use it if you think I'm missing any key points. Thanks again, Ocaasi (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Griswaldo, would you check over this, this, and this/this. I'm obviously in a contentious area and was attempting to stick to a discussion about the sources... when BLP and Libel issues kept coming up, I asked QuackGuru if he had a COI, on my talk page, then in explaining that discussed why I thought his editing patterns might indicate one, on the article's talk page. It apparently came across as a personal attack, though I thought it was an explanation/response to questions I had been asked or a less controversial statement than it was taken to be. No need to get involved, I'm just curious if you have any comment. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about longevity WP:COI has been initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#End COI. As a recent contributor to this page, your comments are solicited. JJB 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Grismaldo, I think your editing has been more reasonable than that of JJBulten and Itsmejudith, but we can see from above that you are being used by JJBulten to canvass. He can't attack the firm foundation of verifiability that a lot of the articles he has a problem with, so he instead is going for attacking the editors, such as myself.

I would ask you to step aside, simply because it is evident that you have been recruited to be at these discussions, which makes them COI themselves.Ryoung122 20:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes - your response would be appreciated, at Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System#Lead_2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking the time to figure out the facts when it would've been easier to go with the flow. THF (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

		The BLP Barnstar
		For services rendered to BLP and NPOV policy in Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. JN466 20:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the dubious nature of Cirt's history under a previous name, actually. I am also equally well aware that, unfortunately, many and or most of his additions at that time which resulted in his blocking were of reliably sourced information added to balance an article which had been unbalanced in favor of the subject. I am also aware of some substantial off-wiki harrassment he has received for adding material to articles which the proponents of the subject don't like. And I've even received a few messages myself from other editors on this topic who were trying to (falsely, as it turns out) advise me that Cirt's adding reliable, well-referenced material on the topic to pages which then lacked any such content was in some way "unbalancing" the article. But, yeah, there can be and is a bit of an AGF issue about a lot of this, and I acknowledge that.

I often find myself displaying the symptoms of foot-in-mouth disease around here, and this may be another instance of that. Regarding the article in question which prompted this discussion, I still think that it would be reasonable to indicate to whoever winds up closing it that there are a number of people who commented who have rather specific viewpoints on the issue, and that could be taken into account. I would love to see some sort of guideline, essay, or whatever which could be linked to in some cses to indicate that point, but don't know of any such right now. It might say something to the effect that there have been serious POV and maybe COI concerns regarding multiple editors who regularly edit the article or topic. Landmark Education, est, etc., is one of those topics. I agree the proportion of serious POV pushers on this content is probably ridiculously high comparable to most other content, and, yeah, that it could be argued Cirt is one of them.

FWIW, I am currently in the process of putting together an essay which has as one of its goals maybe trying to create some sort of procedure to more easily soft-lock articles which have reached a given level of quality (say A-class) to address matters like this. That may be one of the few things we can do to deal with such matters. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I forgot. There was evidence that several of the Landmark editors may have been or are currently employees of the firm, which would establish a clear COI regarding that topic. Amway has similar problems. I myself don't remember exactly which editors have been established to have such a COI, but as I remember when looking over the material there were at least a few, and several others who had an unusual interest in ensuring that it be portrayed in a clearly positive light. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 14:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in providing evidence to this case, please see this note about a deadline. NW (Talk) 18:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Tom not Tim. You're not the first person to make that mistake, don't worry - have I got myself down as "tim" somewhere? Doesn't worry me what people call me (used to be a time I would blank people that called me Tom instead of Thomas :P thank the gods I got over that!) but I wouldn't want to find I told people my name is Tim somewhere... that would be stoopid ;) (p.s. sorry for snapping at you yesterday, one of those days) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm the one who should apologize - sorry. Certain arguments get me all riled up unnecessarily. As an agnostic I'm just tired of all the atheists trying to rule the non-theist roost ;). Kidding, but anyway no worries at all.Griswaldo (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry... water off a ducks back. And I know what you mean, I'm an (little a) atheist in "belief" but dislike being considered a (big A) Atheist for all the usual reasons :) Terribly difficult COI to be objective about here on the wiki, which I why I usually stay away from it :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Tim/Tom thing I'm also sorry about that. I think its just something about the way your sig is spelled that triggers this in my brain rather unconsciously. I'll try to be more cognizant of your actual name.Griswaldo (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically... A new user writes a biased section. On talk, other users help to make it more neutral. One editor offers his suggestion and puts it in the article. I found the version to be unsatisfactory and reverted with a note in the edit comment and on talk. Then I was reverted by an admin without a reason or a comment. I left a note on the Admin's talk page. Should I revert again? Ocaasi (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the admin was mistaken about which study was being discussed and self-reverted. Ocaasi (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this settled itself. The admin self-reverted per WP:BRD. Right?Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Til Eulenspiegel/Religious narratives as sacred canon (apologies if you've already seen it). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many things I try to ignore. I wonder though if the page is a violation of user space guidelines. I can't find any exact language about this type of user subpage, but could this possibly be legit?Griswaldo (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it was showing up as 3rd if you search Google for "religious narratives", I've added a noindex tag. Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - A request for comments has been started on User:Colonel Warden. Since you participated in this ANI thread which preceded this RfC/U, you might be interested in participating. If so, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Thanks. SnottyWong ^talk 01:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Please see my edit in response to your requests, to Harry Palmer [28], and to Lee Baca [29]. Okay? ;) -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]