text:
User talk:Jgm

 * how to edit
 * naming conventions
 * style guide
 * sandbox
 * help pages
 * Village pump.

Hi. Can you please stop deleting the mondegreen section of the Romeo and Juliet song by Dire Straits. It is a common misconception (the lyrics' mistake, that is) which was propagated by a printing mistake in an early release of the song. The transcription was poor. To ask for proof of the lyrics not being as I have indicated is a bit silly as to prove a negative is... well, I'll let you imagine that.

Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.111.174 (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Missed your comment somehow the other day. "1990's" is universally wrong, and it's a pet peeve of mine, but unfortunately the lack of a search engine at the moment is keeping me from hunting them down. Oh well, eventually. :) - Hephaestos 06:43, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I figured out easily enough that your thoughts on the subject pretty much match mine. *grin* - Hephaestos 17:40, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We can't use mp3 because it is proprietary or something -- ogg vorbis is open source. It's pretty widely supported (plays in iTunes with no problem), but that's on a Mac so probably doesn't help you. Try asking at the village pump, and place whatever information you find out at Sound and Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat

Re: the listing of Disneyland Roller Coaster accident on Votes for deletion. It has already been deleted so there is no need to list it. If it keeps re-appearing, it's evidently a candidate for speedy deletion and a sysop will pick it up, it doesn't need to be listed again. The VfD page is currently over 80 kilobytes long which is far too big for its own good, which is why I took your listing down.

-- Graham :) 18:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wondering where you moved the digression, please followup at Talk:Negativland. Thanks. --Lexor|Talk 15:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Insensitive - Lacking in sensitivity to the feelings or circumstances of others, unfeeling. Many people including myself were upset by his comments which were truly ignorant and insensitive. The fact that his comments were not said with regard to the feelings of other make them insensitive. This is not a point of view. That I found them upseting was a reaction to the insensitive nature of the words. User:Isis chastised me once for using the phrase 'unfortunate death'. To censor such phrases from Wikipedia is to fall victim to NPOV madness. Mintguy (T) 14:49, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to let you know that I appreciated your edits on Led Zeppelin. DryGrain 00:13, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After the Goldrush - Allmusic.com and my CD copy seem to think it is After the Gold Rush --Tagishsimon

It is true that the songs were not banned. It is true that a list was circulated of songs to be sensitive about. I guess the fact that it was largely generated by program directors and not the corporate office has been left out of my edits. Perhaps I need a different wording. I'll think about it. Thank you for bringing the Snopes page to my attention. —Mulad 02:36, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

I was interested in your comments on the deterioration of the Fahrenheit 9/11 article. With a controversial topic, everyone wants to make sure his or her side is properly represented, which I suppose is how it slides into being a debate transcript. Do you have any suggestions about specific changes or the general direction that the article should take? I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts. JamesMLane 22:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree re. Black Dog (song) being inappropriate for the 13/8 rumour. But why remove the fact that JPJ wrote the riff? I understand this is generally accepted. Plant wrote the lyrics and Page the solo and other guitar parts, but JPJ has been widely credited with the riff. --HighHopes 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion philosophy
The deletion policy, as I read it, is aimed at articles as they are, instead of how they could be. Of course, people vote to send things to Clean Up when they see a bad article that they think is notable or important (the Intel/AMD article, for example, was a miserable stub, but folks got excited and changed it while it was on VfD). In practice, people forget the policy and tend to vote for things that seem possibly important, and a lot of reviewers go off to Google and see if there is notability, etc. As I read the deletion guides, though, articles should be deleted if they cover "non-notable" subjects. That's where most of the debate seems to happen. In the case of Ecmyru, I know I want to believe that it's an important non-profit, but the article as it is didn't give its readers information to suggest that there were many members, that it was doing important things in Wales, etc. Denni and I were both saying, essentially, "Please, authors, give us a reason to keep the article. Tell us something to make the case for notability." Things only get deleted if they're non-notable, violate copyright, are dictionary definitions, are nonsense, or are incurably point-of-view. It isn't a case of "must be bad" as much as "must fit in an encyclopedia." The notability line is important in this regard, and I, personally, set the standard high by insisting that the article, as it comes to VfD, tell me about the notability. I feel like no one should be listing for VfD unless they've already done the Google search and used the Clean Up pages. Geogre 01:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Long and Winding Road
I have added more references to the article; for details see the nomination on WP:FAC. Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I have done the same for I Want To Hold Your Hand. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Margin of error
Thanks for your comment. I made a reply at the fac page. Let me know what you think there or at my talk page. Best, Andrew (Fadethree) 21:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, thanks for your comment. I moved the discussion over to the margin of error talk page, and I made a reply there.  I'll get to work on editing once I properly wake up.  Best, Andrew (Fadethree) 15:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I just wanted to let you know that I have made some revisions to the Margin of error page to reflect the large number of polls that use 95% as a standard. Thanks for highlighting the issue for me.  Best, Andrew (Fadethree) 22:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Neil Young
I'm not going to fight you over this, because it's just not important, but you are wrong about the policy on embedded external links. The policy is that one doesn't add an external link like this, but a numbered external link after a statement (or clause) by way of indicating the source is perfectly normal and in fact encouraged as part of the citation apparatus. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Neil Young
As I said, I don't necesarily object to the deletion of this material: I just wanted to correct you on the external links policy, before you might go around deleting some of the apparatus that makes it possible to fact-check articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

List of songs
Thanks for completing the merge on List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics - I got as far as creating the redirect before WP decided to go into slowdown! -- sjorford 09:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser
WikiUser has some very odd ideas about his and other peoples edits here at Wikipedia. He threatens things that are totally incorrect, such as taking me to mediation without there being any sort of article content dispute between us. As for his disagreement with you I will continue to monitor his edits and agree with those that you have made - if he reverts I will put it back to your version. Be aware of the three revert rule when dealing with him and, basically, ignore the rubbish that he's spouting! violet/riga (t) 18:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * WikiUser appears to be a crank with a persecution complex and a nasty habit of spewing invective at anyone who makes edits he doesn't like (see e.g., for which he should really have been banned). A lot of us have been on the receiving end, even including Jimbo. Frankly, if he hasn't changed his ways after six months' editing, much criticism and several temporary bans, I don't think he ever will. If he does decide to pursue a complaint against any of us - something that I would regard as an abuse of process - I won't hesitate to take him to the ArbCom to seek a lengthy ban. -- ChrisO 14:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Steve Dalkowski
Responded to your comments, thanks for the feedback. I'm a little confused by your objections about converting it to US style, running a spellchecker only found one word spelled the British way. Is it the grammar you don't like? Could you go into more details? Zerbey 01:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
for the edit on the Purple People Eater entry. Much better now. --sturgeonslawyer

Reverted history of Latvia
Hi! Just wanted to tell you that I had a look at the slightly tangled history of the article and the only thing missing after the revert was an external link (it shows in the difference between revisions ). --Juzeris 13:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger
I don't know, actually. SimonP closed the discussion as 'keep', I changed that to 'NC'. Neither of us deleted it, and it's currently on RFU. Yours, Radiant_* 07:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem
Hi - You made some comments at WP:FAC about the Monty Hall problem article a while ago. I'd like to address them, but I don't find them to be specific enough. Can you please rephrase them to be more specific? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) July 3, 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Chicago picture vote
If you don't want to vote for Picture #3, please don't write anything in the Picture Vote section. Instead, use the Chicago Main Page Picture Vote section and comment under the picture, or post your comment in General Comments. There has been debate recently and comments will not be allowed in the Picture Vote section, only real votes. Please either vote for the image or move your comment into the appropriate comment section ASAP. Shoffman11 23:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Picture
Sorry, when I added the Support text to your vote I didnt realize you left it out intentionally. I didnt mean to force anything upon you or anything, I was just trying to make things simple since the vote has been much more complicated then I thought. --Gpyoung talk 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Take
I thought keeping the article take was a borderline case myself -- there's enough there to make a nice little encyclopedia stub. I would say to go ahead and remove the wiktionary tag, expand the article if you can, perhaps include a picture of a clapboard (huh, there's no mention of film clapboard there) -- see if we can find a free pic of one of these. I'll leave a comment at the page supporting your decision so people don't think it's entirely one-sided. — Catherine\talk 15:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Most cleanup tags are added unilaterally and can be removed unilaterally if you feel the problem has been addressed. "Move to Wiktionary" is a little different in that it is sometimes the result of a Vote for deletion, so it's good to check the history on who placed it and why -- if there's a VfD involved, then it's probably best not to second-guess the community, unless the article has changed drastically since the vote.  In this case, it looks like Beland placed the tag himself, so I think we're fine keeping it.   There may be more to be said -- directors who use many or long or unusual takes, the demand for Beatles alternate takes before Anthology, etc.  — Catherine\talk 06:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Cal Jam
Wondering about your edits to California Jam.

If you check out www.californiajam.com and google "california jam" in google groups, you will find that Scott Lifshine is an integral part of California Jam history. There have been 79,000 refererences to California Jam on usenet - most by or about Lifshine's recording of the concert. While it may seem strange, his obsession with the event has eclipsed the event itself 35 years later.

Reconsider the Lifshine entry to California Jam.

Also, take note that Lifshine has enemies on usenet who love to torment him regarding his obsession and have already vandalized Wikipedia regarding Cal Jam.
 * Jgm, have a look at alt.music.deep-purple. The posts under the name of wereo_gogg and wereoboy are by Lifshine, and pretty much speak for themselves. It's been going on for years. To suggest that he is an integral part of rock history (he calls himself the only one who matters in music) is, shall we say, unencyclopedic. --Puddlejumper 12:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

World Music
Hello! - My initial reply is on my talk page but i'm still in the middle of working on this "World Music" article and related things. It'll take me a little while to pull it all together because it involves working across multiple pages of music artists in relation to the main World Music page. --wayland 11:59, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Could you tell which ones you're referring to? --wayland 02:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing problems
I think it was caused by this script I'm using. Sorry for the inconvenience.  --  W  P  Talk  02:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping out at Beatles for Sale and saving me the trouble. Johnleemk | Talk 09:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Millenium Park
Hey thanks for cleaning up my post about the park! i had a bad dream last night about the park and i saw the existing page as an ad for the park. I wrote the thing on the fly, and i appreciate the new wording :) i really appreciate this! i hope the picture stays up. as it is completely appropriate. how did you run across this article?

victor

Millenium Park
Hey thanks for cleaning up my post about the park! i had a bad dream last night about the park and i saw the existing page as an ad for the park. I wrote the thing on the fly, and i appreciate the new wording :) i really appreciate this! the new wording will probably help quite a bit!!! i hope the picture stays up. as it is completely appropriate. how did you run across this article?

victorgrigas

Classic Rock
I've seen lately that you have been editing a lot of the artice Stairway to Heaven and it seems that you've edited other musical articles too. I was wondering if you would contribute to my classic rock survey. There is more information on it on my user page. Thanks a lot and hope you contribute. 02:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

General
Hey, insightful philosophy =) [I saw your page from editing the Requested_articles/music section.

Wskora 14:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Lost== ==

Good work with that deletion of all the Lost material from the Oceanic Airlines article. Definitely more than I would have cut, but reading over it, there's nothing I'm wanting to put back in. Mad kudos Dave 06:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Blues
I have tried to address your objections -- as far as I feel able to do so. Please don't hesitate to provide further objections. Vb 11:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for creating List of songs used in television commercials. I moved what you wrote to what I think is a better place where more people will see it: the main Television commercial article. Regards, --Unforgettableid | Talk to me 18:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheers
Hi! I don't mean to intrude, but I noticed you have made some edits to the Cheers article in the past! I've given the article a serious reworking and I hope it can garner your support on it's FAC. Thanks again! Staxringold 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes
Greetings! You commented on the article Katie Holmes when it was on WP:FAC. I've redone the article and hope to renominate it on FAC soon. But in the meantime, I'd be grateful for your comments on WP:PR at Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 21:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

May we borrow...
Hello. I'd like, with your permission and with attribution, to copy Wiki cream to Talk:Monty Hall problem. We are discussing the possible WP:FARC of a once excellent (FA, Mainpage 23 July 05) piece of work that has, over an eight month period. seriously deteriorated. Your analogy is perfect. :-) hydnjo talk 19:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Well thank you, this way I'll quote your words directly rather than providing a link that may or not be followed. I've been hovering around Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page doing whatever to help keep things going (before hell freezes over) and noted that your response to DL was well... interesting. So, I hope you don't mind, I dropped in for a look around while you weren't here. ;-)  --hydnjo talk 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Just to let you know, there may be hope for Monty after all. And, I havn't yet posted your words of wisdom anywhere but on my talk. hydnjo talk 01:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ZigZag disambiguation
I'd say ZigZag (magazine) is secondary to ZigZag (software) if the former was created 1969 in UK and discontinued after five years or so, and the latter was designed in 1965 and still goes on internationally. --TuukkaH 08:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(Replied on my talk page.) --TuukkaH 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

WTC
I hope I addressed your issues about the WTC compared to the Chicago buildings. Also, JHC was not designed by Mies. (Gary Joseph 01:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC))

Copyvio
Are you sure the lyrics are copyvio? It just seems strange to think of information that is so easily available online as copyrighted. How much would qualify as fair use? Thanks, TheJ a  bb  e  rw  ʘ  ck 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Stairway to Heaven
Agreed with your removal of the "Toolshed" claim, but why take out the backmasked message? Isn't it about as on-topic as you can get in a section about messages in a reversed version of the song?

By the way, I agree with you that the messages are bogus. But I think maximum information about the subject is the best way to convince people of the truth. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  ʘ  ck 04:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks. A sub-article is a good idea. I'm going to try and get permission from Led Zeppelin's record company to use the lyrics, and if they give me permission, I'll definitely make an article. Does Backmasking in Stairway to Heaven sound like a good title? If I can't get permission, I'm not sure there'll be enough to make a sub-article. There used to be a Stairway to Heaven Backwards, but it was deleted. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  ʘ  ck 03:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No response. Does the current version look OK to you? I don't think it's copyvio to use the backwards lyrics; see Talk:Stairway to Heaven for why.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  01:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury is not white
Freddie Mercury is known for a fact to be Indian and not white. Your deleting him as a major non-white rockstar is wrong. Just because few people know it, doesnt make it false. Part of Freddie's legacy is the fact that he was the first Indian (and, consequently, Asian) rock star in the history of the genre. He looks white of course, but he's of the Parsi ethnicity in India. Parsis are South Asian Zoroastrians whose ancestors originated in the Middle East millenia ago. As a result, they look fairer skinned than other South Asians, but indeed have mixed racially with them to a point (as proved by recent genetic studies). See Freddie's article and the Parsi article. He goes back on. He's not a white Briton, despite trying to pass of as such. -User: Afghan Historian

Led Zeppelin article
Hey JGM (and Warrens) - I've just had a thought about what has been said about the length of the Led Zeppelin article - would it be possible to make the page appear shorter by putting large sections - such as the band's history - into drop-down boxes (as used for Wikipedia "Contents" lists)? I think that if it would be possible to do that (and have them set to "hide" as default and let the viewer "open them up"), that would be a good idea.--RichardHarrold 14:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Favorite Songs
My survey has changed. I am now continuing my mission for the best songs, but now I am accepting all genres. I'm giving you a chance to revote for your top ten favorite songs of any genres (not just classic rock which is still the best). I've made a executive decision to keep the existing survey results and just add on to that with the new entries. My feeling for doing this is because classic rock is the most influential genre in music currently so it should be expressed more in the survey. Thank you for contributing in the past, and hopefully in the future. ROCK ON. RENTASTRAWBERRY  FOR LET?  röck  03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Another copyvio question
Thought you might know something about this.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

List of songs featured in television commercials
I have added a "" template to the article List of songs featured in television commercials, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Extraordinary Machine 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sixteen Candles
I am confused. Your most recent edit summary was "restore slightly modified "ratings" section (see talk)", but what you restored does not address the concerns on talk and there was no addition to talk.

As discussed, for most information, imdb is not a reliable source. The R->appeal->PG story is unsupported.

As discussed, the article has the source saying "both versions" include X and Y, though the source does not say that and there is no basis for the content selected.

The paragraph, in fact, is contradictory. The movie, we are told, was rated R. The rating was appealed. It was given a PG. But there are two versions? That means the film was re-cut and re-submitted, not the rating was appealed...

Now there is a new uncited claim as well. ("Current...")

Mdbrownmsw 15:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Please see the discussion at Talk:Sixteen Candles. - -- Mdbrownmsw (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin project
Jgm, I've seen your high quality edits on a number of Led Zeppelin articles. I've set up a portal and wikiproject to help organise and co-ordinate articles and would be delighted if you could sign up.

MegX (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Cream
FYI I've copied your thoughts at Monty Hall talk. I thought it appropriate for the goings on there lately and hope you don't mind. Thanks, --hydnjo talk 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Genesis
No worries...thanks for the note. MrMarmite (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Page moved
Hi Jgm, I wanted to let you know I moved I'll Sleep When I'm Dead to the disambiguated page, as you requested. I'm afraid that when a redirect already exists at the desired location, non-admins can't move the page, because it requires you to delete the targeted redirect first. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Scaruffi
Current guideline from the parent project is that Scaruffi is a usable source. Until that guidance is changed, the reference should stay. To remove it otherwise is tendentious and pre-judging the outcome. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 01:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WGN-TV
Thank you very much for backing me up on my argument on proper grammar. Rollosmokes (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Semi-instrumentals
I have moved your proposal for deleting this category from UCfD to CfD as that is clearly where it should be. You also did not sign your nomination. --Bduke (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wolves of the Call revert
I am looking through my copy of WoC, and I don't see an explicit reference to either Andy being an analog for C3PO or of the Wolves resembling Doctor Doom. I don;t want to revert you, but I think the tags required citation of such. If it isn;t in the book, then a citation of a reviewer noting the similarities would be enough. Failing such inclusion, I would have to re-add the citation needed tags (thanks for letting me know about the how tag, btw - did something replace it?) at the end of the day. I will wait to hear back from you. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-grunge
Hey man, no hard feelings about the U2 - Vertigo revert, I kinda figured somebody would disagree with me. However, post-grunge is clearly not a non-existent genre, that is not true at all. There is a wikipedia page on it, All Music Guide lists it as a genre for a large amount of bands and it began as a more commercial version of grunge, a sub-genre of alternative rock. I have no problem that you have reverted me but please try to improve your reasoning in future. James25402 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Genre
I would suspect that actor is more common in, say, experimental theatre. This overlaps with self-identification, but not entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Agreed with those points; also agreed with your position, Jgm, that it would be good to head this one off at the pass. Re: "most of the points" in my essay...it's an essay, so if there are points you disagree with, feel free to edit them or post on the essay's talk page.  (Feel free to respond here, I always watchlist after posting on a talk page.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Thanks
Thanks for your efforts: --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

S King thanks
Thanks for the reply on my talk page. I will check out your Stephen King recommendation. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Genesis Wikiproject
Hello! I am just wondering on if you would be interested in joining a Genesis Wikiproject, if I were to make one. I am currently thinking about starting one, as I think it would be nice to get all Genesis fans to work together and collaborate. If you would be interested in the idea of having such a project, please respond to me on my talkpage. Thank you, and have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina
In the course of our shared collegial "business" to improve Wikipedia, it's still fair to point out that I for one will apply, if necessary, WP:3RR with regard to the subject article. Cheers. -- Iterator12n  Talk 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Kottke page
Hi. Yes, I noticed the changes to the Kottke article lately... I've been mulling them over but I see you did a bunch of good work. I added one quick minor addition re: the Ice Fields work. Also, there was more orchestration than just "Range" on the Leo Kottke album - don't recall all the titles right now though. I have a lot of documentation about the Capitol/Denny Bruce years but it is all in personal emails with all the players of that time period so not able to cite it as is, plus a lot is personal stuff, not encyclopedic. All in all though, the article is a lot better than it used to be. Not as "fan" biased as musician articles tend to be on Wikipedia. Thanks for the note. Always appreciated.Airproofing (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The timeline is incorrect for the first albums. 12-String Blues was first and was recorded live in the Twin Cities at the Scholar. Followed by the Takoma (Armadillo) album, then Circle Round the Sun. He did not have an exclusive contract with Fahey but it worked out for him. He owed Fahey another album which ended up being fulfilled by Kotte-Fahey-Lang. See my article at http://leokottkeconnection.bravehost.com/circleblues.html I won't have much time to correct it right at the moment. Airproofing (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't let it be, so I did a real quick edit. It needs to be cleaned up. ha! Airproofing (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

INXS
I've a problem with some of your recent edits to INXS, as indicated on its talkpage, I am undertaking a number of major edits in an attempt to get the article up to B-class in actuality instead of in name only. Before I got there the Lead was very brief and did not adequately summarise the article as per WP:Lead and hence would not qualify as B-class (criteria are listed and discussed on the talkpage). Instead of demoting the article's assessment I decided to edit it myself. The questions I attempt to answer when framing a Lead are: "Can it stand alone? Does it describe enough to get a casual reader to read on? Is it only teasing with unfulfilled comments?"

In some of your recent edits you significantly trimmed back the Lead removing all single/album titles and a broad description of their chart successes, while I was about to increase the Lead with information on their international successes. The current Lead retains the statement "INXS achieved international success with a series of hit albums singles through the 1980s and 1990s." Besides being worded awkwardly, this statement is not substantiated/exemplified within the Lead: a casual reader would have to read further in the article to find any single or album information.

Consider the POV of a casual reader: if I had a general idea about INXS but couldn't remember any of their songs your Lead gives me nothing to go with, if I could read that they sang "Original Sin" or had the album Kick then I might be interested to read more: it confirms this is the band I want to know about.

Some of your changes are okay e.g. I prefer "fronted by" to "led by". However, I think his death should be mentioned in first paragraph to explain why he is no longer a member. BTW, check sp, of Hutchens vs Hutchence.

I've decided to contact you directly with my thoughts so that we can co-operate to get this article up to B-class (if not GA?).

Can you provide an explanation for your trimming back of the Lead?Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

INXS collaboration?
Are you interested in a collaboration to get this article up to genuine B-class, if not to GAN? I have asked another long-term INXS editor, Jav72, the same question but have not had a response yet. At the moment I have not altered your version of the Lead pending your explanation for the deletions.

Jav72 has independently fixed the problems with the second paragraph.

I have gone on to edit other parts of the article including creating an Early years section to expand upon The Farriss Brothers, their time in Perth, the reason for the name INXS, early manager Gary Morris (& some of his ideas) together with quotes and refs. I intend continuing through the article making further edits per section. A second or third set of eyes correcting/editing these additions would be welcome: I tend to get too wordy and not see my own errors.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Spotty is okay, see you at the article/talkpage.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Another example farm
Like the Classic rock farm... look at Album-oriented rock. A horrible article strewn with pov fan favourite lists. Thoughts? The Real Libs-speak politely 20:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Criminal recklessness
I think the trouble with that title is that it has very specific meanings in English and Welsh law, in Scots law, and some jurisdictions in the US. I am not sure that would be a good rename/move without us all mulling it over more. SimonTrew (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RPM categories
The RPM Country Tracks archive is available here. I added the categories to "I Can't Stop Loving You" and "Heartbreak Hotel" because cover versions of the songs reached #1 ("I Can't Stop Loving You" by Conway Twitty on September 16, 1972 and "Heartbreak Hotel" by Willie Nelson and Leon Russell on September 29, 1979). Eric444 (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Carly Fiorina
Just after the article was semi-protected to guard against wp:blp violations, you reinserted the offending material? Please see my note on the talk page or at wp:blp/n. Adding a link to the source doesn't make it any less poor of a source, and it doesn't make the content any less controversial. (Please consider responding at the noticeboard or on the article's talk page instead of here.) user: J  aka justen (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Lollipop
Hi, I understand why you removed the template, and maybe a general section warning wasn't the right idea. The part I interpreted as original research was the unreferenced sentence, "The term may have derived from the term "lolly" (tongue) and "pop" (slap)." a little  insignificant  00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. a little   insignificant  00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiorina
I summarized your opinion regarding the "Worst CEOs" commentary on Talk:Carly_Fiorina; if I mischaracterized your view please correct me. Rvcx (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard Shaw Brown
Dear Friend, I was the singer of rock band The Misunderstood and have subsequently become much more successful and influential as a Gemologist and Jewelry Designer head quartered in Bangkok, under Royal Patronage of HM The King of Thailand. Somehow I have reached to heights in Thailand not before reached by any foreigner before me. And there are over 500 local and global 3rd party published articles and 36 TV shows to back it up. Now, I am not boasting... I'm just establishing my notability to be in Wikipedia, where I have been for 3 years, and to which I have donated money anonymously over the years. The reason I'm writing is to ask your expert help. I just saw the excellent edit job you did with The Misunderstood in making exactly as Wikipedia wants it. I think you did a great job. I have the same problem with the page about me Richard Shaw Brown and I would be highly obliged if you could do the same excellent editing on that page so it will be top notch and and remove the COI tag. Thanks in advance. Best wishes and again thanks.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment
Just before this has the chance of getting personal, please forgive me if sometimes I come across as a little angry. You just would not believe the amount of bollocks I've had recently across the articles I've been editing (see my talk page and its archive). I'm somewhat protective of DSotM since it took so long to get to FA (and I didn't have much help), but I don't own the article, and I don't want anyone to think that I believe I should have the last word.

I do appreciate that your edits are in good spirit, and I don't want you to back away from the article—but hand on heart, I think that some of your edits are making the article's structure worse.

I attempted to explain on the article's talk page but I think I came across as a little insensitive and a bit of a twat, so if it was offensive I'd like to apologise now. Parrot of Doom 20:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comment, I do appreciate it. I'm pretty involved with the Floyd articles, I've gotten Meddle to GA, DSotM to FA, WYWH to FA, Animals, The Wall, and Pink Floyd are at GAN, and The Final Cut is at FAC.  I have the other studio albums to do, as well as the individual biogs.  I make no complaints, but I'm doing this almost entirely on my own, and every day I check my watchlist to see clowns changing the British wording, track timing, inserting unsourced material, etc etc.  It's hard work keeping my eye on everything. Parrot of Doom 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 * BTW, with regard to the album's symbolism - the statement is a summarisation of what all the sources say. I'd have to use rather large page ranges to reference it.  I agree the legacy section needs more material, but I think you'll find that such detail is astonishingly difficult to find online.  I think most musicians would rather pretend that they're too original to be influenced by anyone like the Floyd. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Revolution 9
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Revolution 9. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Revolution 9. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mix (magazine)

A tag has been placed on Mix (magazine) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 04:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Waking_the_Tiger_(2nd_nomination)
Kindly participate in the voting if you are still around. Thank you.--Jondel (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jgm


text:
User:Colipon/My Stuff/Sandbox

Olaf Stephanos
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Olaf Stephanos

 * Note: I have been preparing this over the space of a few days. I am still trying to familiarize myself with arbitration. Never done it before and hope to never do it again. Apologize for the length or mistakes in format, I tried my best.

User requesting enforcement: Colipon+ (Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested:

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * Central to these diffs is one pervasive, consistent issue - the editor's tendency to always want to tip the article POV towards Falun Gong's favour, no matter the situation. This user certainly goes out of his way to remove, restructure, move, or otherwise tone down reliably sourced content critical of Falun Gong followed by extremely lengthy argumentative rants on the talk pages.
 * 1)  Serious POV editing. This was the user's first comprehensive rewrite of Falun Gong after article probation - he adds undue weight to the article's intro, highlighting Falun Gong's "plight", and then adds an entire section of selective academic sources, advocating the "good nature" of Falun Gong in the section "Theoretical background", while removing all well-sourced information about Li's claimed supernatural status and apocalyptic claims - claiming it was to "rv Sam Luo's ravings". Modified "Criticism" heading to "Third-party views". Deleted several paragraphs of critical information; replaced it with favourable information.
 * 2)  Serious POV editing. Attempting to discredit the source of the critical content, not a legitimate refutation or rebuttal against critical commentary. Also, another paragraph is awkwardly inserted (copied from another article, originally also drafted by himself) its only purpose seems to attack the American Anti-Cult Movement in defense of Falun Gong. User did not attempt to seek consensus before or after the edit, merely attempting to justify it with a long rant that he is "right". A chronic issue is that whenever any critical content is added to the article, he POV edits with "criticism of the critics" to "balance out" the article.
 * 3) In the same edit, he also forcibly inserts that Patsy Rahn is a "Bachelors of Arts" to discredit her published works (he lobbies for it here, discrediting her ad hominem with "Patsy Rahn is a former B-class soap opera actress, who has nothing but a BA in political science". On the talk page, Olaf continues to allude to a single source to justify that the Anti-Cult movement in the United States as "unreliable" and a "lackey of the Communist Party of China".
 * 4)   Other attempts at discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong, very clear POV editing similar to previous instance.
 * 5)  Another instance of discrediting sources critical of Falun Gong in article body, an unsourced POV edit that aims to "balance out" criticism.
 * 6)  A deletion of various critical sites, including all Chinese government-related sites in "External Links", saying it gives "undue weight". (Eventually almost all critical links were deleted, but by other users - see below).
 * 7)  Inserting paragraphs about human rights reports on Falun Gong, including a selective claim from a UN report which was later refuted. These edits aim to advocate for Falun Gong's "plight". Note also he adds quotation marks around words like "illegal act" to make them sound less credible.
 * 8) In Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital, an article that has been a focus of Falun Gong advocacy (and since deleted/redirected after attention from uninvolved editors):
 * Restored removal of peripheral comments about whether the allegations are considered by FG to be closed, with the comment "disagree; no reason to remove only this paragraph and leave the three others intact; are you sure you didn't try to make the case look 'closed'?" effectively giving Falun Gong 'the final word' while the dismissed allegations are left hanging - a common tactic by FG editors.
 * Blanking entire section because he cannot get his way.
 * Covert edit warring under guise of restoring "balance", by introduction of a weaseley phrase, and misrepresentation of source that the allegations have been "found credible by Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine", and re-adding removed problematic material with no substantive discussion (relying on edit summary).
 * Introduction of material tangential and not specifically related to the article's subject as a method of 'counterbalancing' the removal referred to immediately above - again, so he could have final say on what is "right".
 * All of these edits reflect POV and disruptive editing, aimed at stalling neutral good-faith edits by User:Ohconfucius.
 * 1)  Deleting Mrund's edits about Falun Gong's controversial aspects from lead sourced from TIME and James Randi Educational Foundation. Here is his justification for deleting, and here he deletes it again without consensus.
 * 2)  This is a lengthy talk-page response to an uninvolved user who suggested that the article was extremely biased in favour of Falun Gong and there have been efforts at erasing critical content. This is a form of very direct advocacy, which is prohibited according to the arbitration. Other talk page advocacy edits include    (Rants about personal experiences, personal meeting with founder Li Hongzhi, calling him a "humble man" etc.), (Extremely lengthy advocacy about why the word 'cult' doesn't belong in article, despite reliable sources, and other dissertations); advocating for Falun Gong through blockquotes taken from official Falun Gong website faluninfo.org, with attached personal experiences; More advocacy on the talk pages against the Anti-Cult movement.
 * 3)  Removing NPOV tag on a revision that clearly favours Falun Gong, while the NPOV dispute has not been resolved, with justification: "The disputed content and concrete alternatives have not been explicated on the talk page."
 * 4) Here Argues that James Randi, another critic of Falun Gong, is "partisan" and "not an expert on Falun Gong", branding Randi's educational website a "personal blog", saying it cannot be included in the article. Here he calls Randi a "good illusionist" and "does not have an academic background", and that "sometimes he's just plain wrong".
 * 5)  In one of his few edits outside the realm of Falun Gong-related articles, he inserts unsourced lines ("imprisoning Falun Gong practitioners to detention centers and labor camps and torturing many of them to death") on the page of Chinese president Jiang Zemin, when the paragraph already has a "citation needed" tag. In contrast, his edits (, as part of a protracted edit war with User:Simonm223) on Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, promote Li's benevolence and positive image. These edits clearly reflect pro-Falun Gong, anti-Chinese government POV editing.
 * 6)  Removes quote directly sourced from Li Hongzhi to hide Li's more outlandish dissertations, with justification "it doesn't fit in well with the other [quotes]".
 * 7)  This edit is a restoration of Original Research conducted by User:asdfg12345, in defense of Falun Gong's more 'outlandish' claims, reflecting clear advocacy.
 * 8)  The user persistently edit wars to keep Falun Gong critic and cult expert Rick Ross out of the article, labelling him a "self-contained cottage industry"; here he deletes Ross again using the term "former criminal" to discredit the source. In this typical revert, he modified all instances of the word "repression" or "ban" to "persecution" and added praise for Falun Gong including: "while others say 'there could no gentler religion than the Falun Gong.'[...] In 1999, the Chinese government said it considered Falun Gong to be a cult; though scholars see this as merely a 'red-herring'." This reflects pervasive anti-critic, pro-Falun Gong POV editing by said user.
 * 9)  Delete well-sourced content on "homophobic" teachings, justifying with "Anonymous IP inserting a new section, using substandard sources and ignoring criticism just doesn't work.".
 * 10) He expressed that 'forced labor camp' or 'brainwashing center' are in general appropriate "plain English words" to describe prisons to which supposed FG practitioners are sent, aiming to sensationalize these events.
 * 11) He harasses me while I prepare for this very arbitration case, first posting a lengthy pre-emptive defence on Talk:Falun Gong; he then brings it up in an unrelated disucssion stating: "[Colipon] is at this very moment preparing to lose his face by blatantly misusing the arbitration enforcement process against me to gain an upper hand in content disputes..."
 * 12) Numerous diffs on personal attacks, which severely violate WP is not a battleground listed below:

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
 * Topic ban or complete block.

Additional comments by Colipon+ (Talk) :

My first impressions with the article was that it was similar to ongoing disputes at Scientology, with a group of dedicated apologist editors making blatant POV and disruptive edits and making real work on the articles very difficult. Falun Gong is a bit more complicated. There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Communist Party of China. Two polarizing sides of the issue make it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. Because both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, "NPOV" becomes very delicate - there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revisions of articles is ever stable.

The propaganda war manifested itself on Wikipedia in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banned or have left. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, are readily being used as a direct form of advocacy for the Falun Gong movement, and users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.

Conflict of Interest The user I mentioned above is undoubtedly a single-purpose account and has been editing Falun Gong-related articles since 2006 (along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors -, , and ). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, he and a very consistent group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors, and two users in particular (Olaf, dilip rajeev) show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks.

They are also known to invoke Wikipedia policy whenever it works to their favour. Misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to engage in tag-team edit warring, and backing up each other's problematic edits, but occasionally conceding when it is clearly demonstrated that the misrepresentation has occurred. More often than not, the neutral revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to restore the balance of bias in favour of Falun Gong. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.

Pervasive personal attacks; hostilities User:Olaf Stephanos has become especially hostile of late and severely violates the principle that "Wikipedia is a not a battleground", constantly attacking other users. Just in the last month alone, for example, he cagily disparaged the efforts of new non-aligned User:John Carter by alluding to the fact that he edits "things that are widely considered either as parodies or otherwise ridiculous topics"; he made numerous personal attacks against me, including telling me to "stop being a martyr" and calling me "one raging anti-FLG bull", and when I asked him to stop his personal attacks, this was his lengthy reply accompanied with more personal attacks; On the same talk page, Olaf tells User:Mrund: "I have not attacked you personally"; in the same edit, he writes, "The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose". He later asserted his personal attacks to be "satire" and "humour".

In addition, Olaf persistently disparages my character and neutrality by repeatedly making references to my post over two years ago on the talk page of now banned user (and anti-FLG activist) Sam Luo, and wrote a sarcastic comment which began with: "I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil. If you weren't peacocking around with phrases like 'neutral-minded editors calling on the pro-FLG side to adhere to NPOV', there would be no need to point out your double standards. Why don't you start playing your cards openly?."

Moreover, in response to my call for investigation on Falun Gong articles and related commentary from a wide range of editors that the article is poorly written, biased, and whitewashed of any criticism, Olaf wrote a lengthy 4-paragraph rebuttal which opened with: "'Guys, guys, here's a handkerchief to wipe your foaming mouths [...] I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing [...] I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me.'"

All Falun Gong related articles are currently on probation, this is by no means the first time I have encountered problematic users who violate terms of the arbitration. Because serious arbitration enforcement cases are time consuming, they have not been filed until now. This cannot go on. It is imperative that any or all problematic conduct should result in conclusive action against any guilty party. My suggestion is that admins conduct a thorough investigation on Falun Gong and its related articles, investigate all the regular users who edit the pages, and enforce a wholesale ban on any user (including myself) that they find possess a clear activist agenda, whether on behalf of the Chinese gov't or on behalf of Falun Gong. My belief is that because of the chronic nature of the problems and because activist users are increasingly becoming adept at weasling out of WP policy violations, that a ban will be the only effective measure to end these chronic problems.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: User has been notified here.

Statement by Olaf Stephanos
First of all, I would like state what I suppose will be obvious by examining the diffs provided above: this is an attempt to misuse WP:AE to gain an upper hand in a content dispute.

I have been editing these articles for several years, and my stated intent has always been to respect the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whenever there have been problems or disagreements, I have engaged in extensive discussion; I have taken matters to the community noticeboards, especially after the latest mediation case was initiated; I have absolutely no intent to keep away "critical" sources just because they are critical, as long as they are given due weight and meet the requirements put forth in WP:RS and WP:V; and I have done my very best not to break WP:3RR, or to engage in prolonged edit warring, even though the articles have faced numerous assaults and occasionally even outright vandalism.

I assume there will be a group of editors leaving their comments on me before the ArbCom gives its final judgment. Some of them will probably try to make me look negative; others will undoubtedly defend me. My argumentative and articulate style of speech, along with my knowledge of the policies and guidelines, has made me a demanding opponent in the eyes of those who support direct action and try to take over these pages by force, or who insist on substandard sources, undue weight, and original research. (On a side note, the main Falun Gong article was recently protected after our mediator's WP:BRD model was breached.) I also initiated the original Falun Gong arbitration case that ended up with the topic ban of User:Samuel Luo and User:Tomananda. In my view, these are the real reasons for singling me out.

Before I go into details about the accusations against me, I would like to point out that Colipon is blatantly misrepresenting some of the diffs (such as this one), and that it is not an accident on his side, because already on August 7 he has read an initial list of rebuttals that is now available on my talk page. In addition, he knows that many of the removals (such as Rick Ross) have been approved on a community noticeboard, but he still chooses to use them as "evidence".

I will also highlight the fact that the following diffs are relatively old: #1 (8 June 2007), #5 (21 June 2007), #6 (12 June 2007), #7 (14 June 2007), #9 (10 March 2008), #10 (2nd & 3rd: 12 January 2008, 4th: 10 March 2008, 5th: 11 March 2008, 6th: 14 July 2008, 8th: 7 March 2008), #11 (15 July 2008), #12 (1st: 12 March 2008, 2nd: 12 March 2008), #14 (15 July 2008), #16 (4th: 4 July 2008), #18 (17 March 2008).

Point-by-point discussion of the alleged violations

 * 1) I don't think there's much to say here. User:Free456 is a sockpuppet of Samuel Luo, and I reverted him.
 * 2) In this edit, I have merely pointed out that Margaret Singer cannot be taken to reflect the academic consensus on the matter. She had been given an extremely prominent place in the "Reception" section. There was discussion on this wording, I took part and did not try to enforce it, agreed to removing all the references to the court decisions, and have even spoken on behalf of Singer's inclusion as a significant minority viewpoint here. I still think it is acceptable to mention her, as long as she is not given undue weight and is presented in the proper context.
 * 3) Pointing out Patsy Rahn's academic credentials with a sourced reference to her biography (on the website of the host of the conference in question) shouldn't be a problem, especially since I did nothing to enforce that edit. Just a little while earlier, Colipon had inserted this edit that appealed to Margaret Singer's credentials, but apparently he doesn't see any problem there (frankly, I don't, either). Lastly, I have not called the ACM a "lackey of the Communist Party of China"; I have only mentioned that a peer-reviewed source discussing the ACM discourse and Falun Gong contains these words: "By applying the ['cult'] label and embracing theories that posit passive followers under the mental control of a dangerous leader, the government can aggressively destroy the group, all the while claiming to be protecting religious freedom. In this respect, the Western Anti-Cult Movement has served, unwittingly or not, as a lackey in the party's efforts to maintain its political dominance."
 * 4) The first diff is admittedly an attempt to restore the primary sources about Singer and her expertise. This was my only revert. See point #2. On the other hand, posting the second diff as a piece of "evidence" is preposterous. In my next edit five minutes later, I revert my changes and say "Sorry, my bad. Seems like another organisation has taken over the name "American Family Foundation"." Colipon knows this by reading the rebuttals on my talk page, but he still chose to include this diff. In my humble opinion, that is quite indicative of his approach to this arbitration enforcement case.
 * 5) This is nothing but a link to a section that discusses the anti-cult movement in light of reliable sources.
 * 6) My rationale is apparent, see the edit summary. At the time of the edit, the External Links section looked like this.
 * 7) Adding sourced information shouldn't be a problem. Adding quotation marks around the words "illegal acts" means that they are the words of the Chinese Communist Party.
 * 8) All of this is done in good faith. See the edit history of the article to see what User:Ohconfucius was doing, as well as the article's talk page. Also note my words, "I'm not going to start an argument. Let's see what they say here."
 * 9) The edit summary directly points out the problems: "1) The word 'controversial' is not even found in the article. 2) James Randi website is a personal website; see Sources. 3) The third sentence was not attributed to anyone." In addition, I don't see what's the problem with my talk page justification that was mentioned by Colipon.
 * 10) I see this as good faith discussion on the talk page, pointing out issues with undue weight, among others. I admit that some of these edits are not directly discussing the article contents; but they are argumentative replies to people who have raised questions, or to personal attacks such as User:Mrund's "Please just act like a grownup, Olaf, OK? I suggest you go and insert some useful material into some other article instead of sabotaging my attempts to improve this one." (The latter comment was related to edit disputes surrounding point #9.) The "advocacy" for what faluninfo.net says about the issues at hand is directly relevant to this article, as self-published sources can be used as sources about themselves. The "advocacy" against the anti-cult movement simply presents some academic arguments against the ACM ideology, and ends with the words, "But here we mostly focus on a careful scrutiny of the editors' contributions and evaluate them against the official policies. I wrote the above to introduce some of my own views on these matters, and I am ready to continue discussion, but we shouldn't stray too far from the actual purpose of this talk page."
 * 11) The tag was removed simply because tagging an article must be followed by discussion on the talk page. On these pages, it has been almost a norm that editors have refused to discuss the bones of contention, yet they want to leave a tag and never tell others what exactly needs to be done to get it removed.
 * 12) Randi's website is subject to WP:SPS. As long as his views on Falun Gong haven't been published by a reliable source, I don't see why they should be included in an encyclopedia.
 * 13) The first one is a good faith edit on the Jiang Zemin article – never reverted by anyone and apparently not contested (it's still there!). In the first diff on the Li Hongzhi page, my edit summary expresses the intent: "Some edits were justified, such as removing mentions of some obscure proclamations. But systematic removal of positive third party references is not acceptable. The things I restored are notable." I tried to engage User:Simonm223 in discussion here, but he wasn't really up for it.
 * 14) The section is named "Theoretical background", and the rest of the references deal with academic issues.  Apparently, nobody considered this quote very important, since it hasn't been restored to this day.
 * 15) The idea of this edit was to point out the discrepancy between the sources. It was discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, and third party editors approved of it.  There might have been a better way to express the same thing.
 * 16) First of all, Rick Ross has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard in this thread. It was agreed that his personal website is subject to WP:SPS, and that his inclusion can only be considered if his views on Falun Gong have been published by a reliable source. Secondly, I did not label Rick Ross "his own self-contained cottage industry"; it was quoting User:Vecrumba who said these words on the RSN. The "typical revert" is merely restoring sourced content whose removal was not discussed on the talk page. The word "persecution" had been changed by User:PCPP in his previous edits.
 * 17) I was trying to get the anonymous IP to discuss these changes, instead of adding a new subsection and presenting a synthesis of material from various sources (including a private website). Needless to say, the IP wasn't really up for discussion.
 * 18) A short comment I wrote on the talk page. Falun Gong practitioners are imprisoned in brainwashing centers and forced labour camps; there's nothing "sensational" about it, it's just extremely frightening. See the article Persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China. I feel that choosing this diff as "evidence" against me really expresses something profound about Colipon's mission on Wikipedia.
 * 19) I quickly moved the "pre-emptive defence" posted on the Falun Gong talk page to my private talk page, as soon as I was pointed out that Talk:Falun Gong was an inappropriate location. However, as I said before, some of the fallacies in Colipon's evidence were clearly indicated in this version, yet he chose to ignore most of them. As for my comment regarding the misuse of WP:AE, I think the ArbCom can decide for themselves.
 * 20) Comments on the so-called "personal attacks":
 * there is absolutely nothing that can be interpreted as hostility towards User:John Carter in this diff.
 * "Yeah. Stop playing a martyr, Colipon, and stick to the work at hand. I'm not going to get involved with your strawmen. Let's just agree to disagree." was a reply to this rant posted by Colipon on the article's talk page.
 * "raging anti-FLG bull" was a humorous allusion to a 1980 film by Martin Scorsese. The whole thread is available here. My comment reads in its entirety: "Do you expect to convince me, Colipon? Actions speak louder than words. In my eyes you have come across as one raging anti-FLG bull – but let's leave open the possibility that I'm wrong. Whatever the case, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be welcome here, as long as you follow the rules."
 * Colipon left out the strikeout in my comment "The face of your ideological struggle just looks so much better with a faux moustache and a gargantuan plastic nose", another example of carnivalesque Bakhtinian satire that I've found an amusing way to point out the sheer absurdity of some arguments.
 * the reason I have reminded Colipon of this edit are my simple requests to make him retract his words. Despite numerous attempts, he has refused. Personally, I think it is somewhat worrying that Colipon has openly expressed sharing a similar agenda with User:Samuel Luo, who was banned indefinitely during the previous arbitration case.
 * originally, Colipon finds my comment "I merely proved through direct quotes that your shining helmet of neutrality seems to be made of cheap Chinese tinfoil" humorous, as intended ("haha. I like it. :)" ), but now uses it as evidence against me.
 * when I turn User:Mrund's insinuation of pro-FLG editors being similar to banned scientologists, and Colipon's comment "After reading the archives and history here it is a little naive to go on believing that if we keep this group of Pro-FLG users on this page, that it will be possible to improve it. Therefore my opinion is that a "wholesale ban" is more than necessary", into full-blown satire by beginning my reply with a link to a humorous picture that is so overboard that it's clearly a joke, he takes the whole sentence out of context and even claims it is a response to something different, namely to the "commentary from a wide range of editors that the article is poorly written, biased, and whitewashed of any criticism".

Final words
I find this arbitration enforcement case a real waste of my precious time. I suggest that the ArbCom issues a warning to User:Colipon to prevent him, as well as other like-minded editors, from further misusing the dispute resolution process in the future.  ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍  12:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. A lot of accusations were hurled at me in the comments below. I would point out the following:
 * No additional evidence was presented against me, and the Falun Gong "critics" mainly relied on vague rhetorics and spurious claims (such as saying that I favour the Epoch Times or Clearwisdom as sources).
 * The few diffs that they offered merely recycled Colipon's arguments above, or had absolutely nothing to do with the description they gave (for instance, see the link offered by User:Edward130603 that allegedly "turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions"). My words: "I'm afraid that any discussion on other matters (apart from improving the article) is bound to carry us further away from our goals. It might only lead the regular group of editors to hurl accusations at each other of misrepresenting the difficult issues, i.e. 'whitewashing' or 'denigrating' Falun Gong."
 * A perfectly matching description of the 'wikilawyering' allegations can be read here: Wikilawyering. Their offenses are not argumentative, but generalising and dismissive. Instead of producing evidence, the term is used as a mere shortcut to some unidentified behaviour.
 * Being the defendant in an arbitration enforcement case, and in light of the patent frivolousness of the "evidence", I find this comment extremely bizarre: "I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates."
 * User:Vecrumba's comment was attributed to the RSN, and a link was given: "See the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard." Looking at the thread, there is no way anybody could interpret these as my words.
 * Looking at the talk pages of the editors who have excoriated me, it appears they have exchanged e-mails outside Wikipedia and discussed their tactics in this arbitration enforcement case. See the following comments:
 * Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..."
 * Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?"
 * Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)"
 * Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you."
 * I will take no stance on whether such behaviour is inappropriate; I just want to make sure that the ArbCom is aware of it.

 ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍  08:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

 * Olaf's style in discussions is extremely hostile and supercilious. He constantly works to present Falun Gong in a positive light, justifying his POV-pushing edits with endless wikilawyering. He hardly touches any non-FG articles though, which means that a topic block and a complete block would amount to the same thing. Either would be most welcome. I support Colipon's suggestion. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by PerEdman I can't get my head around this editor. He occasionally inserts quirky comments into ongoing discussions where it's very unclear to me what he's trying to say, but if I try to ask for clarification, I get more of the same. He would also post long ..harangues with multiple references to more or less relevant policy or guidelines without specifying how he believes those references are relevant. I would classify this style as disruptive to the constructive discussions of the talk page, making consensus-building very difficult. I have believe I have seen a propensity to more strongly oppose the inclusion of anything potentially critical of Falun Gong, than he opposes the inclusion of anything positive, sometimes even when dealing with a single author/source who has both positive and negative comments on Falun Gong. His arguments against such sources are occasionally contradictory or irrelevant. PerEdman (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: If this were any other article, I would suggest no action taken. But the articles in which this author is active are on probation, which for me puts the behavior over the limit of acceptance. PerEdman (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Pretty much a compilation of distortions are what I see in what User:Colipon presents above. I am not getting into even trying to refute them point by point. Looking into individual diffs, the larger context of the edits, their sourcing, etc., ought to convince the evaluating admin(s) that these are legitimate edits and the majority positive, highly sourced, well-written contributions to the wikipedia project. Further, these distortions are are based on stuff nit-picked from the user's contributions which span a couple of years at least. I request admins to kindly evaluate things in depth and, if found necessary, to please let User:Colipon and a few other users running this campaign of attack against editors know of its inappropriateness. Also, I see the user making an allegations against me as well claiming that I "show very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, hurling ad hominem accusations and personal attacks." I request admins to please go through my comments on the talk of the article and judge for themselves how my interaction with other editors on the topic have been. If colipon's  allegation is found baseless, kindly urge user Colipon to refrain from repeatedly making such attacks.Dilip rajeev (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * What is there to say, really? This is a content dispute. I am sure in the time to come, given the current editing on the pages, that there will be real Arbitration Enforcement cases brought to the committee. Yesterday's blatant violation of the WP:BRD model springs to mind, where one third (about 20kb) of the article was blanked with no consensus, then reverted several times, until the page was locked. I was going to make some remarks about Martin and PerEdman's responses, but I suppose there's no use.--Asdfg12345 13:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment by Edward130603 I agree with Peredman and Martin. Olaf is a single-purpose account who often uses satirical comments to mock and confuse his opponents. For example, recently, his comments have turned away a newcomer to the FLG discussions as you can see here, . User:Seb az86556 who has just followed the discussion for barely 24 hours. Olaf constantly uses these tactics to keep Wikipedia showing FLG in a positive light.--Edward130603 (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment by HappyInGeneral This is Wikipedia so there are some rules. The first I would like to mention is WP:NPA. Now I would not even like to mention who started it (although I guess a much better case could be easily built against Colipon, PCPP, Bobby Fletcher, Martin Rundkvist, etc...) yes, this is stroked through because if we would go on this route we would do nothing else but fuel WP:NPA and generate a destructive editing environment and that is BAD!, because it's much more important to see who is keeping it alive. With this in mind I would prefer if our mediator User:Vassyana and/or some of the uninvolved editors like: User:John Carter, User:Maunus, User:Richardshusr (who are also administrators, with some recent edit history on the talk pages), would issue warnings with notes, basically educating each user who they notice that is engaging in personal attacks (or reply's with other personal attacks to a personal attack), making them thus aware, that yeah, this can actually be seen as a personal attack, so better refrain from it and better foster a consensus based building of the articles, like one that is suggested here, and which basically would come to ease the WP:BRD process. As I see it what Colipon did here is just another example of WP:NPA by misusing evidence, proven by Olaf above, to influence the ongoing content dispute. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment by Seb az86556 Since I was mentioned in one of the above comments, I feel obliged to give my own view. On the one hand, this user's comments have not "turned me away;" I am merely not into sitting here 24/7 answering every personalized comment thrown at me since the time I have completed kindergarten. Having said that, I have been witness to a style of argumentation and evasion that quickly borders on what is maybe not personal "attacks" but rather personal discrediting in the manner of who-are-you-and-what-do-you-know-anyways. The fact that the user discribes himself as a "demanding opponent" (see above) can be taken as either confidence or arrogance. As for his self-cited "knowledge of the policies and guidelines," I can testify that even though I followed this tit-for-tat spiel for barely 2 days, it has become obvious to me that the user frequently insists on legalistic wikilawyering, which can at times, no doubt, be warranted, but can at other times be disruptively abused as a form of filibuster. In addition, the user insists on bringing in "uninvolved editors" but brands anyone new to the talkpage as involved or partisan within a matter of just a few short hours. This fate is likely to strike anyone who wishes to join the discussion, and this tactic makes any attempt to neutralize the environment futile. As I said in the beginning, I am not quick to leave because of one or two remarks, but others might be, and in the interest of bringing some neutral voices to the editing-process and in the interest of wikipedia, this has got to stop, no doubt. As I see it, this report was filed in order to find out how. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Comment by Ohconfucius:Fully endorse Seb's commemts directly above. Olav has proudly admitted that he instigated the Arbcom case which removed his dedicated but not so clever opponent Samuel Luo, giving Falun Gong devotees a free run of Wikipedia. Olav seems to be implying that a CCP-led assault on FG is happening again, and is trying to discredit Colipon whilst trying to claim all the good faith for himself. The reality which he finds uncomfortable, is that several editors with solid track records (thus a lot harder for him to discredit than just Colipon alone) on other articles have seen the problems with the FG family of articles, and appear to be out to correct the problem. I believe his targeting of Colipon in this way is to create wriggle-room for himself and his fellow FG practitioners/advocates. I stopped editing Falun Gong family of articles back in the third quarter of 2008 because I was stressed out by the single purpose accounts running around which were hell bent on giving Falun Gong a whitewash with added peroxide. I was one person fighting three or four dedicated followers, and that was before I had any experience dealing with him (Olav). Now that several 'rational' WP editors have reacted to this blatant point pushing by Falun Gong, I am not going to take a back seat. This edit encapsulates the problem well: "I will be here keeping you in check, and there is no way to get rid of me, because I know what I'm doing. I know how dispute resolution works, what are my rights as an editor, and what kind of behaviour entails punishment. I'm not going to burn myself, nor is there anything in my edit history that would incriminate me." He categorically states that he knows the system inside-out, and implied he will will outsmart any editor/enforcer out to get him. His biggest weakness, IMHO, is his arrogance and his propensity to make personal attacks. Olav is a wikilawyer par excellence- His attempts to sidestep allegations of personal attacks by saying he was quoting someone else is just gutless; saying he was exercising "humour" or "satire" are just lamentable tactics where ownership of words typed out on his own keyboard suddenly morphs into someone else's when his balls are on the block. Note how, all of a sudden, User:Vecrumba (and not he) now said to Colipon that Rick Ross was "his own self-contained cottage industry". All WP editors know the importance of attribution. Brevity is the enemy of the Falun Dafa – it's a common tactic by Falun Gong editors to demand that everything be sourced to the hilt; they resist any attempt at removing text which praises or defends FG because it is sourced, and it soon becomes a tug of war as to which side is capable of flooding the article with enough sourced coatracks, creating undue emphasis. The other side of the two-pronged approach is to discredit sources offering the opposing viewpoint. In one sentence, Olav objects to sourcing James Randi's comments to his blog on the grounds that it is a WP:SPS, and then he happily defends citing Clearwisdom (CW) or The Epoch Times (ET) when it suits him (as if these latter were highly respected sources and not SPS). Incidentally, FG devotees apply arguments to Xinhua that they ought to be applying with the same fervour to CW or ET; needless to say, they don't. The Falun Gong machine churns out numerous "studies", "reports" – which are hard to match for any editor in competition to add text from reliable sources – and the FG editors manage quite successfully to sideline criticism through a liberal application of WP:UNDUE. I would add that the misuse of sources and the use of ironic quotes is endemic. My allegations of misquoting of sources is from personal experience; these are however easy to sidestep because it's the encyclopaedia which 'anyone can edit'. I am not saying that Olav is directly responsible for all the above, but think it important that Arbs realise the general unhealthy climate which exists in FGverse, and the game which is being played out within these servers.  These two edits and this revert are another example of the FG approach. The allegations have been found to be somewhat wanting in hard fact, yet the Dafa continues to voice opposition to it (as if this opposition is sufficient to render the accusations valid) - this goes with the maxim: 'you throw quantities of mud often enough, and some of it is bound to stick'. When he failed to repel my reasoned deletion, and to avoid breaching WP:3RR, he inserted this paragraph with no direct relevance, without comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by John Carter - In the comparatively short time I have been involved in the article, Olaf has regularly violated the talk page guidelines, which probably qualifies as disruptive editing as per the Arbitration Committee ruling. He also rather often indicates that he is a practicioner of the movement, indicating a very realistic WP:COI concern. He gives the impression to me, frankly, of a rather boorish college boy who has developed a bit of a following and on that basis thinks he can get away with what he wants. This includes being opposed to content which I belive wikipedia content guidelines demand. I ascribe at least part of this to the fact that based on his editing history, he has never really edited anything which is not related to Falun Gong, and I believe that this lack of understanding of the project here may well be one of his most serious and basic problems. My own history of what some might call leniency regarding bans and blocks is one which might well indicate to others that I believe virtually any editor with a history with the project is someone we would prefer not losing, and this is true. I think Olaf might be one such editor. On that basis, for what little it might be worth, I think that what might be the best option here would be for an indefinite ban to be placed on the subject, which could be reviewed and reconsidered after the editor involved has spent a possibly predetermined length of time involved in working on any content not related to this topic. If over that time he displays improvement in his current problems, which seem to me to be an almost self-righteous arrogance and what I can only call truly appalling interaction with other editors, particularly those he disagrees with or dislikes, then the ban might be lifted. It might not be unreasonable to ask of him that he seek a mentor as well. Alternately, if such an arrangement is too complicated, I wouldn't myself have any serious objections to a topic ban of six months or so, with the proviso that should his conduct continue in like manner thereafter the ban be restored. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Olaf Stephanos

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

 * Six month topic ban from Falun Gong and related articles. I would suggest that Olaf Stephanos use this time to experience other areas of Wikipedia and focus on calmly and civilly interacting with other editors.  If the hostility and POV pushing are not resolved, it is likely that the topic ban will be extended or reinstated. Shell   babelfish 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Permanent ITN formatting

 * Actress Elizabeth Taylor (pictured) dies at the age of 79.
 * The House of Representatives of the Philippines impeaches Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez for alleged betrayal of public trust.
 * Nikolai Andrianov, winner of the most medals in men's Olympic gymnastics, dies at the age of 58.
 * Voters in Egypt approve a new constitution at a referendum, as a part of the overall reform.
 * The Alpine Skiing World Cup concludes with Ivica Kostelić of Croatia and Maria Riesch of Germany winning the overall titles.
 * French, British and American forces launch attacks on pro-Gaddafi troops in Libya in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Colipon/My Stuff/Sandbox


text:
User talk:Fernkes

Hi, my name is Dennis. Please leave your message below this line.

It’s about time that I pop my head up and declare that I am still alive. Lots of life issues have prevented me from being more active on this site, but hopefully I will get involved again sometime. Because I live in Minneapolis, I have more than enough to keep myself occupied during some very trying times. Peace to all of you!

Minnesota Meetup
 2009 Proposed date: Saturday, October 10. Details under discussion. Please share this with anyone who may be interested.  Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for next Minnesota meetup?
Hi, Dennis, do you have any suggestions for a next date or place for a Minnesota meetup? I was disappointed to miss last Sunday's meetup once a work meeting coincided with the time announced for the meetup. I would be happy to arrange a meetup soon. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have to think about this. --Dennis Fernkes (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon at Hennepin County Library
The Minnesota Wikipedia community and local historians are invited to edit entries in Wikipedia on Minneapolis history. Please help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by utilizing materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own Minneapolis History topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections Librarians.
 * Minneapolis History edit-a-thon

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis

When: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 10-5 pm

10 am - 11 am Orientation to Minneapolis Collection

11 am - 5 pm Edit-a-thon Website: Hennepin County Library, Special Collections, Map & Directions

Parking: Metered street parking or pay ramp in basement, enter on 4th Ave

For more information see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota. —innotata 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries event
In the area? You are invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Minneapolis.

Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.

There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis

Special Collections (4th floor)

When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page. —innotata 01:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikipedia meetups
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetups.

To kick-off monthly meetups in the Twin Cities, two events will be held in Special Collections at Minneapolis Central Library this summer. These are mostly planned as opportunities for Wikipedians to discuss editing, but all are welcome!

Special Collections contains many valuable historical resources, including the Minneapolis Collection, consisting of files on hundreds of topics related to Minneapolis from neighborhoods to politicians (it's best to call or email in advance to request materials). Free wifi and several public computers are available.

Place: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis

Special Collections (4th floor)

Dates: Saturday, June 1

Saturday, July 6

Time: 12:30pm–2:30pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 14:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Great American Wiknic
In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.

Place: north of Minnehaha Falls in Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis

Date: Saturday, June 22, 2012

Time: 12–4 pm

 * Accessible from the Minnehaha Park METRO station, bus, walk, bike, or car
 * If driving, free parking available on 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
 * Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!

For more, and to sign up (encouraged, not required) go to the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 03:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota Wikipedia Meetup on August 3
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota monthly meetup on August 3.

Place: Lavvu Coffee House

813 4th St SE, Minneapolis 55414

Date: Saturday, August 3

Time: 1:00pm-3:00pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list.

—innotata 23:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tom Prin (September 15)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Meetup on January 18
In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetup in commemoration of Wikipedia Day.

 * Place: Seward Cafe

 * 2129 E Franklin Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55404

 * Date: Saturday, January 18, 2014

 * Time: noon

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 04:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom Prin concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom Prin, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, thank you. It can be deleted. Sorry I forgot about it. --Dennis Fernkes (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tom Prin

Hello Fernkes. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Tom Prin".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Invite to an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center

 * We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo  + c 23:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fernkes


text:
User talk:Abhishek

Hello Abhishek, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. You can learn more on the how to edit page. The naming conventions and style guide pages are also useful. There is a sandbox which you can use to experiment in. If you have any questions, see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. Angela 01:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Greetings, Abhishek, fellow-Kiwi. I see not much activity from you in recent months. Maybe a look at the fledgling Maori Wikipedia may inspire something! Kind regards - Robin Patterson 00:11, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand
Hi, You might want to consider adding User NZ res to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Onco_p53 08:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

New Zealander-Israeli relations
I noticed you identified yourself as a Wikipedian in New Zealand. You may be interested in New Zealander-Israeli relations. Respectfully, Republitarian 23:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

India project
=Nichalp  «Talk»=  09:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay
Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics.  Schwede 66  09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abhishek