User talk:RogerGLewis

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Hi Real Libs, I'm getting the hang of this, communicating is confusing as there isn't a reply button so to speak so it's guess work as to where to put questions suggestions etc, for me at this stage anyway. How would you suggest I put my suggestions for the Byrdland page, I'm all for consensus and I'm happy to draft things and put them in the talk section before showing them the light of day on the actual page.The links thing is open to a wide range of interpretations, a citation on manufacturing numbers and also an actual list of players citing locations where the proof in an actual photograph can be found would seem a longwinded way of achieving the effect of just posting a link to a location within which the information can be found anyway. I have read the discussion on inclusionist and deletionist philosophies with the link to the article posted in your own article, I found it very interesting. My objective in this is really just to get the Byrdland guitar properly recognised as the groundbreaking instrument it actualy was and still is. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gibson Byrdland links et-al

Hi I am just getting used to the lie of the land around here. On the Byrdland Thread I have posted what I would say are useful additions to the information on that instrument. The Gibson Players list is a link and a poor one in terms of reference to the Byrdland. What is the problem do you think with the links I have posted? I collect guitars and have been researching the Byrdland model for over a year now. I own a vintage model and would like to see this section of the Wiki doing justice to the guitar. There are a number of edits I would suggest to the main article which is one dimensional in many respects relying mostly on the one source book, there is no reference to the 11th edition of the blue book or any edition of the blue book for that matter a material shortcoming in relation to any rare vintage instrument, even a cursory look at the shipping figures I posted a link to would show that the Byrdland is a rare and yet influential instrument. How does one discuss edits I do think there is rather a lot to discuss before this entry could be said to be satisfactry. I realise that Wikepedia is more than just a collection of links it does seem to me that such a big section of this entry relies on a link and an unimformitive one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing here but having just reviewed the post above entitled a request, I am starting to form the opinion that there is some pretty arbitrary and undemocratic editing going on in here. I am looking to enter into a sensible discussion as to how I might collaborate in getting the Entry for the Gibson Byrdland into a shape that actually communicates the importance of the Byrdland model in the development of the thin line guitar. If Wikipedia is to be other than a collection of links it should also be less than the one dimensional precis of one old source book. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) My intention is to restore the links I have made or at least provide the list of notable players I have compiled within the body of the article. All sources of players are actually accredited to their source as are the sources of the photographs of the players with their instruments where I have them. This represents 4 months work alone. The shipping figures I mentioned should also be placed in the article to give context to the influence of the byrdland in relation to the numbers actually manufactured. The raw data speaks for itself as represented in the link, but if to get the information into the article I am happy to extract the apposite numbers . There is an important article published by George Gruhn on the Byrdland a world renowned expert on vintage and rare guitars and the history of the instrument, that there is no reference to this article is a material shortcoming, in my opinion, of the entry as it stands. I am reminded of the old saying about those living in glass houses not throwing stones. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I have now slept on this and re-read what i have said above and reflected on the rules/suggestions as to what appropriate links to a subject/entry should be. A link that clarifies a point or supports a statement should be considered as valid. The existing link in this article to notable players leads to a generic list of endorsed gibson players of all of their models, the link I have posted whilst it links to a forum it is the moderated forum of the Gibson company in the Hollow and semi hollow body section of the forum. The Gibson forum is a valuable source of information on all things to do with Gibson models as a source it is useful and as a link re-enforcing an already weak link it would seem to me to add something to the article.WIth respect to the link to shipping figures the information on this site is extremely well researched and is the best representation I have come across of all shipping figures for Gibson guitars. A large amount of interest in Gibson guitars has been generated by the famous 1959 and 1960 Les Paul Standard model which have exchanged hands for $1,000,000 plus privately and at auction, prices in excess of $500,000 are routine. 1278 Les Paul Standards were shipped in 59/60. Now consider the Byrdland first production run up to 1969 when from 1955 through to 1969 only 1147 were ever made the largest production/shipping run being in 1968 when 198 were shipped. This sort of information is available by looking at the sources I have suggested as a link. The current precised entry looking at the history going way back has become very sparce but does not communicate the substance of this instrument either by example or by reference, On the above basis I propose to re-instate the links I suggest today and would ask that should other contributors wish to add a further piece within the main article contextualising the links, could we exchange messages and decide what would be appropriate. I would equally accept that some explanation ahead of the links could help to clarify what direction those links lead. There really isn't a condensed source of information on the web for the Gibson Byrdland and I am excited that Wikipedia at least has the opportunity to provide a window into the very great history of this instrument a lot of younger guitarists I think seem to have the impression it's just something that Ted Nugent plays?RogerGLewis (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See below for the offending links. - RogerGLewis (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you may have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia, at Anthony Wilson. Please do not add such material without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The text you added to the page came from http://www.jazzblues.org/news.php?viewStory=264 srushe (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What am I doing talking to a robot. I actually removed this myself realising it was probably not good to cut and paste I added a line of text however mentioning that Anthony Wilson notably played and owns a late 50's Gibson Byrdland quite an important part of his sound particularly with Diane Krall her other well known accompiansit Russel malone also used a Byrdland when with Ms Krall. In all honesty this really is all in all a rather frustrating place to try to contribute . It's hardly suprising that it has a reputation for wild innaccuracy!RogerGLewis (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Answers to questions

I did not say that anyone did not deserve an article. If a subject passes WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC they can have an article created on Wikipedia... feel free to create any article you wish. But remember that the project has several policies in place (like WP:BIO and [[WP:MUSIC) to keep the project free of NN article subjects. Unless an article already exists... they cannot be added to the Gibson list (or any other player list for that matter) As for Bennett/Benson. Their inclusion would be valid. But the worded entry must show detail for use + notability of use. Your entry for George Benson said "Great Jazz player"... and thats it. Said nothing about the L5... nothing about its previous owner... nothing about its auction sale.... nothing. As for Bennett... the entry capitalised the word white???... included the word Gibson?? in front of Byrdland (its a Gibson player article so identifying models as "Gibson" is redundant... thats written in the lead-in hidden text and also covered extensively on the talk page) + again... did not distinguish why he was notable for the Byrdland use. The list would benefit from having both entries if they were written properly and not added in a writing style of a grade 3 book report. "Great jazz player"... any 8 year could write that. The Benson reference has lots of information that could be compiled into a decent entry... instead the entry was a sparce 3 words that said nothing. The content of the Bennett link is simply a Wikipedia mirror site which fails policy WP:RS and cannot be used. References must pass WP:RS and must support the notability criteria for inclusion. Hope that helps

Frankly libs charecterising the addition of a few words as the writing style of an 8 year old is just silly. The Benson article already existed that establishes him as a great jazz player, his use of an L5 is proven in the Skinners auction catalogue which was posted as a link, I thought the double provenance point with the link to another noteable Gibson Player Wes Montgomery was particularly nice. Wayne Bennett is a noteable guitar player his byrdalnd was a present from BB King, according to his daughter. BB King and Bobby Bland have guest appeared together countless times, a lot of great Jazz ad Blues players pay tribute to Bennett. BY definition a lot of noteable Byrdland players will not be well known or famous, today even if they were back in the day which wouldn't be necessary to make them noteable, but they are noteable to their peer group and their style of playing will have influenced many other artists. On the Bennett entry to the list I think the evidence is there but several links to several places cross referenced back to the Wiki article if they exist is quite a lot of work. The Donna Stoneman edit I think was particularly harsh as well, I wanted to Add Mary Ford as well I haven't checked if theres an article for her yet. I don't see how an obviously incomplete and deficient list can get featured status just because all of the citations and links cross check the extreme example of that would be one perfectly constructed entry linked to an article and so on but the fact would remain that a list with obvious ommisions shouldn't be given any sort of featured status it should only be featured in a section of lists with lots more work needed.RogerGLewis (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Some important guidelines

• WP:PEACOCK
• WP:NPOV

Please read these carefully so you can see why we have done what we have done.

Reading the other guidelines might come in handy, too.

Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the notification Bondegezou who has posted the other endorsements if not supporters of the other candidates in some if not all the cases ? The list of endorsements for Shahrar Ali for instance is very short on a lot of heavy weight endorsements I added David Malone to the list of his endorsers David also endorses Andrew Cooperboth of whom can not be elected yet David makes an endorsement of both. claiming conflict of interest in poliitical campaigns seems to me mired in problems, singling me out appeals to my well developed sense of absurdity, but thats a matter for others.I will continue looking at the other contributions to point out the errors and inconsitencies in applying standards of policy. Meanwhile I will follow the process with interest.RogerGLewis (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, most of the endorsements added have been by regular Wikipedia editors who are interested in politics. But it doesn't matter who initially added material: what matters is whether the community agrees that the material is appropriate. Other endorsements have been retained in the article because other editors have been satisfied the material satisfies basic Wikipedia standards.

In your case, you appear to have identified yourself not merely as someone who wants to see Malone win -- which I would not see as a conflict of interest -- but as someone actively working with the Malone campaign. That clearly comes under WP:COI rules.

The addition of information on further endorsements, where sufficiently notable and well sourced, would be very welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with sources being proven and reliable regardless of who posts, sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Application in this case is not being consistent. On Notability there are several problems with the Wikipedia Page idea and also the bar would apply differently say at Local elections to National ones. The Green Party is a Small all beit growing party with a 60,000 membership the only Greens of National Noteriety are Caroline and a lesser extent Natalie. In a grass roots policy up party like the greens grass roots local level positions are very important and noteworthy, also with the lack of media interest in the greens generally and in this leadership contest in particular it is arguable that all the green candidates in this election fall at the first hurdle when it comes to Being noteworthy in the snese of Green Party leadership most people on the street would be unable to name any of the candidates and even more would be ignorant that there is any contest at all. All that said I appreciate your concerns which you quite rightly voice regarding my own impartiality and I echo those concerns on other entries as well which are remarkable self referential and unsupported by any measure set to avoid circular reference. I have linked to the actual Face book accounts of Davids three endorsements by folk holding official green party positions and suggested a link to Ian Frasers Glasgow herald profile where he was a fairly recent Business Editor. RogerGLewis (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Greens are a more minor party, so there are fewer notable figures associated with the party (although the Lucas/Bartley campaign has managed to attract a fair few). The solution to that, however, should not be to throw away standard practice. If the Greens are a lesser party, they can expect less coverage in Wikipedia, as per WP:DUE. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to bend the rules to compensate for the Greens minor status and lack of media coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a stubb article of marginal interest out side of the Green Party, within the green party David Malone and other officials of the green party represent a sub set related to the content of this article and internal green party politics. To do justice to the actual reference elctorate in this leadership election for disinterested people looking for some idea of what historically happened in the Green Leadership Election of 2016 surely it is the Green party folk who put together information concerning who is supporting who and who is a ranking influencer, that is relevant. For stub articles this guidance must I think apply in this case. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. I have also drawn attention to the misleading link at link 3 to the 2012 party constitution. This Link is wholly misleading to an article on the Leadership when section 8 related to leadership and executive matters was substantailly changed so as to render the 2012 constitution meaningless for the purposes of this leadership election.

I will encourage other candidates and their supporters to try and improve the article further , your efforts are appreciated Bondegezoutalk even though we have some differences of interpretation hopefully some other editors can chip in and improve things as I think we both want that. I am very concerned that Wikipedia should be as good as it can be and would not want to detract from its quality in any way.18:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

I note with interest and thank Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC [6] for this input regarding the charge of conflict of interest. ″With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage″. - Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC RogerGLewis (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard issue

I'm making exactly the same comment here as I did for the other editor. If you want to continue the COI issue, please do so at the COI Noticeboard, not my talkpage. Thanks. - Brianhe (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Understood and I apologise Brianhe, I will re post my comment here for the benefit of Bondegezou Bondegezou

Hello, I am happy to clarify any specific questions. I would point out there is a difference between being interested and having a conflict of interest the distinction is I think clearly seen from what I have already said and my conduct also bears out the fact that no evidence points to a conflict of interest being evident or indeed latent by making inappropriate or biased edits. I have reviewed the relevant policies posted by others, as well as guidance for stub articles and there is no basis , evidence or indeed truth in characterising my editing of this Article as tainted by conflict of Interest. In political matters as I have already stated conflicts of interest are an absurd notion in that we all have our own allegiance. My own allegiances here are not party political or Partisan they are ideological, as I have explained I am a monetary reform activist and support the Green Policy 2015 manifesto commitments on Monetary reform and universal INCOME. I am actually if I must be catagorised an Eco Anarchist and the electoral processes of State election systems require me to hold my nose in becoming involved. As a stoic and pragmatic philosopher i do actually have a commitment to praxis of seeking fundamental changes to the economic system particularly Money creation and it is this which leads me to admire and support some green party political actors more than others including the Three I have dubbed #TheGreenPistols , but as long as the green party manifesto policy policy EC661 ´´The Green Party believes that, as the means of exchanging goods and services, the stock of money is a vital common resource which should be managed in the public interest. Yet only 3% of our money supply currently exists in the form of notes and coins issued by the Government or the Bank of England. 97% of the money circulating in the economy takes the form of credit that is created electronically by private banks through the accounting processes they follow when they make loans. for an idea of the full extent of tax payer value of such a policy see´´,stands I will do what I can to help those who advocate for those economic policies to achieve their self set goals , even where that involves seeking political office which I do not believe in There are the politicians in all of the main parties for who I make my own contributions in an uncoerced , unofficial but committed fashion including Jeremy Corbyn, Steve Baker ( conservative MP for High Wycombe) and other organizations I also do my own thing for. most are thankful and some become friends but of course in my world there are no Gods and No Masters and as such no conflicts of interest. I have no conflict of interest and whilst my degree of commitment to the ideals I believe in might strike some as odd it is no more odd than being a wikipedia editor. I would spend more time on Wikipedia but my activism and work in my field does not overlap very often with a need or inclination to make contributions here this is a rare exception. I have noticed that an early editor on the GPL2016 article here is also someone I know and I have also written to other Greens encouraging their active participation in improving this Stub article , looking at the group project page I am struck by some of the guidelines and would venture they are very good and might be paid a little more attention Be polite, and welcoming to new users

  − Assume good faith

− Avoid personal attacks

− For disputes, seek dispute resolution

I take all of these principles on board and there is nothing here we can not resolve. The Conflict of Interest point is I think dealt with if not then do please make a substantive argument Bondegezou it seems to me thin broth upon which to base any banquet though?20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)RogerGLewis (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Brianhe closed this discussion, but agreed to re-open it on my request. While there are content disputes, I don't feel the COI issue has been resolved. Specifically, User:RogerGLewis made the followings comments at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016, having added a set of endorsements for candidate David Malone: "Here are the endorsements I have listed I am awaiting a further list from David Malone and crosschecking both his endorsements of deputy leadership candidates and other endorsements he has also recieved" diff "I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days." diff But also said: "I am not a member of the Green party and whilst I support David Malone this is based upon my own area of political involvment [...] With independant endorsements suitably cited it is actually irrelevant whether or not I personally support or am employed by Malone. In fact I am not employed and do not act in any official capacity for Malone but have been doing some social media support for Malone purley on a voluntary and independant basis." diff The former comments imply an active involvement with a campaign team, a clear conflict of interest, although the last quote may suggest otherwise. Further comments from RogerGLewis have not explained the earlier quotes, but have denied a COI or indeed the validity of the concept. The most detailed are at User_talk:RogerGLewis#Noticeboard_issue. RogerGLewis: what did you mean by the first two quotes? Are you in regular contact with Malone about his campaign? O wise minds of COIN, input on the content dispute of course welcome, but what do you think of the COI issue? Thanks. PS: RogerGLewis, please note WP:CANVASS. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou talk I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process ( This I have counted in my 3 conversations via Skype ) I have never met David Malone in person and shaken hands let alone broken bread or shared a cup of tea or had a Coffee purchased for me at whatever coffee houses there are in Scarborough.I participate and have done since 2011 in the active and lively comments section of Davids Blog where Davids running was announced other readers there have gone further than me in that they have joined the Green party specifically to vote for him, I do not engage in party political politics and have political opinions which are negative against the illusion of choice democracy that masquerades as real democracy, I have explained this elsewhere but a discourse on my own politics is surely not necessary is this the new inquisition, ( see Ekklesia, for good faith assumptions and also) [1] [2] I am not formally directed by or allied to the Malone Campaign and have no financial, political or filial interest in the outcome of this Election and therefore no conflict of interest within the Wikipedia definitions and the wider professional and legal definitions of the term. I am a Member of the RICS and have studied Conflicts of interest as they apply to my professional Field of expertise as a past admissions assessor for the RICS membership board I have professional experience of interviewing candidates on their obligations with regard to conflicts of interest. I have also studied Ethics and Jurisprudence as part of my Philosophy studies. I do not have a conflict of interest.Should my editing indicate a possibility of Bias I could understand your continuing questioning on this issue, Andrew Williams sent me an e mail this morning saying he is returning from Hols at the weekend and will sort out the links for the endorsements I have added should they indeed need sorting out?, perhaps you would hold this in abeyance and settle the question of Notability and Source reference with Andrew. I have accepted your explanation on Ekklesia [3], and possible connection COI to the Bartley/Lucas campaign in good faith, I see no reason why you will not reciprocate in kind, but that is a matter for you. I respect that you must act according to your own volition. I have exchanged comments on blogs with Clive Lord and I have also posted a series of Blogs on my own blog which I have of course not referred to as it would be improper to do so, I have promoted and engaged in discussion on the Leadership to ensure that Monetary reform and Green Party Manifesto Policy EC661 I blogged about this policy in 2015 [4] and have many posts in comments sections on many publications referring to it and explaining its import to Political Economy, I support David Malone as he wishes to expand and explain this part of green policy and that coincides with my own political objectives as informed by my own activism which is unaffiliated to any organisation or other individual although I do identify as a supporter of various campaigns including the Malone Green Party Leadership campaign Supporting a candidate and declaring support does not constitute a conflict of interest, one also realises that ones editing should not be biased and I think it is safe to say there is no indication of Bias in my interventions here whilst I do have concerns that the Article is unbalanced and gives a bias in the Direction of Lucas/Bartley which I am sure they would also be horrified by. With respect to Lists and wikipedia not being one, I expect that David Malone will receive more votes than Natalie Bennet secured to win the leadership in 2012 Bartley and Lucas will similarly get more votes, Williams is likely also to poll a larger number as well Clive Lord Martie Warin and Simon Cross will also I think poll between them more votes than the winning tally from 2012. As the turnout is unlikely to be lower than 2012 and the membership is enlarged to 60,000 and with declared support for Davids Campaign already having been counted in the order of several hundred messages, 5 endorsements hardly count's as a list and as I have said before it is absurd to have an article which suggests that The front runners and other Candidates have no notable endorsements In politics notability must also be in the eye of the beholder, for instance Nigel Farage would not consider an endorsement from Marie Le Penn or Tommy Robinson for instance to be noteable , in a good way at least. No candidate would wish to give the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing a bloke up the pub , that said he thought the policies of x were mint. I 'have expanded on my reasoning elsewhere regarding the distinguishing features for a sui-generis approach to the extant election. Again I invite you to await input form Andrew when he returns from Hols. Meanwhile shall we do some constructive work on a metric for more Democratic elections for parties like the Greens.I will have a look at the Labour Leadership , UKIP leadership and other STV AV examples and put something up for discussion in the Elections and referenda talk page if you think that is a good idea? RogerGLewis (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)07:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)~~

ANI noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

August 2016

Misunderstood {{uw-legal}} warning - see below comments

Your recent edits to WP:ANI could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. -- samtar talk or stalk 09:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Additionally, you have made a legal threat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums -- samtar talk or stalk 09:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Samtar, I am not considering taking legal action although I suspect that both UKIP and The Green Party will be less than amused could you advise of the best place to bring this serious matter to a quick resolution please?RogerGLewis (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe - your edit summary here states "Notice of possible legal action!" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant by the Green Party or UKIP not by me, it was not a threat but an observation, sorry for any confusion. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, understood - I've collapsed the above warning in good faith, and apologise for the misunderstanding. In the future, I would reccomend not mentioning "legal action" -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

samtar you can count on that, thanks for your swift action. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed some of the material that references this page at the article Talk page. You have to stop refactoring that talk page. You also have to stop using other editors' usernames embedded in your posts with their sigs so that it's not clear who's saying what. You've done that with multiple different usernames, including mine. Once one of your comments has been responded to, you can't go back in and change your comment. If you want to say something different, then add it, but don't alter your comment after the fact. It's misleading and again distorts what others say. I'm rapidly losing patience with your style of interaction at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't interact reasonably with the community, then you have no business editing here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Bbb23 Could you explain what Re-Factoring is, using embeded usernames I will stop doing I did not know it caused issues. On editing after the event, I am trying to go back and precis my longer entrys in talk as User57 explained that even on talk pages the convention is to stay under 200 words, obviously I can happily admit I have not been doing that and I will teach myself to quote the wording in policy I wish to refer too without quoting the relevant passages, which obviously leads to bloated word counts. On Reasonableness I do not accept that I have been un-reasonable. Losing patience with Style of interaction where it is through a novices incompetence is of course understandable( if assistance is rejected or ignored), I hope you will see that I have been attempting to rapidly improve my competence and will continue to do so. On the point about re editing comments after the event that puts me in something of a quandry as if I am to precis my arguments to conform with the 200 words convention to encourage others to participate and as explained in my interaction with you earlier RogerGLewis (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• I encourage you to keep your word count down, but for the future. Don't go back in and cut down on your text unless it hasn't yet been responded to at all. Once there's a response, it remains. See WP:TPO for information about refactoring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23 Thanks for that , timely advice for which I am most grateful. It seems there is hope of a settlement via consensus if a suitable process and time period can be agreed, I remain optomistic.RogerGLewis (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to discussion

I kindly invite you to the discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#The Bolding issue to decide whether to bold the winner in the election infobox. Lmmnhn (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Green Party Leadership 2018

Proposed new version

I'm happy with what Bondegezou is proposing as a way forward – and I'm grateful to Bondegezou for devoting so much time and bringing such clear thinking to this issue. Headhitter (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, I've said (see the Gursimran Hans quotation section above) that I'm prepared to concede on the Gursimran Hans quotation and to leave it out altogether. What are you offering? Headhitter (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording: "In August 2018, The Times reported that on Holocaust Memorial Day, in January 2009, Shahrar Ali had made a speech comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza to the Holocaust. In an article published on the Left Foot Forward blog, the Campaign Against Antisemitism described Ali's speech as anti-semitic and an “offensive rant”. Ali described the accusation as a "gross fabrication", telling the Evening Standard that it was "designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government". The Green Party said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 had been inadequate and that the Party is seeking to revise procedures. Hopeandreason (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis and Bondegezou, I'd be happy to support this formulation from Hopeandreason. Headhitter (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm mostly off the 'Net for a couple of weeks, so don't expect more input from me, but am happy with this formulation too. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

You can add me to the editors happy with Hope..'s proposed revision. It gives an explanation as to what the offending comments were, helping the reader, as well as referencing the Times, which in the case of an allegation such as this is helpful as indicating a reliable source. MapReader (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is for what is already on the page for the leadership article and 3 proposals are on the table for replacing the current entry on the Shahriar Ali Article.I do not support the Hopeandreason formulation on either page it is only telling half the story of the GP response which is much better reported ion the article of 11th August in the times. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, how do you come to the conclusion that "The consensus is for what is already on the page"? User:Hopeandreason's formulation has the support of myself, Bondegezou and, of course, User:Hopeandreason. I think that indicates a clear way forward. Headhitter (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter see this above.

  I'd be very happy to keep the existing phrasing as is. It seems a good summary of what all the various sources include. Ralbegen (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The 'elephant in the room' question is, does it matter what the Green Party response to anti-semitism is? The article here is about the leadership campaign, and the paragraph is about accusations levelled at Ali. By far the most important response should be the one from Ali himself. Sionk (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Sionk agreed Ralbegen agreed although tempered by what Sionk says RogerGLewis (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Ralbegen, for clarity, you concur then with omitting RogerGLewis' "still formulating" sentence? Sionk, as I've said before, it makes sense for me for this issue to get more coverage at the Shahrar Ali article than here, but it does matter what the Green Party's response to the allegations against Ali is. It clearly impacts the leadership campaign if the Party formally admonishes one of the candidates, should they do that. Ali's response should be covered, but is obviously what he would say. What the Green Party says (or doesn't say) about the matter is more significant. Bondegezou (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, there are now four editors on this Talk page who think that we should adopt Hopeandreason's wording at 21:41 on 18 August above – Headhitter, Hopeandreason, Mapreader (see posting today at 07:59) and Bondegezou (who said at 13:01 yesterday that they were happy with Hopeandreason's formulation: this, their latest, comment overrides what they said on 14 August). I have conceded on the Gursimran Hans quotation but you seem unwilling to make any concessions at all. As the majority of editors are supporting Hopeandreason's version, I therefore intend to revert the text to Hopeandreason's version. Headhitter (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter I am afraid you are confusing the issues and conflating discussions. This page the consensus is as I sate and the Position as to the Shahrar Ali Article is as per the options on the table in the paragraph above. Please stop straw-manning my position which has been very accommodating but does insist on balance in the article. Your not getting your own way does not constitute a lack of any compromise on the part of others. Please address the consensus process which I have initiated above add the Hope and Reason paragraph if you wish to the list and we can proceed to a formal vote to take effect when all editors have a chance to contribute. DO not revert anything at this stage that would be premature and an abuse of the process.RogerGLewis (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, it is established practice on Wikipedia to place Talk page comments at the bottom of the page. Other editors won't have a chance to contribute if you are expecting them to scroll through elsewhere to find out what it is you are proposing. Headhitter (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

New Section Move

Gursimran Hans quotation Headhitter added this. I think this is more than is needed and is a bit tangential: why does this person's opinion in particular matter? RogerGLewis appears to object to it too. So, shall we keep that out? Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes: I'm happy to concede on that. Headhitter (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Following on from the bottom of the discussion Headhitter Currently we have ,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog after a video resurfaced of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali responded to the Evening Standard, saying "The targetting of Green spokespersons with false accusations of anti-Semitism is designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government. This form of deceit is especially dangerous as it sets back the cause of tackling all forms of racism and xenophobia, which are regrettably on the rise. It is imperative that the Green Party continue to speak out on behalf of all the oppressed and to challenge the perpetrators."[11] The Green Party of England and Wales said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that it is seeking to revise procedures.[10]

I propose this,

On 29 June 2018, Ali announced he would stand in the Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018.[8] On 3 August 2018, Ali was accused of anti-semitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog regarding a heavily edited video of a speech he made in January 2009 which the Campaign Against Antisemitism labelled an "offensive rant".[9][10] Ali responded to the Evening Standard, saying "The targetting of Green spokespersons with false accusations of anti-Semitism is designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government. This form of deceit is especially dangerous as it sets back the cause of tackling all forms of racism and xenophobia, which are regrettably on the rise. It is imperative that the Green Party continue to speak out on behalf of all the oppressed and to challenge the perpetrators."[11] A Green Party spokeswoman said the party was committed to tackling antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. “A concern has been raised by the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We have contacted them to ensure we fully understand their concerns and can respond appropriately. That conversation is ongoing.”[12] [13] [14] LFF understands that the party executive will be debating whether to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in the coming weeks.[15] RogerGLewis (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:RogerGLewis, I don't accept your proposal. I've accepted the deletion of the Gursimran Hans quotation. You've objected to my (and User:Hopeandreason's) inclusion of Ali's reference to the Holocaust. But you haven't deleted anything; indeed you're seeking to expand the coverage given to the Green Party's response. Not good enough, I'm afraid! Headhitter (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Headhitterwell I suggest we seek consensus for our two proposals then , Also @@Timrollpickering: & @@Bondegezou: &@@Brianbbrian: & @@Ralbegen: could add contribs and refer to general editor page. I would say the current (top) version is adequate, it states the accusation and gives Ali and the Green Party a right of reply. I doubt LFF describeds the video as heavily edited. Facebook isn't an adequate source for a lengthy Green party quote. Sionk (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis, you haven't made any concessions at all. Do you have any understanding of what consensus on Wikipedia means? Headhitter (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Headhitter Yes I know rather a lot about consensus, I have made concessions in that I think the entry on the Shahrah Ali Page should be the same as on the Leadership Page. Can we do the process please rather than just making silly accusations? RogerGLewis (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC) RogerGLewis, in what sense is my statement a "silly accusation"? You say you "have made concessions". How many and what are they, please? Headhitter (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Headhitter This is a consensus process not an Interogation on Me by you. Please can you just vote on the two options, or a third which is to add the short version adopted here which already has a Consensus. Third Option.* On 3 August 2018, Shahrar Ali was accused of anti-semitism by the Campaign Against Antisemitism in an article on the Left Foot Forward blog criticising a speech by Ali in January 2009 which they labelled an “offensive rant”.[14] Ali described the accusation as a "gross fabrication", telling the Evening Standard that it was "designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government".[15] The Green Party said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 were inadequate and that they are seeking to revise procedures.[16] This paragraph or one of the two above. RogerGLewis (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I put this at that part of the section to distinguish between this page and the Shahrar Ali Page. This will have to go to a formal vote, please engage in the consensus process Headhitter, your discourse is bordering on disruptive and certainly is rude. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis (talk), I'm not prepared to engage further unless and until you apologise to me for ignoring WP:AGF. Headhitter (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Headhitter I will assume good faith if you apologise for your accusations and rudeness, Assuming good faith in the face of someone acting in bad faith seem rather in opposition to each other. Please, can we get on with the consensus process and put this matter to a formal vote. RogerGLewis (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis, you are now accusing me of acting in bad faith. Please provide evidence for this accusation and explain what I have said or done that can reasonably be construed as being rude. Headhitter (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

If you say you are acting in good faith and I am Mistaken That is good enough for me and I accept you at your word and Apologise for having mistaken a certain brusqueness for Rudeness and A slowness to acknowledge and participate in the consensus process as Bad faith. Can we now please get a sensible vote and schedule of that vote put in train? RogerGLewis (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, that isn't an apology and this is no longer a discussion to achieve concensus. RogerGLewis is simply repeating the same proposal which several editors (including me) think is excessive. What is it going to achieve to repeat this all? We surely already have consensus to keep the existing shorter paragraph. Sionk (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sionk (talk), we don't have consensus for keeping the existing paragraph: please see my comment at 08:41, today's date, above. There are now four editors on this Talk page – Headhitter, Hopeandreason, Mapreader and Bondegezou – who think that we should adopt Hopeandreason's wording at 21:41 on 18 August above, which reads:

"In August 2018, The Times reported that on Holocaust Memorial Day, in January 2009, Shahrar Ali had made a speech comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza to the Holocaust. In an article published on the Left Foot Forward blog, the Campaign Against Antisemitism described Ali's speech as anti-semitic and an “offensive rant”. Ali described the accusation as a "gross fabrication", telling the Evening Standard that it was "designed to stifle legitimate criticism of the Israeli government". The Green Party said that its initial handling of reports about Ali's speech in 2009 had been inadequate and that the Party is seeking to revise procedures."

Headhitter (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So there is a proposal to include The Times as a source? Seems eminently sensible, The Times is a generally respectable, mainstream, non-tabloid source (though behind a paywall). Sionk (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Sionk, and also for helpfully adding the reflist-talk template. I don't think we'll be able to achieve consensus, but if you're prepared to support Hopeandreason's proposed version, then we now have a clear majority view. Headhitter (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would also be happy with Hopeandreason's proposed version. It seems a constructive improvement on the status quo, adding more relevant and verifiable information. Ralbegen (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sionk This is a very long discussion and contrary to what you say this is a process trying to gain consensus. I prefer the shorter version already on the page and the Hope and reason paragraph seems to have some support. I certainly have no objection to the Hope and reason paragraph for inclusion on both the leadership page and the Shahrar Ali article. The discussion for both articles was directed here by Bondegezou.I think the Hope and Reason paragraph is innacurate in giving emphasis to the Green Party procedures of 2009, GP policy has been revised since 2009 and the CAA own web site has instances of similar accusations against GP candidates after the 2009 speech which was well known beofre the LFF article.When the Green party do or if they do respond officially then of course the Paragraphs can be updated accordingly as of now Could I suggest that the Hope and Reason wording is added to both pages as the Paragraph on the Shahrar Ali page does not have a consensus and no one else has been engaging in that discussion appart from Headhitter and I. RogerGLewis (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As it appears that there's now unanimous support for the Hopeandreason wording, or at least a strong consensus, I've gone ahead and implemented it. Ralbegen (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

RogerGLewis (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Invitation to the final vote on the bolding issue

Thank you for participating in the bolding issue of the election infobox earlier. We are now holding a final vote in order to reach a clear and final consensus. Please take a moment to review our discussion and vote in Template talk:Infobox election#Final voting. Lmmnhn (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert climate change

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)