Jump to content

User talk:ResidentAnthropologist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobthefish2 (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 17 September 2011 (→‎FYI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Criticism of Vladimir Putin

Thanks for notifying me of the article's rapid-fire and manipulative fast-tracking through the AfD process....for the third time, and after two prior attempts failed decisively. People never stop using the rules here to further their own "take" on the spirit of those rules until the desired outcome was reached. I don't really care, I'm no longer active here. All I can say, three months too late, is: "HEY, don't let me or common sense stop you."

But just as a FTR kind of thing, and as the originator of that article.....it was VERY amusing to see people attempting to ascribe to me a desire to smear Putin, when my real intention, one right there in the article Talk for all to see, was to give the edit-warriors and Russophiles/Russophobes an outlet to fight things out that would give the main article a chance to breathe and become a quality BLP article. That will NEVER happen now, as long as Putin lives or the present "consensus" on BLP "criticism" pages holds sway. Per user Sceptre, only .488% of WP articles are rated "featured" or "good", and it's not hard to see why.

But hey: thanks for helping prove my point that WP is quickly becoming an passive-aggressive anarchy behind the guise of well-intentioned rules, and overseen by people whose first allegiance is to those arcane rules, and NOT to the subject matter. This single event does more to further my personal criticisms of WP than anything I've ever seen. Thanks again! Ender78 (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Damian

He's admitted to it on the ASKE mailing list, so surely we can mention his name? I admit I really need more support on fringe archaeology articles, he does have a point. Dougweller (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also WR: [1]. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its the whole WP:OUTING being pushed to the limit. One of the people on Jimbo's talk page got slapped on the wrist for indicating it was PD based on WikiReveiw post. It got oversighted and 36 hours later I do the same and its oversighted. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I guess you could say the IP claiming to be him and saying he didn't care about being outed was an imposter, although I know he doesn't care. I have some sympathy for him except for his false claim I tried to get him banned elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megalithic yard at DYK

See the DYK entry at Megalithic Yard - not the first time DYK has been used to push fringe stuff. Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, thats bad pointy DYK, as side note have visited AE today there interesting stuff going down The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a side not I am still waiting for some to attempt to refute my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmore bone The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may interest you: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Paul_Bedson - there's an ArbCom ruling on fringe articles, editors on 'both sides' have had it enforced against them. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Deletion

Hi ResidentAnthropologist. I noticed that the article that you incubated/adopted had been deleted under code G6 by orangemike and was wondering if you knew this, or if you had gotten too busy to work on the article with me. I have been working on it on my userpage as I had sent you the link for it to look at in comparison with the article that was incubated. If you could kindly let me know if you abandoned the effort or if this was not what you wanted. Not sure how this works on wikipedia. I had thought that these articles were not to be deleted on user pages unless requested but if you decided to abandon it, that's cool, I understand. I will continue to work on the one I put on my userpage and if you have time to look that one over and leave me a message on my talk page about anything, I would appreciate it. Thank you again for your time and effort. Theonelife (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Didnt know you were still interested in it or and had assumed it had been abandoned. I can get undeleted its no problem at all. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessary, if you would help me with the one I have on my userpage from the link I sent you on the talk page that would be better...I thought it had been cut up so bad and anyway, I have been working on the one on my userpage since that one was incubated. Thanks so much for your time Theonelife (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, here's the link..;)[Almine Barton]Theonelife (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reinstating the article, and since you thought I lost interest in the article, I was thinking it wouldn't be appropriate to make any changes of the work I had done so far on your userpage. Would it be okay if I apply the content of what I have onto the Almine Barton page of yours and that way you can maybe be able to help me more with it in this respect. I hadn't lost interest, only shy to make any changes but it would make sense to do this that way you have the full article of the content for it on here and it might be easier to do that way? I can do that and then we can work to get this article going and out of your hair. I am also working to get more resources on content that isn't in it right now, I have to dig for a newspaper article on an award she won and so that is in the works as well. Thank you for your time. Theonelife (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd request that you keep your local version up so long as Theonelife remains interested in the article, whichever version she elects to proceed from. The version local to her is essentially the article as it was first put into article space, whereas this one reflects the work of several other editors, and preserves the edit history and Talk page of the article while it was live. This version thus might be a useful go-by for fixes, etc., if and when the article is put back up. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JohnInDc, I do beg to differ on the article on my user page is very different from the first article I posted. I have read alot, done editing on another BLP and polished up from the original article that I first posted. The article that I requested to be incubated I felt alot of the edits were done simply without the understanding of WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC , WP:NOR, and WP:SELFPUB . I am not asking for anyone to come to my user page and edit it, but perhaps look at it and initiate a dialogue on the talk page about parts they feel are not wikipedia standards. However ResidentAnthropologist wishes to go with the one he has incubated it can be archived or I can update it to reflect the changes I have made. I do appreciate all the hard work and help others have tried to contribute to the article, I just needed more time and in my newbieness posted it before it was ready unaware of the 'naked links' policy as there is nothing in references section that tells anyone about it. I learned a big lesson from this, and have started to feel more comfortable in editing other articles. My great appreciation goes to ResidentAnthropologist for this help. Since I can't comment on JohnInDc's talk page since it doesn't exist anymore, is why I have posted this here. Thanks in advance for your help and time.Theonelife (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you couldn't find my Talk page, which is here: User_talk:JohnInDC. I'd still ask that ResidentAnthropologist hang onto this copy. Also for you, Theonelife - you might find it useful to look through the Talk page discussions that are still there, as well as the edit history and summaries, to get a sense of the sorts of things that were of concern to other editors (many of which, as best I can tell, remain in your current draft). JohnInDC (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Mann jess's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  — Jess· Δ♥ 00:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ding-Dong!

Jolly good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just nagging you at ANI about it The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 04:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. I know it's morally wrong, etc., etc., to speak ill of the dead. But we've been waiting for this for over 9 1/2 years, so we need a day or two to get back to the moral high road. Meanwhile, "Ding-Dong! The son-of-a-[witch] is dead!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC request - 11-May-2011 - Intimate Relationship skills - Geoffjw1978 (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Geoffjw1978's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

c of b

I doubt there will be consensus for that, but good luck - see how bad it was before I trimmed it to a third in June 2009. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Criticisms of living persons articles is frankly a travesty of against our BLP policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, well done. Than you for your leadership in helping to resolve this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Resident Anthropologist, I’ve seen that you have posted periodically on my talk page and have provided input in a few matters where I’m involved. Could you could assist in an editing matter? I just posted a response regarding an edit I proposed on the David Miscavige page. Could you check into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige#Tom_Cruise_section and provide some input? Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Nestle, I suggest taking it to Biography of Living persona Notice Board I know a couple of people there who would take interest in it. I think There is a larger meta issue involved here in how we treat such material of "X says Y and then published by Z" with no analysis or attempt on the sources part to confirm or deny allegations. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File permission problem with File:Logo Refugee campaign.jpeg

Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Max Mustermann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anthropology

I have a few questions about anthropology. If you are willing please drop me an email. (This is very loosely wiki related) --Guerillero | My Talk 02:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)  Done The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "non authrative"?

Referring to your recent edit in Cult checklist, what is "non authrative"? How to determine whether a writing is "non authrative"? Do you mean that "non authrative" people cannot support Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Ancos (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, are you "non authrative"? Ancos (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merely it seemed to be a random site within our WP:ELNO topic area. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article misrepresents the work of scholars? When this article was written by several contributors, including me, we tried hard not to misrepresent scholars. Andries (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, ResidentAnthropologist, for your close of the "Proposal to stub this article" at Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, It was open and shut WP:SNOW issue. For your next project can you find something that doesnt make your fanclub at the Wikipedia Review angry? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be everything... ;( ... -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know. There is a reason I don't post there as its a rather toxic environment that fosters drama. You do have habit of finding controversial topics... why dont you find something that not heavily BLP related or politically charged? I think that would help alot. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, I will consider it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit Summary

Exactly. Now you know how I feel. SilverserenC 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're now involved, you may want to comment on the discussion here. SilverserenC 01:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Geebean's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prior involvement

I'm bringing this to your attention because of your role as a neutral/uninvolved view on the Southern Adventist University article. This pov was made because Fountainviewkid canvassed for it. Wouldn't this be gaming the system, and what can be done about it? bW 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like back to WP:ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Alright then! bW 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@BW, I have a feeling this might be Arbcom case if given time to fester. I am actually rather surprised we got the 1RR done so fast its unusually proactive for ANI. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, BW's the one been reverting and adding more POV in. Fountainviewkid 00:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you followed him here speaks volumes. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact he came here in the first places speaks even more volumes. Fountainviewkid 00:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are gaming the system speaks the most volumes, as does your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality regarding this article, as was evidenced by your replies to Mojo and everyone one else who does not agree with you. bW 01:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look who's talking about gaming the system and WP:BATTLEGROUND? The guilty violator himself. I replied to them to help clarify and explain more details, things that Donald and others understand. Your repeated edits and warring on several articles testifies to your purity on these issues. Fountainviewkid 01:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BW has made another controversail revert adding Historic Adventist to the Southern article. This is an extreme description, that generally does not apply to official denominational schools. That is more than 1 RR in 24 hours. Fountainviewkid 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do want me to do? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really expect you to "do" anything. This was more for information (or to combat false information). I'm keeping to my 1 RR on the Southern article, but it's hard because BW has already made several changes that are extremely POV and unsourced (more so than the whole "progressive" controversy). Do you have any advice though? Fountainviewkid 01:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dont revert discuss on the talk page. Thats what is there for. I personally agree with it but thats neither here nor there The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to discuss, but he won't. He'll just keep on reverting through, or he'll make some off handed comment and try to defend his "reversions". So you really think Southern fits the category of Historic Adventist?? Because generally that category is reserved for the most extreme segment of the SDA church. Southern is a denominational school and such isn't truly "historic" as those institutions tend to be "self-supporting". Also he removed several valid references not directly related to the progressive. Fountainviewkid 01:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think part the problem is that everyone is being extremely confrontational here as this thread demonstrates. The Label in question is potentially accurate, though I would agree its not the more extreme end the spectrum. I would advise starting Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal case. I think what is needed here is neutral third party to sit down and moderate of your conversations. That can be extremely useful. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While Conservative may fit Southern, Historic Adventist does not. I don't know how to do Med Cal, but I can try and work on it. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 01:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I seem confrontational. That is not my intention at all. I am simply tired of controversy on what I expected to be a relatively simple task to take to good article, instead, it becomes a battleground for no good reason. I'm also sick of the repeating myself, over and over again, to an editor who doesn't come up with policy arguments and yet keeps insisting on his side. bW 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and that is why I think the mediation Cabal can help I dont think it would hurt to try. I think FVK has been equally confrontational in this which has caused the problem to escalate. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to keep the Southern article from having certain undue statements in it some of which are rather negative yet not very important. And why remove only my "personal attacks" but not anyone elses on here? I'm not the only one making accusations. Fountainviewkid 2:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do mediation, I have never gone through it before and it seems rather time consuming but I will participate as I can(finals! ack.). Do participants get any say in who the mediator is? I can't tell from a quick look... bW 02:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review for Antoinism

Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Europe22's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Move discussion

Thanks for starting a discussion at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. You've made a number of assertions in the thread to which I've replied with questions, but you haven't responded with any answers. For example, you write that the article is a coatrack of material from opponents. I've asked you to identify that material and those opponents, but perhaps you missed that question. You've written that some material is irrelevant, but you haven't said which. It'd really help if you could participate more in the discussion to describe your concerns more specifically, since you initiated the proposed move.   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been getting ready to travel. I'll be over in the next few hours. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sorry, ResidentAnthropologist, but I think it is more constructive to stay focused on this particular article with regard to the merits of retaining it on Wikipedia in generally its current form — rather than engaging in tangential debate about various camps involved. I think that is for the best at this point in time. The article had three AFDs, all before I performed any expansion or sourcing work on it — all three failed to get the article disappeared. Two proposals have been proposed on the article's talk page — to either stub the article or merge it and/or make it a daughter article of something else, or indeed, make the article about something else entirely — and consensus from the community of over twenty editors commenting appears to oppose both of those proposals. Best to focus on that for the time being. Thank you for your polite tone during this matter, I really appreciate it, very much, -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian anarchism

You forgot to change the template when you failed it. I changed it now. Moray An Par (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same case with Antoinism. Please place the failed GA template on other articles you've failed. Moray An Par (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argh I think there is a misunderstanding here The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terribly sorry. I didn't know they were on hold. I thought you speedy failed them. Moray An Par (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Good Article Review for Antoinism

Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Europe22's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanx traveling this week, will get back to full editing in the next few days The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ResidentAnthropologist! Please, do not review immediately the Antoinism article, as I'm finding other sources that can be used to improve the page. I will tell you when the work is completed. Thank you for your understanding and sorry for this message which contradicts the previous one that I had written... Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline, quality is always the goal. I have been watching noticed you been busy so I will wait for your note letting me know when you are ready. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ResidentAnthropologist! I think (I hope) this time the work on the Antoinism article is completed, so you can start a second review. Thank you. Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have just done a skimmed it and it looks really good. Will do a full review soon probably by then end of the weekend. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this, and for all the time you spent to review this article! Very happy. Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganas

They could use some help over at the Ganas article discussion page --Campoftheamericas (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling right now so computer access is a little limited but I am aware and watching it when I can. I shot SilkTork an Email to explain my opinions on this case and the situation as a whole last week. Silktork is working very hard to mediate this and its in ya'lls court to work collaboratively together to fix it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could help. My hands are tied with socks, because of fear of Voldemort. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify your statement I am unsure what you mean? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Ganas core group believes, and so do I, and so do the detectives they have hired, that Eroberer IS "the name that cannot be spoken". They believe in appeasement, because they fear "the name that cannot be spoken". I have grudgingly agreed not to edit the Ganas article. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to Jimbo's talk page

After all, ain't no power in the 'verse can stop us; can't stop the signal. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need a ride?

My wife and I are located in Hillsboro Village and would be happy to give you a ride to the local picnic if you're relatively near us (my address and full contact information are all on my Davis Wiki profile). Plus enough established history and information to establish that we're not axe murderers, even if my Wikipedia history is thin. Leaving a message on my DW profile or the no-account-needed-to-edit GnomeHQ profile will automatically send me a message (or you can just email or call me).

Let me know. Either way, I hope to see you there. Thanks for your work in helping the world of open information.

-- JabberWokky (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer but I'm in Chattanooga these days which is quite a ways me thinks. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chattanooga's a bit farther than I was hoping. I do hope you find transportation. -- JabberWokky (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that you enjoy science fiction

Ever been to Chattacon? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chattacon here has been in decline in recent years, Con-Nooga far more popular locally. Chattacon has the more traditional feel of Sci-fi convention dealers, speakers, writers and such. What has pushed Con-nooga over the edge is their embracement of all things Nerdy, including Manga/anime, Video Games, American Comics, Sci-fi and all night parties. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 16:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I much prefer Chattacon, aside from the fact that I'm the only surviving person who has been to every single one, including the first (where there were less than 100 of us). If I wanted to go to a media or anime or comix con or an all-night party with music so loud I can't talk to anybody in the room, I'd go to one. I read science fiction. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITN cancelled Tsunami warning in Alaska

FYI [2], so nobody else wastes time reading it. Revert if you disagree. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 9)

As someone who previously Prodded and nominated for AfD this article I wanted to provide notice that I removed the redirect and placed cited information back in the article location. Hasteur (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, you have met the requirement of WP:V, the previous version failed this except of for a Casting call. Thanks for the note. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Puffin's talk page.
Message added 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Puffin Lets talk! 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadminning

You should have messaged the inactive admins on talk page and by email, and waited a month according to the policy... now stewards have removed the rights of several inactive admins against policy. For that, sir, you deserve one of these:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

AD 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm gar this is going to bite me in the ass The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That section header really needs a hypen after the de. I first read that as dead-mining. :p LadyofShalott 21:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did too on my watchlist lol
Stopping by to express my personal trout slapping that it looks very bad for future proposals to disregard the safeguards in a change so soon after it passes and also poor judgment to leap ahead to implement without checking the accuracy of the list or which functionaries do the removal or if the policy was followed. Please be more careful in the future. MBisanz talk 17:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was really surprised when I saw a message on El C's page stating that he had been desysopped, without a hint of an early warning in sight on the page. Another classic example of "Oh no, let the bot do it, following policy would take far too long", is it? I agree with MBisanz that I won't be so trusting of future proposals being correctly implemented. Whale-slapping indicated for resident anthropologist and the relevant stewards. Bishonen | talk 07:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]


Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

I just became aware of this, and without adding to the deserved trouting and whaling above, can I point out that the thread on the bureaucrats' noticeboard was started by you, and contains criticism of the actions you took, but has no response from you. Not every will be aware of this trouting thread, so maybe you could post something over there to bring some closure to that? I started a clarification section where I raise this point. Carcharoth (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is interesting for me, I originally posted there saw the "To request your administrator status to be removed, go to Steward requests." Figured I was in the wrong place and self reverted. I subsequently placed a request at Stewards. Apparently an editor reinstated my deleted comment at the cratboard and neglected to notify of the threads continued existence. I dont mind the thread though I must look really arrogant to some people who may think I was ignoring it. Thank you for notifying me. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, things start to become a bit clearer! I saw your removal, but assumed that you had posted a second notice that you meant to put at the permissions board on meta, and that you were removing that and had left an 'original' post in place. I completely missed that it was only one post and someone else re-added it for you! That's not something you see every day. FWIW, I also noticed the discussion further down your talk page (while I was looking for this one), where someone pointed out the 'accursed/accused' typo, and noticed a similar 'preformed/performed' typo in your post on this matter (the mass de-adminning). Might I (without checking what time you posted the de-adminning request) suggest the use of a spell-checker (well, actually, that wouldn't have helped here), less caffeine, or posting such things in the morning after some sleep? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are points are advisable; a large part of it too is my own laziness in reviewing my own writing for such mistakes. That's something that has recently become more aware of and thus I am striving to fix. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Butler (author) and peacock tag

Hi RA, I noticed the tag you just added to this article, and I'm wondering if it may be because of my additions to the article. I have never read the man's work, and don't know squat about him beyond what's there. I happened upon the AfD, and looked to see if I could find sources about him. I added what seemed relevant, which was mostly, but not entirely, positive. (I had nothing to do with that last section of the article.) So. Suggestions? LadyofShalott 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to play the blame game, whatPublisher's Weekly has called him "an endlessly surprising, funny, and subversive writer" struck me as overkill. I almost put NPOV. Having reviewed WP:PEACOCK its probably not the best tag but it struck me as excessive to put a full NPOV tag on it. Its the problem with barely notable people, these all discuss his writing with out much biographical informations other than some people think he has written some great books. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of rearranging. I don't know if that helps or not. I think the commentary on his work does make him notable, but I obviously can't invent details of his life out of thin air. :/ LadyofShalott 22:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you thought that helped! :) LadyofShalott 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR filing / LaRouche topic ?

Can you clarify where the LaRouche related discussion / controversy happened in this round?

I'm trying not to get down in the ugly mess there, but I couldn't remember any of that, and searched LaRouche in both the RFC and its talk page, nothing showed up.

If it's there that's fine, I just wouldn't want to burden a RFAR with everything under the sun if that topic wasn't actually up and going in this round of dispute.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same damn core of editors every one of these topic areas and it repeats itself again and again.
  • Jayen, Cla68, Scot Mac,Delicous carbcuncle,and Myself have issues with Cirt in Scientology and Church of Scientology topic area
  • Cla68, Jayen466, have issues with Slim Virgin and Wills actions in LaRouche topic area
  • Jayen466, TimidGuy, Little olive oil have issues with Will in the transcendental meditation topic area
  • Will takes issue with my alleged COI in being "overly positive" with the Twelve Tribes communities article which Jayen466 and Cirt have done significant editing on.
I can list even more bullets here of the longstanding conflict and the exact editors involved
I am being bold here and lumping them together but do you really think this animosity manifested in the RFC/U is really something recent? No its there because a group of the same editors in different topic areas keep getting together and duking it out. It needs to end as it is harmful to both the community and the encyclopedia. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 08:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I know it's the same editors, but I just wanted to be clear if the current RFC had brought out that topic or not...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty clear which topic area Cla68 was considering a RCF/U for except for that one thing nothing else in the RFC/U. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 09:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Prioryman (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like Prioryman, I am not and never have been involved in the LaRouche/Scientology/TM/Osho area, and I don't have a long history with Jayen, Cirt, or any of supporting cast in their ongoing cultic disputes. Because my entanglement in this feud also only began with my talk page comments around santorum one month ago, and culminated with my posting a confessedly limited view at the RfC/U, I respectfully request that my name be stricken out of the list of involved users. Quigley (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree there Quigley, unlike Prioryman's statement's your were quite venomous and quite disruptive. Edit such as [3][4][5][6] were particularly unproductive. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As was already pointed out, The nature of RfC/U is such that "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." Therefore, my discussion of Jayen466's and Cla68's conflicts of interest and other unwholesome conduct was not "disruptive" or "unproductive", but well within the pale of topical RfC/U discussion. Your judgment of the correctness of my opinions does not change the fact that I have little to do with the longstanding interpersonal dispute or its religious "factions". Quigley (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, But as stated before the RFC/U was a cluster fuck. What I perceive to be bad faith assumptions were a large portion of the problem. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offline

I am going to bed now all questions related the Request for arbitration can wait till then The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 09:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FWIW, your "As We all know the Santorum mess blew up several in the past month" is in need of some editorial attention. Rgds JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to do an editorial review of the whole thing. there are a number of minor issues, but surely you didn't really mean "accursed" editors. (Or maybe you did :)--SPhilbrickT 17:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing that now, I spent a large chuck of 2:30 till about 4:30am filing this request. Running pure Caffeine often leads to numerous typos. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psssst...

Point 8 of your initial statement in the Request for Arbitration - those would be "...accused editors" rather than the unfortunate typo you have made there. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive tagging on Death of Caylee Anthony

Hello. The use of tags can be valuable, but excessive tagging is a disruption to the encylopedia, as is discussed in WP:TAGBOMB. Out of the several tags on the page, I hope you will at least consider using one omnibus tag to replace the three listed below (emphasis added):

  • This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive and inappropriate external links.
  • This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout.
  • This article does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines on the use of different tenses. Please consider copy editing to past tense if historic, present tense if not time-based (e.g. fiction), or future tense if upcoming.

Regards —Eustress talk 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very excessive indeed. I've merged them with {{multiple issues}} but some of the tags can probably be considered unnecessary, such as wikify. The article already has a fair amount of linking; it's certainly not at risk of becoming a dead-end article. I haven't used Twinkle/Friendly in a while, but I think there's an option to merge multiple tags into one, also, so I recommend using that. Gary King (talk · scripts) 23:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I do use multiple issues option but forgot this time resulting in what I agree was an absurd amount of tags in one place. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI, I made reference to you in this comment, so I'm letting you know.--SPhilbrickT 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information about discretionary sanctions for race and intelligence

See this Arbcom decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision

In particular, "Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility."

Desist from further incivility as in this edit commentary: [7]

Miradre (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr

RA, looking at the wikilinks you added to your RfAr statement, the third one after point 2 leads to a brief AE discussion in which I wasn't involved. However, two other discussion I was involved in were this one, which I initiated, and this one, where I participated. It probably doesn't matter much, as they're all linked somewhere, but I just happened to notice it. Best wishes. --JN466 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look over it as soon as I can. I am swamped after the last holiday weekend. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring: Miradre

You were mentioned in an edit warring report against Miradre: [8] aprock (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Tribes info removed

Hiya, you removed some church doctrine on the Twelve Tribes article that I had just put up because is wasn't sourced. I added citations and sources to the discussion page of that article but don't want to edit war with you. Could you please restore the info you reverted and help with proper citation? Thanks! 69.245.72.101 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. I added tons of stuff to discussion and one paragraph of stuff to the controversy section of the article. Please take a look. Some things I think are easily established 1. TT believes themsleves to be the restoration of Israel and the Christian Church. 2. Jesus' plan is for you to join a TT commune. 3. No personal property. 4. Income goes to the organization. 5. something about a strict dress code. .... I've provided articles from thier own site as well as articles from common media sources. Let me know what you think. :) 69.245.72.101 (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over there is some refining to do but General gist is there. I would like to contextualize some of that into their belief systems. Simple drive by accusations of racism are often poor substitutes for academic deconstructions. I tended to avoid the overly sensational in the article but layout balanced facts. I hope to discuss this more with you but right now I am traveling a bit and am only averaging a few edits a day. have you considered getting a user name to make it easier to communicate? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have considered it. Also I agree that accusations of racism need to be handled with utmost care. If accusations are notable, for instance a major paper calling the group's position racist, that should be noted accordingly. More to the point though, I'd like to have a neutrally stated and accurate description of their core doctrinal beliefs as outlined above. An article about TT without mentioning the need to live on a TT commune is like an article on Mormonism without Joseph Smith. What I need help with is sifting through the articles I listed for the appropriate ones to use in the article and citation formats. I like the way you organized the article. I'm just picking at some details. :) 69.245.72.101 (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IT's always a matter of WP:DUE of and WP:UNDUE weight. I have tended to leave it out as accusation that is a minority view point under the WP:WEIGHT clause. Compounding the issue is every time I begin is it all traces back to this site and interestingly enough the most damning document there as obviously been altered by a third party. "Elbert the weasel" is something that just would not be in a TT document. That same source you cited the article in the Guardian suggests they are part of the Christian Identity movement which if true would turn the state of scholarship on it's head. I threw out the material long ago because the more you look at it the stranger the accusations get. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more fruitful to continue this conversation on the TT article talk page Talk:Twelve Tribes communities#Race issue. I have copied this conversation there. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add, thanks for continuing this conversation. I'm enjoying it and look forward to improving the article with you. 69.245.72.101 (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chattanooga State Community College article

I have been editing the Chattanooga State Community College article in an effort to add factual, documented information and to remove any language that sounds promotional. Presently, approximately half of the references are college sources and the other half are newspaper, journal, and book references. I heard Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, speak at the American Library Association about the guidelines for editing Wikipedia. She said that they were not as stringent in prohibiting persons working for an organization from editing the Wikipedia article on that organization as long as the article was sourced and neutral in tone.

I have also been working with Wikipedian fetchcomms to try to make the article conform to Wikipedia style and guidelines.

Please review the article again and let me know if it meets with your approval. If so, would you remove the banners at the top of the article? If not, would you let me know what steps are necessary for it to meet with the Wikipedia guidelines?

Thanks so much.

Vicky102510 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Vicky102510 Vicky Leather Dean of Library Services Chattanooga State Community College[reply]

Speedy deletion template removal? Really?

I'm positive you know better than to remove a speedy deletion tag on an article you created. What's up with that? Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONCEPTDAB making an good faith but invalid tagging The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks more like an invalid DAB and proper tagging. Apple (disambiguation) doesn't point to Fruit as an entry. Apple is not a concept for fruit just as Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) is not a concept for Religious Fundamentalism. Now if you wanted to go the other direction, then maybe it might hold water. More likely that's a "See also" in the article.
Either way you should never remove a CSD on an article you created. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having thoroughly reviewed WP:DAB I still respectfully disagree. Currently the Literature is split on the proper terminology with Religious Fundamentalism in it's Christian form is very different from the 20th century movement. There is no proper primary topic thus such page is appropriate. And why does the G6 template not showing the "Contest this" option. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two different folks looked at it, one nominating it, the other deleting it, both coming to the same conclusion - that it was an unnecessary DAB. I'll be glad to restore it and take to xfd. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair compromise it seems, restore it and let's let AFD sort it out. This is distinction that is lost on many. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation)

Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chattanooga State Community College article

Hello again. I am re-posting my earlier request about the Chattanooga State Community College article. Please let me know if there is something else I should do to improve the article. Thank you.

I have been editing the Chattanooga State Community College article in an effort to add factual, documented information and to remove any language that sounds promotional. Presently, approximately half of the references are college sources and the other half are newspaper, journal, and book references. I heard Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, speak at the American Library Association about the guidelines for editing Wikipedia. She said that they were not as stringent in prohibiting persons working for an organization from editing the Wikipedia article on that organization as long as the article was sourced and neutral in tone.
I have also been working with Wikipedian fetchcomms to try to make the article conform to Wikipedia style and guidelines.
Please review the article again and let me know if it meets with your approval. If so, would you remove the banners at the top of the article? If not, would you let me know what steps are necessary for it to meet with the Wikipedia guidelines?
Thanks so much.

Vicky102510 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Vicky102510[reply]

Delete after reading

Perhaps if Eve had had a ladder, she might have avoided the Serpent.... Sorry, couldn't resist. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


"...in popular culture"

I see you have nominated a number of "...in popular culture" articles for deletion, but you simply moved Latter Day Saints in popular culture to that title. Is there a significant difference between it and the other articles?   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Citations that gave discussed the phenomenon of "X in popular culture" under the WP:SIGCOV] part of WP:GNG. If the sourcing was extremely weak and was unable to find more substantial sourcing I sent them to AFD. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any citations like that in the article. Which cites are you thinking of?   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Narcissistic abuse for deletion

Why only notify me of the AFD when nearly all the work was done by User:Jacobisq ? Apart from minor editing, about the only thing I did was start the article by copying and pasting text on narcissistic abuse as written by User:Jacobisq in a temporary home in abuse. Also the notification you sent me was faulty as the link given to the deletion discussion is a redlink. --Penbat (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah twinkle is weird sometimes, I clicked the Redlink and it took me there. The term seems to be only tossed around in Google Scholar and came up with relatively few sources that mentioned it in passing and none that discuss the phenomenon directly. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L Ron Hubbard hostilities

Your wholesale reversion of the substantial edit I did a couple of days ago at L. Ron Hubbard (and which received praise but zero criticism on the talk page) strikes me as unsubstantiated, extremely rude and quite possibly a symptom of WP:OWN. I don't get it--do you have any doubt that my editorial efforts there are in good faith? Why the hostility? -- BTfromLA (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's disingenuous to WP:ABF at this point since I generally have agreed with you on the talk page up until now. I already pointed out that your alteration failed WP:SUMMARY Wikipedia:Summary style for the article it is supposed to be summarizing that is why I reverted. My resistance to changing is quite natural one considering its one the most comprehensive and neutral articles on the topic and model for other religion articles. Once more the community feels the same on that point.. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom workshop page

Please could you keep remarks to your own section ("parties")? I do not wish to enter into a threaded discussion with you on the workshop page as it is unhelpful to arbitrators. It's fine on the talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk)

You removed a header on the arbitration workshop page. Please do not do so again. Indicate your reply by writing @Mathsci in your comment. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manipulation of BLPs Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 662 words and 14 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 06:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MBLP workshop page

Hi. Please could you remove the header you added as it is difficult to comment at the moment. Also could you please move the comment to the parties section? Otherwise things get messy. BTW I think at the moment the ArbCom case is not about individual editors (eg you or Will Beback), just in case you were worried, but general issues (eg should there be an article for Spriggs?). If you could remove the title and move your addition that would save a clerk doing it. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the reformatting myself. Mathsci (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You make BelloWello, wherever he is probably very proud. That is why he gave you a free beer last time?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BellWello is blocked. Your civility issues continue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bello is blocked, but how do we know he isn't masquerading as an IP?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Need no WP:AGF, random IP makes a comment you accuse him of being BelloWello. Your behavior towards all editors there is deplorable. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the first to make this assumption. Over at the Samuel Koranteng-Pipim page, semi-protection was granted due to new IP's doing the very same type of things that they were doing at the SAU article. I might also note that some of those IP's edited in both locations. There is definitely enough evidence to be suspicious that those IP's COULD have some association with BelloWello. Notice I never made an accusation, emphasis on the word COULD, rather than IS or ARE. You however have just made an accusation about me which is not in fact true. Oh and I don't believe I have behaved deplorably towards either Donald or Lionel, both editors who have taken an opposite position to the "tabloid" style IP requests.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

  1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
  2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
  3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
  4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing

Really don't want to risk being pulled into WP again. Edited ages ago, but don't have the time now. If I stay IP, it limits how much I can do. =)

Kirby image

Oops! Sorry about that. The file may be deleted. Thanks for telling me! Pinkstrawberry02 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LRH

Hello Resident Anthropologist. I need your assistance on a certain matter -- user 173.167.1.129 has expressed concern over the attribution of claims on the L. Ron Hubbard article. The issue of attributing claims has been discussed on the talk page recently, and there seems to be a group consensus that this issue must be addressed. How do you propose to go about this? Thanks.NestleNW911 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I really am not sure. I suggest looking at the sources and attributing them where possible. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BATNA

Thanks for the decisive action on Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. There were two single-purpose accounts supporting retention of that content, which seems in principle verifiable (though it had no sources). I needed some way of getting some uninvolved editors to join the discussion so it wouldn't become a revert war of me against 2. Can you suggest a better way for the future? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put it bluntly... keep reverting it as unsourced. Report them at WP:EWN if they keep it up. If they provide sourcing make sure that there are third party reliable sources that describe it as BATNA. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I try to limit edit/revert wars and generally go by the rule of one revert, then Talk. If I can get other editors of good will to join me on the article, this seems to produce a more sustainable, good-quality consensus version with minimal drama. --Macrakis (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danish elections

There's nothing really complicated about it - she just has to make a team of ministers composed from members of the supporting parties and present it to the Queen who then signs it, making her officially prime-minister. There is no risk that she will not become prime-minister at this point, and she has already been congratulated by foreign heads of state.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed vague and contradictory to the news articles I was looking at. PrimeHunter's post reassured me enough that I reverted myself. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi, ResidentAnthropologist. Please take note of my comment here—I think that's a bad message to send to an inexperienced editor. Best regards, Swarm u / t 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it to be a sophisticated argument, albeit a provocative one. Compared to the usual "ITN Euro-American centric bias" complaints, it was refreshing. Seeing the some the stuff he has posted since then has been less than kosher. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR

I already provided the context you requested. If you feel it is inadequate and do not have the intention to provide advice on the question, please let me know so that I will take the noticeboard off my watchlist. Thanks --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ResidentAnthropologist&oldid=451041038"