User talk:Sfarney

Welcome!

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

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

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

December 2013

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

December 2014

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

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

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

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

Acts of the Apostles

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

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

warning

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

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

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference Errors on 30 March

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 April

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:L Ron Hubbard Messiah or Madman 1st Edition.png

⚠

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited E-meter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Conductance and Impedance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 April

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

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

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

talk page comments

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

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

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

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

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

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

Removal of Uncited Material

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

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

— Wikipedia:Verifiability/Removal of Uncited Material

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

May 2015

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

Moderation

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

Spam

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

Scottperry/E-Meter

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

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

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

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

you have !voted twice

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

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

Zeitgeist (film series)

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

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

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

And I have raised the issue on BLP noticeboard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom Request

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

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

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

I assume it was accidental

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

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

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

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

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

Notice: General Sanctions on all Zeitgeist Movement articles

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

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

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

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

Arbitration case request declined

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

Notice: General Sanctions on all 9/11 articles

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Template:Z33 ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

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

List of political conspiracies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

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

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

Business plot

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

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

conspiracy theory RS

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom elections are now open!

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

About Jainism

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Do not edit user pages

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Hob Gadling may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

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

Scientology intro edit

Hi,

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gentile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shurat HaDin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on BLP articles

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Template:Z33 Please use extra care to ensure your edits to biographies of living people such as Rick Alan Ross comply with Wikipedia's policy on BLP's and the Neutral Point of View policy. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 15:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Living persons

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

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

Notice of Discressionary sanctions relating to Scientology

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Template:Z33 Jbh^Talk 17:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross

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

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

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

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

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

A beer for you!

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

WP:RS

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

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Direct from AP search:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"An impulse to rectify a perceived violation of oneself"

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

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

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

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