User talk:Thirdright

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
7		Carol Giambalvo (talk)						Add sources
5		David A. Halperin (talk)						Add sources
174		Anti-psychiatry (talk)						Add sources
7		Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center (talk)						Add sources
17		MIVILUDES (talk)						Add sources
4		Galen Kelly (talk)						Add sources
105		JibJab (talk)						Cleanup
232		Medicine Hat (talk)						Cleanup
11		Davis College (New York) (talk)						Cleanup
507		Abuse (talk)						Expand
3		Ney v. Landmark Education Corp. (talk)						Expand
22		Pediatric psychology (talk)						Expand
1,423		Irish language (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
7		Centre contre les manipulations mentales (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
2,053		Bullying (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
63		Recovered-memory therapy (talk)						Merge
30		American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (talk)						Merge
97		Superluminal communication (talk)						Merge
85		Pro Evolution Soccer 2011 (talk)						Wikify
1,535		Empathy (talk)						Wikify
33		Anti-rape movement (talk)						Wikify
1		Florian J. Ries (talk)						Orphan
14		Paradox psychology (talk)						Orphan
1		Raoul Calas (talk)						Orphan
7		Catherine Picard (talk)						Stub
56		American Tourister (talk)						Stub
5		Midwest Christian Outreach (talk)						Stub
35		Link exchange (talk)						Stub
3		National Space Symposium (talk)						Stub
2		Mark Born (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Landmark DS

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, 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.

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

Apologies for this bureaucratic silliness, but according to the labyrinthine WP:AC/DS system you aren't "alerted". Which doesn't make sense because you were part of the arbitration case, but bureaucracies seldom make sense. Manul ~ talk 01:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Manul. I was aware of the DS, and I do not consider your notification disruptive or chilling. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

• From the editor: An editorial board that includes you

• In focus: Thirteen editors sanctioned in mammoth GamerGate arbitration case

• In the media: A murderous week for Wikipedia

• Forum: Evaluating the Arbitration Committee's handling of GamerGate

• Traffic report: A sea of faces

• Recent research: Bot writes about theatre plays; "Renaissance editors" create better content

• Special report: Traffic in the fog—most-viewed articles of 2014 include death, Facebook, and Ebola

• Featured content: Like Jack Kerouac's On The Road, this week's issue was written on amphetamines

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks much

Thank you for your help. — Cirt (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: You're welcome... just happened to catch that one on my watchlist :) Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hydraulic fracturing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Anita

Sorry for the misunderstanding, this is a known fact in my region, how can i provide proof (article from another website?) Just trying to contribute :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.83.21.1 (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ASAP Yams

Hello, FYI, I have left a note on the Admin noticeboard about ASAP Yams.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

Re List of new religious movement and cult researchers You are removing sourced content and vandalizing the page.If you do not understand the criteria for inclusion on a list don't edit the page. You're supposed to be an experienced editor - act like one. ThanksCathar66 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:LISTPEOPLE, as referenced in the edit summaries for my removals, before making accusations. It is perfectly clear that a person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

Saying that an edit is vandalizm when it is not is an attack. Don't do that again. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you have forgotten the basic tenet to all Wikipedia MOS Rules :Use common sense in applying it. Notability is not temporary - that you have succeeded in having their WP page deleted does not affect their right to be om a stand alone list where they are notable in their field.

The page itself lists criteria for inclusion as:

Inclusion in this list assumes having both the requisite training as well as actually conducting at least one research study on cults and/or new religious movements (using accepted methodological standards common in the research community), published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book.

Thanks. Cathar66 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for striking.

While it is true that the MOS is a guideline, we also have WP:Source list (policy), WP:NLIST (guideline), WP:WTAF (essay), etc. These all point to WP:LISTPEOPLE as how to handle lists of people. There's no compelling reason here to disregard the MOS. As for notability being temporary or not, I am not saying it is temporary. Editors had a discussion and reached the consensus that these people were not notable. Again, there's no compelling reason to include non-notable people in a list in spite of our own guidelines saying not to. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly aware that the WP:MOS is a set of guide rules. About 20% of them contradict the other 80%. eg:The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people) I have listened to what you have said and politely disagree. If you wish to continue this discussion do it on the article talk page. ThanksCathar66 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are some lists that are explicitly for those notable here by having articles or obviously qualified for them, such as alumni of a college or residents of a place. But there are also lists specifically intended to cover the sub-notable, or the borderline notable; the inclusions criteria here are as specified in the list. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: Thank you for clarifying. It appears that the list is being used to justify or validate the weight of some of these people's work(s), which is really where the whole issue keeps coming up. It's obviously a lot easier to deal with if we use the MOS guideline, but there will certainly be exceptions. Thanks again, Tgeairn (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a reason why the MOS guideline allies only to some types of lists: There has to be some way we can deal with or mention things that are not themselves actually notable, in the context of more general subjects. We can include them in articles and make redirects, or we can include them in lists. and make Redirects. Both leave open the possibility of a future article. For lists where that isn;t relevant, such as the two kinds I mentioned, I have worked consistently for years at trimming them whenever I encounter them, as they need continual cutting keep the standard. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cathar66: - You just blindly reverted the article without regard for what work others have done. You reintroduced one inaccurate link, two external links that violate WP:ELNO, and a number of malformed {{Sortname}} templates. I have cleaned some of these things up repeatedly, with edit summaries saying so. I'm just not going to bother again. Please demonstrate that the quality of the article is of some concern. --Tgeairn (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That vandal is vandalising myy talk page and epicgenius sign in book(u can find him under my talk page history) she said that she is giving us a warning and is going to missuse huggle (what is huggle and how it relates to vandalism?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Doorknob747: Reported to WP:AIV and should be blocked soon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

• News and notes: No men beyond this point: the proposal to create a no-men space on Wikipedia

• Op-ed: Is Wikipedia for sale?

• In the media: Gamergate and Muhammad controversies continue

• Traffic report: The American Heartland

• Featured content: It's raining men!

• Arbitration report: Slamming shut the GamerGate

• WikiProject report: Dicing with death – on Wikipedia?

• Technology report: Security issue fixed; VisualEditor changes

• Gallery: Langston Hughes

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Landmark Worldwide". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 February 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ronnie Radke

I made a post earlier today on the Ronnie Radke page, yet it was removed for not providing a source, which I did. The information is listed throughout the link, and the Faustian pact was described at 9:15 into the video interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao1ubPSmsj8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gb1225 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Gb1225. We don't usually consider YouTube videos to be reliable sources, both due to concerns for accuracy and for possible copyright issues. It would be preferable to find a reliable source and use that as a reference when including the passage. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I don't think I can use any other source besides a YouTube video (since there is none). However, the video is an interview, and you can see the person himself (Ronnie Radke) speaking it, with an official AP (Alternative Press) Reporter. This video also won a Video of the Year award from Alternative Press. Gb1225 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gb1225: In that case, if it really adds to the article to have the interview piece in there, then I would maybe do a quote from the interview (similar to the Loudwire interview in the article already) and use the YouTube reference. Then put something up on the talk page to see if anyone else has a better source. Nothing against AP or YouTube, but they aren't exactly rock-solid sourcing and we would never use them for anything controversial. Since it's Radke talking about himself, it's got more room. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing a Biography

Please direct all the spammers, it appears there is more than one, from vandalizing the biography of Mikhail Tolstykh with stupid and biased propaganda.

I should NOT be the one getting any warnings as I am not the one who placed propaganda on Mikhail's biography, I am merely removing it. I will continue to remove it.

Sirtaki36 Sirtaki36 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict

Hi. Your edit to Landmark Worldwide caused an edit conflict. You'll note that I put two banners at the top of the article indicating that I'm in the middle of a big rewrite. Your editing interrupts my progress and is against ettiquette. Please take note next time if {{under construction}} or the like is presentCathar66 (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98)

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

• From the editors: We want to know what you think!

• News and notes: One editor faces likely ban for work on Wikipedia; Jimmy Wales awarded $1 million

• In the media: Is Wikipedia eating itself?

• Featured content: A grizzly bear, Operation Mascot, Freedom Planet & Liberty Island, cosmic dust clouds, a cricket five-wicket list, more fine art, & a terrible, terrible opera...

• Traffic report: Bowled over

• WikiProject report: Brand new WikiProjects profiled

• Gallery: Feel the love

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Council on Spiritual Practices for deletion

Hi Tgeairn. It's OK with me to delete it. I think that the organization may in fact have ceased to exist. Peter1c (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Peter1c:Thanks for the note. I didn't find much about the group, and it was all around a single study they sponsored. Their website is still alive, but you may be right about not being around any longer. I'll let the normal AfD process see if anything else comes up. Have a great day! Tgeairn (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Landmark Worldwide, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Please comment on Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jasenovac concentration camp. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

• Editorial: Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition

• In the media: Students' use and perception of Wikipedia

• Special report: Revision scoring as a service

• Gallery: Darwin Day

• Traffic report: February is for lovers

• Featured content: A load of bull-sized breakfast behind the restaurant, Koi feeding, a moray eel, Spaghetti Nebula and other fishy, fishy fish

• Arbitration report: We've built the nuclear reactor; now what colour should we paint the bikeshed?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

COI

Hello,

I want to start by assuring you that I absolutely respect your privacy, and I have no intention of violating it in any way. It goes without saying that one may adhere to Wikipedia's privacy policy while also following other policies and guidelines. In particular, WP:COI is not contradicted by Wikipedia's privacy policy: a conflict of interest may be noted without specifying what the COI entails and without revealing any personal information at all. We can value the consensus on WP:COI while also valuing the privacy of editors. Wikipedia works best when policies and guidelines are followed. For these reasons I have added you as a {{connected contributor}} to Talk:Landmark Worldwide. For more information please contact Callanecc, who has affirmed your use of sockpuppets in the article.

Regards, Manul ~ talk 01:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Manul- While I appreciate that you (like me) are here to ensure that our policies are followed, in this case you have been misled and/or misinformed. I have never edited from another account, and I have never edited logged out. I have gone to Callanecc to find out why they would say such a thing.

As for COI, I am completely familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines and no WP:COI exists. This has been discussed before, and even reviewed during the recent Landmark Worldwide Arbcom case. Given that Arbcom reviewed my editing history and found no such COI, I do not believe that tagging an article that a COI may exist is a fair or accurate action. I request that you remove the tag you placed immediately. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)