User talk:GreyWinterOwl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A few thoughts[edit]

Hi Owl, I left a message for you here.

I hope you don't mind some feedback, but I think your approach could be a little on the aggressive side....I know I'm hardly the voice of experience ...but this is my opinion. If the sock didn't get launched, there would probably be constructive changes on the article by now, instead we may have lost a good neutral editor. Not seeking to blame you - what's done is done.

My preference now would be that there can be more focus on the article content, and less on the problems with the editors. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

By all means, do that, I can't see why anything I'm saying or doing would stop you from working on the content. To me, it seems Vecrumba was already losing interest in the article before I came in. That's because Jan18 gives to himself an authority over the other editors which is against wikipedia guidelines of consensus. Vecrumba gave his time to try to help, but Jan18 didn't allow him to edit a single comma in the article. You guys have been talking the same thing for weeks and I see no progress. What that means is, I think Vecrumba probably feels his time may be better spent in articles where guidelines are respected, not one in which one user has the final word over everything. It's a lot of work for absolutely no result. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough owl - I respect your right to your own view on this. I'm a little reluctant to work on the article without an independent editor present as previously when it was just myself and Januarythe18th I got 100% reverted and it became a little futile. It would be great if you had any comments for the talk page under "How best to resolve the dispute". If there is no perceived neutral editor with time to support building a quality article, perhaps we can just try and move it forward with the present selection of editors and just appeal to admin if when no changes are being allowed. Danh108 (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Owl, I want to express my gratitude for your standing fast against the flagrant hypocritical bias that you try to correct. I appreciate it even if the deceivers don't. (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Input on email feature[edit]

Hi GWO, Saw your message on John Carter's talk page. If you want to get the material offered by John, just follow his instructions he provided on Danh108 user talk page. Hope that helps Changeisconstant (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Go to my user page, and then hit the link in the "toolbox", which is generally on the far left, to "e-mail this user." Then send me whatever, anything so that I can forward the articles to you, possibly in a "respond" note. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • their privileged position or which 'don't suit their philosophy'. The 'Special instruments' (senior members are, they allege 'constantly revising Murlis" to the extent that, for example, a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Owl, sorry about this one. I must have lost some text when cutting and pasting the sections around. I much prefer it's inclusion and think my edit comment was referring to something else. This was a bungle. Thank you for picking it up. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Owl![edit]

I hope you've had a refreshing break from Wikipedia :-)

Best wishes, Dan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talkcontribs) 23:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


Regarding your edit of minimalism: The phrase "Minimalism is any design or style wherein the simplest and fewest elements are used to create the maximum effect." isn't sourced, but not uncommon. Collins dictionary for example gives "design or style in which the simplest and fewest elements are used to create the maximum effect". Perhaps we can keep it and add a source? Michiel Duvekot 18:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, MD. Please note that according to WP:TPG, new posts on talk pages are made on the bottom, and to talk about an article, it's better to use the article's talk page, instead of a user's one. I think "to create the maximum effect" or the like is too far off the limit of neutrality, even if it were from a reliable source, which it isn't. So if you want to keep that, first find the source, (and I don't think a dictionary is a reliable one) but even then, I will dispute it. Good luck! GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message about Inline citations at WT:Template messages/Sources of articles's talk page.

Hello, too![edit]

Thanks for welcoming me[edit]

Hello Grey Winter Owl,

thanks for having sent that nice welcome!

Let me explain shortly my intentions and background: I` m living in Germany, interested in religion, teaching and history. My article about the BKWSU is now completed and uploaded hoping that it will "survive" all bots and editors. Maybe, it´s possible to revise the contribution about that movement for the British Wikipedia. Translations and new articles for historical events could also be an "area of operations".

Happy Christmas!

Staphysagria (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

File the WP:SPI or remove the personal attack[edit]

You recently posted at ANI making an accusation that two users are likely sockpuppets. Casting such aspersion without filing an WP:SPI is considered to be a violation of no personal attacks. So, either file your SPI, or remove your accusation. By the way, you're about the 100th person to try and claim they're the same person, and all past SPI reports have clearly found otherwise ... all the more reason to retract your accusation ASAP ES&L 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know it would be considered a personal attack, nor did I know about the previous SPIs. I have removed the accusation, thank you for letting me know. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Much appreciated :-) ES&L 16:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Not that anyone cares, but when I saw "you're about the 100th person to try and claim they're the same person, and all past SPI reports have clearly found otherwise ...," my first thought was, "sounds like someone is getting a big kick out of either using others' computer and/or getting someone else to post what they request and/or have the knowledge to misrepresent their location by expert spoofing. I doubt those who do the research for Wikipedia are the premier experts in investigating a real pro. Frankly, I suspect negligence in find nothing suspicious in being "about the 100th person" to see similarities. I'll share another thing that "pops" into my mind. What if the one(s) doing the investigations is philosophically aligned with the perspectives shown or, god forbid, is the actual perpetrator! lol In other words, who's looking over whose shoulders? How many people know the answers to those questions and do you know even one of them? Transparency? (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar[edit]

Much appreciated!Smeat75 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You[edit]

Peace Barnstar 6.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for helping us out on the WLC page!! TMD (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet[edit]

Thanks for your email. I have spent a considerable time looking into the relevant history of the case over the last few days. It is clear that Truth is the only religion has a similar view of the issues surrounding the "Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University" to that held by the operators of numerous other accounts over the course of several years. It is also clear that many of those other accounts have been sockpuppets. It is therefore perfectly possible that "Truth is the only religion" may be another sockpuppet. However, neither the evidence you provide nor anything else I have found produces conclusive proof of sockpuppetry. After I had spent a matter of hours checking the history and coming to that conclusion, I then found the closing administrator's comment in the case you filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada almost a year ago, in one of the first few edits you ever made with this account. That administrator wrote the following: After spending at least two hours over multiple days reviewing this case, I can still only echo HelloAnnyong's words from two years ago: "This case is stuck. I'm not wholly convinced it's Lucyinthesky. If...the editor is being particularly disruptive, mention it somewhere." I can't tell if it's Lucyinthesky or just another follower/fan. After spending at least two hours over multiple days reviewing this case, I too can really only echo those words.

Since you sent me your evidence in an email, I will respect confidentiality to the extent of not quoting here diffs and other specific details of evidence you gave, but I will say that to a large extent your case rests on people saying similar things which could well be said independently by different editors with similar opinions. For example, you point out that different accounts have each suggested that there is a conspiracy to make the article into an advertisement. Well, it seems to me perfectly clear that there have indeed been concerted efforts over a period of at least 7 years (I have not checked further back than that) to make sure that the article reflects the view of the subject which the organisation wishes to convey. That may or may not be a conspiracy, but it is certainly plausible enough that it may be one to make it unsurprising if more than one editor gets the impression that it is, so that is scarcely evidence of sockpuppetry.

It is is not possible to be certain to what extent the attempts by many accounts to make the article reflect the organisation's preferred view is sockpuppetry, to what extent it is meatpuppetry, and to what extent it is separate editors who have a similar view independently editing in a similar way. However, one thing about which it is possible to be certain is that it would not be in the interests of the project to decide to give the benefit of the doubt to your arguments, and block one or more accounts that have been critical of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, and not also do the same to highly dubious accounts that have been supportive of it. To do so would be to use blocking to give an advantage to one side in a dispute, where it seems likely that both sides have made extensive use of sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets. If I were to block the account "Truth is the only religion" then there is at least one other account on the other side that I would certainly block too. That account has a history of removing critical or negative content from Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including referenced content. It has a history of attacking any editor who takes a critical line on the "Brahma Kumaris", and accusing them of sockpuppetry, often without substantial evidence. Right from the account's first few edits a long time ago, it has always looked very much like a sockpuppet, and at a very early time in the account's history at least one editor already questioned whether the claim to be a new editor was true. In my opinion the evidence that that account is likely to be a sockpuppet is significantly more persuasive than the evidence you give to suggest that "Truth is the only religion" is one. In short, "Truth is the only religion" may be a sockpuppet, but even if it is, I do not think it would be to the advantage of the project to take one side and block that account without also blocking another very suspicious-looking account that takes a very different line. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JBW, thank you and sorry for your time spent investigating this. I thought the evidence I sent was enough because I think the probability of two different people producing so many particularly similar edits within just a few days of having made a new account is very small. Your decision is that the evidence is not enough, so ok I won't insist about that. However, let's suppose TITOR kept producing more and more similarities with Jan18, and repeating again and again the edits Jan18 made in the past, and we had a much bigger amount of similarities, would that prove they are the same person, or should I totally give up the idea of successfully proving TITOR is a sock?
And you said "both sides" made an extensive use of sockpuppets. But I know about no documentation of any of them defending Brahma Kumaris, only the ones made to criticise it. So I don't think both "sides" are equally guilty on this, unless I am totally unaware of another line of sockpuppets? Sorry if it's just my ignorance though. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris conflict of interest[edit]

Hello. Can I ask you to take a look at WP:COI and give me a simple response as to whether you have conflict of interest regarding the Brahma Kumaris article? Either that you have a COI, that you don't have one, or that you've read the policy and would rather not say. Just trying to get a handle on where things stand with this article and the people editing it. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I've read the policy and I don't consider myself to have a COI about Brahma Kumaris. I'm glad some recent edits are removing the advertising tone from the article. My history of contributions to this article goes back to a time when the article carried a heavy anti-BK POV, and lots of fringe theories inserted by the User:Januarythe18th, and now the new User:Truth_is_the_only_religion seems to be reinserting many of that content back in his edits.
Almost all of my edits were to remove that unsourced content, leaving just what was based on reliable sources. If you look at the history of my edits, you will not find any edit that has added an advertising tone. And I never spoke with any of the editors off-wiki nor do I know who they are.
I think TITOR's repeated accusations are probably because he is a sock of User:Januarythe18th, and knows that I strongly opposed that user's POV in the past because it contradicted the reliable sources. Many users and admins also did at the time. Do all of them have a COI?
Also, this accusation of "THEY, the 3 BKs who are a conspiracy to turn the article into an advert" dates back to User:Januarythe18th who sprayed it all over the talk page just like he is doing right now. I think you should translate that to "they, that keep ME from turning the article into the TRUTH, which ONLY I know." GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, apologies, I should have worded that differently, bearing in mind the stance of User:Danh108 (who accepts that he or she has a close connection to Brahma Kumaris but does not consider this to be a COI) - do you have a connection to Brahma Kumaris, or would you rather not say? --McGeddon (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not declare having a personal connection, or opposition, to the Brahma Kumaris. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so you'd rather not say. Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Second (and third) opinion[edit]

Hi Owl, I wanted to get your opinion on this addition to the "expansion' section of the article. I have also messaged McGeddon. RegardsDanh108 (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)