User talk:Littleolive oil

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


Project editor retention logo 1.svg WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Please be civil on my talk page. Thanks! :) Borrowed from User:Theleftorium


GOCE March drive newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update
Writing Magnifying.PNG

GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter.

Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!

Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far.

Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers.

Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk)

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

test[edit]

GOCE February blitz wrapup[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Innuendo?[edit]

I was merely giving the editors involved the chance to gracefully indicate their COI relevant to the RFC. It's necessary information for correctly weighting the opinion, and probably would look better as a self-admission. I'll post the links to the Arbcom and Arbitration Enforcement pages directly myself in a while if the situation doesn't resolve itself.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Kww: There is nothing graceful about any of this. You are making accusations and now adding threats. Let's get this out in the open. Linking to arbitrations doesn't frighten me or bother me, but clearly you want to threaten me and frankly I find that despicable, and unconscionable in an admin. What are you accusing me of specifically? This is an RfC and your behaviour is a shabby attempt to control the outcome. RfC are meant to garner the opinions of diverse editors and is not meant as a place to manipulate a decision. I want you here and now to list your concerns. If you cannot or won't then please stop the accusations. Further none of this has anything to do with an RfC.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC))
It has everything to do with the RFC: your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations needs to be considered while bearing in mind that you might be blocked from editing some alt-med articles if the RFC were to find the opposite position. That's the kind of information the closing admin (who most certainly will not be me) needs. I actually tried my damnedest not to threaten you and to give you plenty of opportunities to put in a mild statement of your COI that was under your control. If discussion of your COI doesn't bother you, why won't you just put a mild note in your statement that acknowledges it?—Kww(talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Simple answer. I don't have a COI. Would you like to tell me what you think that COI is?
  • your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations,
What opinions? You are suggesting that my opinions on other editors has to be considered in determining the RfC? the word Wow comes to mind.
  • while bearing in mind that you might be blocked from editing some alt-med articles.
Blocked for what?

The day the WP described above becomes this Wikipedia, I'm done. The kind of control you are implying is based on subjective and biased thinking. excludes rather includes, assumes guilt with out justification and changes the meaning and tenor of the RfC and collaborative processes. Its wrong and you are in the wrong.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)).

You have long-standing ties to TM (and yes, I can be very specific without violating any policies related to outing). TM comes under the umbrella of alt-med. Should the RFC find that you have a COI related to alt-med as a topic, any of your recent discussions of topics ranging from ayurveda to Deepak Choprah to acupuncture could be prohibited or curtailed. Where's the mystery?—Kww(talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how this conversation is getting so fragmented. You indicated that you didn't think editors tied to alt-med had a COI, and made a flat assertion: "Support of this idea implies all experts in all fields have a COI. If that is the case and if we want to restrict their editing we can shut down Wikipedia." That was pertaining to a question "do practitioners of alternative medicine (for examples, acupuncturists or naturopathists) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?". If people found in favor the opinion in opposition to yours, you might not be allowed to participate in articles related to TM (and, most likely, ayurveda, maybe Deepak, etc) depending on what restrictions people decided were reasonable and how broadly they chose to interpret "field of practice". I have no idea what "You are suggesting that my opinions on other editors has to be considered in determining the RfC? the word Wow comes to mind." is in reference to.—Kww(talk) 00:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Kww. Let's wait and see how this RfC plays out. You can tell me then whether articles like acupuncture relate to meditation practices whatever they may be or whoever may practice them and whether your threats here will culminate in blocks for editing. I find these comments at any time to be objectionable, but especially during an RfC. I won't forget them.

"your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations needs to be considered"

My cmts need not be considered beyond that of any other editor who comments. To do so would indicate bias, bigotry, and blatent disregard for WP

"You have long-standing ties to TM (and yes, I can be very specific without violating any policies related to outing)"

You have no ideas what if any ties to TM I have. I suggest that looking into years old archives which I specifically asked to have removed because of off-WP harrassment is problematic on two counts. One. You raised this during an RfC which along with your attempted threats to link to arbitrations is both an attempt to harass and also to intimidate. Two. Any information you have is years old and I would be careful about brandishing it about. And as a third comment. I commented on an RfC as did many other editors. Your response was to threaten an individual editor, to make assumptions, to intimidate. and to interpret and then apply the RfC in a novel way that a way beyond the boundaries of the RfC as outlined by WP. I really have no more to say. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
I have made no threats. Your COI exists, and needs to be disclosed before your argument is evaluated by the closer, not after. You seem to think that I have threatened to block you: I haven't. Reread: I was saying that the RFC closing against you could lead to you being blocked from editing certain areas. That's not a threat, that defining why you have a COI. I have given you an opportunity to reveal it in the RFC before closing. I will continue to leave that opportunity open for a while. I'm sorry that you view asking you to reveal that you have a COI as "bias, bigotry, and blatant disregard for WP". One of the reasons I would rather you did it is simply because I would like to leave the detail level under your control.—Kww(talk) 03:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

COI Notice Board it that a way WP:COINB. Please feel free. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

And I'll clarify what I actually said:

  • You are telling me to declare a COI. You aren't asking me if I have one you are declaring I do.
  • You told me if I didn't declare that COI you would link to arbitrations and AE. Whether I care if you link to those cases is immaterial. You are using those links to "persuade" me to declare the COI you think I have. That's a threat
  • You are telling me that I must reveal this COi during an RfC. I have been around WP for about 8 years and never have editors been told that "your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations needs to be considered" That's a ridiculous assertion. RfCs are requests for opinions. RfCs include and welcome editors with every kind of position.
  • I misread what you said. You did not say you'd block me. You said I would be blocked from editing. Sorry for the misread.
  • I care very much about whether other editors will be treated as I am being treated on WP. Its for that reason that I cannot let you get away with this KWW with out voicing my concerns. You are potentially setting a precedent that will have long-lasting and negative repercussions on other people and on WP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
When was the last time you responded to an RFC where the result of the RFC would directly impact your ability to edit freely and that conflict was likely to be unknown to the admin closing the RFC? That's not a situation that occurs often. Most of the material that a closer needs to consider while weighing arguments is readily available. Occasionally, as in this case, it's not. I didn't say that you shouldn't have responded and made your position known, only that while responding and making your position known, you should also reveal the interest you have in the outcome. There's no rush here. Hopefully, tomorrow, you will read over what I've said here and see that I have not been unreasonable, nor have I treated you badly. I've simply asked you to put something in your comment to the level of "I have ties to an alt-med organization and the outcome of this RFC could possibly affect my ability to edit." That's not an unreasonable request.—Kww(talk) 04:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not have ties to an alt-med organization. If you have further concerns please go to COINB. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Hi Littleoliveoil! I noticed your comments on the COI RfC and came here to read a little more about you and noticed this thread. Just to let you know, Kww made similar rude and uncivil COI accusations towards me as well. I just thought you might like to know you're not the only one. LesVegas (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Las Vegas. Seems to happen every now ands then; someone decides to make accusations. I don't even have to edit articles to have that happen; a few comments and there are knocks on the door. My greatest concern right now is with the way people are treated on WP if they are viewed as moving against the new neutrality. I would like to help, probably don't, but do give it a try. I don't want others to experience what I have on WP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Hey, guess what? I commented at the RfC as well and have a notice on my talk page saying that I am overdoing the hyperbole myself. Apparently some animals are more equal than other animals. Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that. (Note tone denoting understatement) (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
I'm being accused of invoking Godwin's law because I used the term "ghettoizing." Hell, maybe I was thinking of Elvis. Nothing pisses me off worse than having my motives misattributed. Sigh. Montanabw(talk) 03:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
If he or she misunderstood you, its quite simple to say I'm sorry which smooths things over for everyone. There is a fair amount of that going around, misattribution that is. Then there's accusations and assumptions. Its hard enough to know what motive someone has even if you know them well, let alone someone you meet a few times on Wikipedia. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Removal of others comments[edit]

It looks like you inadvertently removed QuackGurus comments here you might want to put them back. AlbinoFerret 20:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like he already has. AlbinoFerret 20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I was about to leave my computer so I wouldn't have seen the deletion. Not sure what happened there. I left QG a note. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

Thanks[edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for your comments on ANI. They really do not seem to see the problem....thanks.DrChrissy (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

You might think about taking a break from Acupuncture. The article isn't worth the strain and with distance I at least tend to see how unimportant these discussions are compared to real life issues. If I had my way I'd issue a time out for everyone - a recess - giving everyone a rest, to convene again in a month.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2015 News
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Copyeditors progress.png

May drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 38 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, and we got within 50 articles of our all-time low in the backlog. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Coordinator elections: Nominations are open through June 15 for GOCE coordinators, with voting from June 16–30. Self-nominations are welcome and encouraged.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Biblioworm and Philg88.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)