User talk:Mmyers1976

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

Might you be a fan of English literature's performing flea?[edit]

It's not often I get called a "good egg"! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Elementary schools and Wikipedia[edit]

Hi! The reason why an article about Poe Elementary exists is simply this: There was a Poe school attack that happened there in the 1950s. You could redirect a school that you think will be an uncontroversial case, but if someone contests this in a particular case (i.e. Poe in Houston) please use Wikipedia:AFD. Anyway there is a separate article about the incident at Poe: the Poe Elementary school attack. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You said: "The Poe School Attack occured 50 years ago, and while it may have been a highly notable event back then, it isn't now. " Notability does not diminish over time - Wikipedia:Notability says "Notability is not temporary" - full stop. If a notable event happens, it is notable forever. Anyhow, if you like you may send it to AFD. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Sure! Lemme take a look at it.. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Here is what happened - You did one of the steps, but you also had to list it at Wikipedia:AFD in the correct date area. I did that for you on January 28. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • That comment is perfectly fine :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Nottingham Forest[edit]

It is a good idea to research Nottingham Forest, although I highly doubt it has much history behind it. The neighborhood is one of dozens just like it around the city - if you look up Nottingham Forest on Google, there are only basic information pages and city archives. The most detailed thing I've ever seen about the neighborhood is the original layout document, drawn in 1967, that is featured as the cover on the Nottingham Forest directory. The area isn't the subject of any books - I would've included them in references in the article if there were some. I bet there's something in the dark parts of the Internet - we'll just have to look. I have to admit, this area is pretty average and unnotable... and I barley know much about the neighborhoods outside Nottingham Forest VIII.

I just have to mention one interesting fact I ran across on Google: there is a major fault line that runs right through the middle of Nottingham Forest (see [1]). — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my stepson's old den leader is a geologist, actually showed us a visible hump from that. blew me away to be living 2 streets from it. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


Hey, you are welcome :) - I knew that Texas is famous for barbecue, so the subject needed its own article. Also thank MCorazao for expanding the article I started WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Clear Creek (Harris County, Texas) Article Photos[edit]

Thanks. I appreciate your support.

I have withdrawn from Wikipedia at this point. Good look in your pursuits.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your essay[edit]

Hi there, I have fixed the essay you created, Behavior that disrupts dispute resolution, by moving it to Wikipedia:Behavior that disrupts dispute resolution. Just letting you know and, also, you could have done this yourself (I'm not an admin either). The redirect has now been tagged for speedy deletion and I'm sure an admin will deal with it shortly. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also created the shortcut, WP:BDDR, for you :) Jenks24 (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the help! Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries :) About your question on my talk, I assume you were asking for directions about how to move a page? If so, please see Wikipedia:Moving a page. If I misread your question, please feel free to ask me again and I'll try and give you a better answer. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ultimahero and Your Essay[edit]

I was hoping that Ultimahero's recent edits on Revan's talk page indicated that he had recognized how certain edits can be disruptive and uncivil. It is clear he has not. I, for one, do not plan to engage him on any matter unless he makes new attacks on me on his talk page or elsewhere. His latest reply to our comments on his talk page clearly demonstrate that everything we discussed about him is true. He seems completely incapable of assuming good faith or interacting with other editors in a way that could lead to constructive editing. If is frustrating to see someone so recklessly through around unsubstantiated accusations and then waste hundreds and hundreds of words defending them with nothing. But it is clear that it is not possible for me to obtain any positive from any interaction with him until he conducts a thorough self-examination and alters his attitude. In many ways, he is far more hurtful to Wikipedia than Revan: Revan's disruption is immediately apparent to those around him (hence the block by an admin who had never seen him and the comments of the other editors on the WQA). Ultimahero seems largely civil and reasonable until the third wall of text complete derails any conversation. OK, I'm done venting, but I did want to let you know that I intend to avoid any interaction with him, for my own sanity.

Regarding your article, I think it's a great idea. I will try and offer some more concrete ideas later, but my first reaction is that you have concentrated on the negative (things not to do in the process). That is understandable seeing your recent experience. But are there positive articles (things we should do) and if so, should the two concepts be merged into one article?LedRush (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, it should have more on positive steps to keep DR discussions going constructively. There should be remedies that editors can take when they see someone else doing something that disrupts DR, but also some sections on proactive things that can be done to keep DR discussions from going off-track in the first place. I'll definitely think about ideas, and look forward to seeing anything you can develop. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rape culture[edit]

I apologize for being dismissive with my edit summary. Looking back at what I was doing at the time, I was in one hell of a mood due to certain political events, which means I should not have been editing Wikipedia at the time. Perhaps my computer needs an angry-chemical breathalyser, or perhaps I just need to find an add-on that'll lock me out of Wikipedia after reading news sites. In any case, I'm sorry for the passive-aggressive, and I'll do my best not to repeat it.

We obviously disagree about the exact relation of those several incidents to rape culture, so I've made an attempt to simplify it (cause you're a pretty cool frood, and I'd hate to be rude again). I cut the lead to the Reactions to incidents section down to just facts: "Several high-profile incidents have occurred where public support of an accused rapist generated reaction to and criticism of that support.", and no analysis. Which, incidentally, prevents us from having to find a cite for those. Not necessarily the best, but it works for now, and it's definitely neutral. Take a look, see what you think.

(I responded here because I wasn't sure if you'd watchlisted my talk page. Feel free to respond here; I'll watch your talkpage for a spell.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. We all have our bad days now and again, no biggie. Just out of curiosity, which political events set you off? Your new edits to the "Reactions to incidents" lead look good to me. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Events, oddly enough, not about rape culture stuff. Mostly stuff about Damon Fowler, who has been attacked by his entire town in Louisiana for demanding that his school's graduation follow the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. Makes Pi very frustrated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand - I live in Bible Belt Texas, home of the megachurch and prayer before high school football games. Had to deal with that sort of crap all my life. Mmyers1976 (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


since you asked to be notified... Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hentzer. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note: I see you've added evidence of attempting to resolve this. Could you place your Signature in the "Certifiying Users" section? Thanks Hasteur (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
could you please certify at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hentzer#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for taking time to leave a message on DocKino's Talk page. I think it will go a long way towards reinforcing the desired message. (Are you aware the diff you provided was for the edit by Windofkeltia, not the offending diff by DocKino?) Dolphin (t) 23:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops, fixed the diff. Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I checked DocKino's talk page, and he had deleted my message, with an edit summary of "Mmm-hmm". Considering his past behavior and his unwillingness to discuss, it's only a matter of time before he makes an uncivil edit summary or talk page comment, and I am monitoring his contributions, so as soon as he does, I am going to report him to WP:ANI, which has the ability to levy blocks (WQA doesn't). Since he has been blocked before, and he has been asked multiple times before and after the block to be more civil, I am confident he will get a more extensive block. The important thing, though, is that you and I have followed procedure and given him another chance to change his incivility, so there will be no question or grey area. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Also wanted to let you know I closed the WQA discussion as resolved, and why I did so. You had only asked that someone else warn him, which I did, and your final message reiterated that was all you wanted, so it is resolved from that standpoint. More importantly, I don't want there to be any question of forum shopping if this goes to ANI. Therefore, it is important that the WQA be closed as resolved before an ANI is opened (if that becomes necessary), and ideally any subsequent incivility coming from DocKino would occur after the closure of the Wikipedia. Again, important to make it clear that you and I gave DocKino a chance to change his ways before escalating. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Your message to DK satisfactorily resolved the issue I raised at WP:WQA so I am happy for it to be closed. I agree with your other proposed action. Dolphin (t) 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi MM. Thanks for doing all the hard work to raise the RfC. I have endorsed it.

I notice at the end of Statement of the dispute your sentence ends abruptly:

... none of this has stopped his uncivil behavior or acknowledge that he should b

There are some letters or words missing. Also, the word acknowledge should probably be acknowledgement. Dolphin (t) 05:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Another issue. In the RfC, under Evidence of disputed behaviour, you have written but instead, DocKino decided to go on the Elvis Presley article talk page and address our requests while defending his uncivil edit summary and you quote diff number 33. When I click on diff 33, it is actually a diff by David J Wilson. I think you intended to use one of the following two. (Both are worthy of mention, I think.)

Dolphin (t) 06:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have checked the diffs you placed in the RfC and most of them are entirely inconclusive because each one points to a collection of a large number of edits, ending in the same one by DocKino. They must be repaired because it makes the RfC look like there is no evidence against the subject User.

To harvest a diff, go to the View history page, locate the offending edit, right click on prev and select Copy shortcut. Then paste that into the document. (I think you have been right clicking on cur instread of prev.)

It will be very difficult to locate old diffs, especially those prior to 2009 urging DK to behave civilly. It will be sufficient to copy the text, paste it into the RfC, and identify the author and date. Dolphin (t) 06:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks for checking all that. I kind of suck at doing the diff thing, and it was hard to harvest the old ones on his talk page, so I just quoted them as you suggested. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that I strongly agree with your opinion concerning DocKino. See also [2]. Onefortyone (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino now goes so far as to remove critical comments by other users from the Elvis talk page. See [3]. Onefortyone (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
DocKino is actually right in that instance. It's not appropriate to put comments like the one you did on an article's talk page. Keep the article talk about the article, continue to comment on edits, not editors there. The only place for discussing the RFC should be the RFC's talk page. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that DocKino is right, as, on the Elvis page, he has reverted contributions by others, and his behavior has been disputed on the Elvis talk page. However, in order to show good faith, I won't insert my comment a second time. Onefortyone (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I now see that another user has reincluded my comment as he thought that is was relevant. See [4]. Anyhow, thanks for your critical remarks here and on the Elvis talk page. As for the RFC, will there be comments by administrators on the RFC's talk page? Onefortyone (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope you don't feel upset by my comments. It's just that during conflict resolution involving a problematic editor, it is especially important to be as "by-the-book" and nonconfrontational as possible. I know you didn't mean it this way, but someone might try to spin your bringing up the RFC on the Elvis Talk page as canvassing, which would just muddy the waters in the RFC, and lead to WP:Boomerang. To answer your question, administrators may comment, or they may not. It is possible that an admin may decide to block DocKino for WP:NPA, but I doubt it. The purpose of RFC isn't to impose sanctions, it is to try to resolve disputes, hopefully without having to resort to a ban. However, an RFC discussion can later be used as evidence for an ArbCom request, which can impose a ban. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't feel upset by your critical comments, and I partly agree with your opinion. However, what is still a big problem is that DocKino does not accept well-sourced contributions by others if they contradict his preconceived opinion, as you can see from his recent comments on the Elvis talk page, and he is still accusing me of being a troll simply because my sources are at variance with his personal view. The question is, how can these problems be solved? Onefortyone (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if DocKino has still some serious ownership issues concerning the Elvis Presley article. He calls a recent proposal "terrible", "ill-considered", "potentially libelous", "clearly biased", and "poorly sourced" and threatens to revert any attempt to bring it into the article claiming that such reversions are not subject to the 3RR. See these comments: [5] and [6]. In my opinion, such a behavior is not acceptable. What do you think? Onefortyone (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"poorly sourced" doesn't bother me, "ill-considered" isn't great, but is fairly benign, "terrible" is uncivil, "clearly biased" might violate WP:AGF, but it depends on the circumstances, "potentially libelous" might be borderline violation of WP:LEGAL, I have seen people spanked just for saying that a comment is libelous, there is an implication of legal threat there, supposedly (see the "Perceived Threats" section of the policy), but I tend to think that is a little too uptight. If this stuff is the worst he is doing right now, I'd recommend waiting to see before going back to DR of any kind. Give him a full month since the RFC settled down, and if he's still doing this kind of stuff then, it's time to take it to ARbCom. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Yet another threat to take me to ArbCom, this one motivated by words of mine specifically directed at an editorial proposal that violates one of our most sensitive policies. This is a most interesting pattern of behavior in which you are engaged. I'm curious about your personal philosophy concerning Wikipedia and what you seek from your experience and work-product here; if you're curious about mine, this communicates a fair chunk of it.
You seem to be particularly exercised by the phrase "potentially libelous". I wouldn't want you to embarrass yourself at ArbCom, so I will explain. Anyone who reads the diffs carefully and is familiar with our WP:Biographies of living persons policy will recognize that the phrase "potentially libelous" is, far from a legal threat directed at 141, a reminder of the "high degree of sensitivity" we are obliged to employ when writing about living people, in part to mitigate any potential threat of legal jeopardy to Wikipedia. Our policy on WP:Edit warring explicitly exempts from the 3-revert rule the "removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." 141's proposal would essentially cast us as declaring Priscilla Presley a one-time "live-in Lolita"--that sort of language alone concerning a living person should have raised big, bright red flags to any experienced, responsible editor. (141 is very experienced--and, yes, that's part of what made his proposal "terrible.") Furthermore, as 141 knew, the factual argument "supporting" the "Lolita" description is inescapably contentious and flatly contradicted by the prevailing view among leading historians and biographers, as well as by the concerned living person herself--our WP:BLP policy thus clearly forbids us from including his proposal, as phrased, or anything very similar in our article. It should have been apparent to both you and 141 that my use of the phrase "potentially libelous" represented neither any sort of threat to him nor any sort of threat from me. DocKino (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
DocKino, you need to chill out. You wrote a very lengthy reply to my fairly brief response to 141, and yet you still managed to miss all my key points, and indeed construed the opposite intent from what I actually wrote.
  1. I was not threatening to take you to ArbCom, I was calling for no action at all to be taken at this time.
  2. I was not "particularly exercised by the phrase 'potentially libelous'" - on the contrary, though I pointed out that WP:LEGAL discourages the use of the term "libelous" because it can be perceived as an implied legal threat, I said I think that is too uptight - ie, I don't think there is really anything wrong with using that term.
  3. In addition to the above, most of the rest of what 141 brought to me, I discounted as not being that big a deal taken in isolation. The only thing I unequivocably condemned was "terrible" - I said it was uncivil, and it is. I said "clearly biased" MIGHT violate AGF, BUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES. I was giving acknowledgement that you might in fact be justified.
Look, I can tell that you and 141 have a history that may not be all your fault, and because of it, he wants your head in a basket any way he can get it, and I have been taking what he says with a grain of salt. My response to him above was an attempt to put him off, partly by placating him. He certainly has latched onto the RFC, but you know what, he wouldn't have anything to latch onto if you hadn't been so rude to so many people over the years. If you were just a more tactful person, he probably would have moved on from you to another editor he has issues with, but even if you did have a negative history with him, his desire to get you censured would be a heck of a lot easier to dismiss as simple interpersonal conflict between the two of you if your User Talk page weren't a sea of posts from multiple other editors complaining about your behavior. You need to stop this projection about my "interesting pattern of behavior" and focus on yourself. I am not the one with all those strongly worded requests to be more civil. I'm not the one who has been blocked for personal attacks in the past. Heck, even your SUPPORTERS in the RFC acknowledged your problematic tone, even ElvisFan, whom you asked to come to the RFC to speak up on your behalf. All this stuff came to a head because of YOUR persistent behavior, not mine. You want an end to talk about you being taken before ArbCom? That can easily be arranged; just start being polite, edit yourself, even when you are frustrated. If you find a bad edit, fix it without comment. If another editor's proposal is "terrible" or whatever, let it speak for itself, don't call it out. You have far too much baggage surrounding you and far too little ablility to self-filter to safely weigh in on controversial discussions. If you slip up and somebody does call you out on your talk page, instead of clearing the comment with a snarky edit summary, apologize. Better yet, take a break. Wikipedia will go on without you for a few months, so lay low for a while, give people some time to forget about you and your history, and you may also find that you come back from the break that you are less inclined to make the snarky comments and edit summaries. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
@Mmyers1976: Brilliantly summarized! Your comments above are refreshingly accurate and I fully agree with them. You have provided some good, sound advice for DocKino, if only he is capable of accepting it. Let's hope so. Dolphin (t) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it does seem like DocKino is a diligent editor with sound judgement when it comes to content, and so I sincerely hope his interpersonal skills can catch up to that. I was hoping he would take the RFC/U as a wakeup call, not someone being "out to get him." There is a favorite fable of mine I hope he will bear in mind. There was a bird who was late in flying south for the winter. As he frantically flew to catch up with his flock, a gust of arctic air hit him and froze him solid. He plummeted to the ground, landed in a pasture, unable to move, dying. A few minutes later, a cow came over and took a shit on him. But the shit was warm, it thawed him out, saved his life, and he became so happy he began to sing. A coyote heard his singing, walked over, pushed the shit off him with his paw, and ate the bird in one bite. The moral of the story is: Not everyone who shits on you is your enemy, not everyone who gets you out of shit is your friend (and if you are warm and happy, you should keep your stupid mouth shut).Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if DocKino is still attacking me. See [7]. Onefortyone (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the Ford Explorer[edit]

I forgot to add the passenger and cargo dimensions. Now that you say, I noticed it actually is full-sized. My bad. Bookster451 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, no harm done. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism reverts[edit]

Hello there! First, thank you for spotting (a great catch, BTW!) and fixing the vandalism that was in one of the references on the article (500) Days of Summer [8]. But, it looks like you mistakenly attributed the vandalism to User:MALLUS whose edit can be seen by looking at the article's history here: [9]), yet you gave the user a vandalism warning [10] for an edit that didn't include the vandalism.

Would you please remove the warning you erroniously gave to that user? I tried to search for when that actual vandalism was made in order to find the user who actually did it but couldn't find it. It seems to have been made and overlooked for a while, though I didn't check every single edit change. I did check the contribution history of user MALLUS in case I was missing something, and found that the user has been making the same good faith edits to other articles by adding the Catalan language wiki links, as you can see here: Thank you. (From an IP only) (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Mmyers1976. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rape culture - how best to progress and resolve the ongoing WP:NPOV Dispute?[edit]

Hi there Pi.1415926535 recently said you were still actively interested in the issue of neutrality around rape culture so I'm approaching you over the ongoing issues.

Well it's coming up to 6 months (8 Jan 2012) since I first raised the issues with the rape culture entries and the WP:NPOV - Systemic Bias issues that have still not been resolved.

Now I see that someone has set up Mizbot to archive entries and concerns raised on the talk page. I do hope it's not a deliberate act to try and just make the issues vanish. They won't. P^)

You did make clear that you welcomed expansion of the page and even globalisation as far back as January, and I have sought so many sources that meet the views laid down - sources must use the term "rape culture" - there must be no WP:OR - and still no matter how far I go in meeting other's demands in the spirit of consensus, there is just no progress. What is the point of supplying so many sources that meet other's demands if they just get left on the talk page and the actual issues just don't get addressed?

I remain concerned that sources identifying whole countries, and providing a global perspective, on the subject of rape culture have simply been missed - Meitse 1996 -1998 (South Africa) - Baxi 2002 (India) - Michael Parenti - The Global Rape Culture (2005) - and there has been WP:UNDUE on references only to the USA. The global sources are of course sourced via Goggle.

It was almost comical when the section on South Africa was added, once I raised the issue of bias - and I have recently expanded that to place the subject in both an historical and culturally sensitive framework. You should also be aware that I am doing the same Ref India - Sandbox. - It was even stated In January that sources relating to other countries would be integrated once they were made known - and that simply has not happened.

I have sourced material on a global basis - even down to Pitcairne Island - met all demands put forward by other editors - and no matter what the page just does not progress.

I have even had to cite sources that give an Historical perspective to rape culture, such as the history of slavery and Droit du seigneur which does have quite a significance in the US. It would seem that racial bias applies even when a US centric focus is maintained. That has been a concern from the start with the discovery of the film "Rape Culture", and the involvement of the men of Lorton Prison (Prisoners Against Rape Inc) who were all African Americans had simply been brushed under the carpet - and It was most interesting to read the views and experiences of Loretta Ross who was instrumental in working with these men.

But through out - it all has to be about Recent Events - Slutwalk - Dickwolves Controversy - Facebook pages - and the actual subject and global perspective of rape culture just gets minimised. I have even had to point out that claims that face book was only about the USA and UK were - well ..... Systemic Bias.

It's even been argued that as the USA is supposedly the primary source of Entertainment material on the planet the bias is unavoidable.

I have even had to ask how far people in certain parts of the world would need to go "Hold a Slut walk in a mine-filed and notify CNN/Fox news in advance"? (15 January 2012) & (2 May 2012).

I have recently made clear that I believe that the whole page needs a complete redraft - even the heading "Prominent incidents and allegations of rape culture" is nonsensical and creates a false hierarchy around the subject - and I still wonder how one alleges a rape culture. Alleged is of course a word that should be avoided WP:ALLEGED.

So unless there is constructive motion forward to produce quality content by consensus, I will have to start concluding that some editors are deliberately not engaging so as to not reach any form of consensus - and by not engaging also acting to prevent access to dispute resolution and even a Third Opinion. I have made it clear for some time that I would welcome external and independent oversight of matters.

I have been stating that for many months. (15 January 2012 Onwards).

I have also made it clear that I am concerned about "Advocacy Editing" due to the apparent determination to make the page only about the USA and ignore the Global perspective and billions of other people. That is of course against WP:NPOV and even promotes Systemic Bias.

What do you suggest as a way forward on how to improve the page - remove systemic bias and meet WP:NPOV?

It does seem that it's overdue.

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I understand that you're no longer an active editor. If you don't wish to be involved, then that's fine. However, I would appreciate if you'd be willing to contribute to the discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"In the northern hemisphere"[edit]

Well, yes, I believe that readers will understand that Houston is in the northern hemisphere. But, I will revert this change because there is a need to remind those in the southern hemisphere (South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc) that the seasons are not the ones they are used to. We have to cater to a worldwide audience WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break, the chances of a South African or a New Zealander actually caring about a neighborhood in Houston and then being confused about the seasons and it actually misleading him in any meaninful way are so absurdly remote, yet the pedantic awkwardness of your version is very real. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gulf Coast stone crab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TWC (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) 11:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pupfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mid-Atlantic (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) 11:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mmyers1976. You have new messages at Koavf's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Justin (koavf)TCM 16:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for the "thanks"! Cheers!— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 21:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for your information[edit]

You may remember this discussion: [11] I have not contributed much to Wikipedia during the last two years, but it is very interesting that both DocKino and DCGeist, who were deeply involved in edit wars with me, gave up contributing to Wikipedia in July 2012. See [12] and [13]. Onefortyone (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Overdone Trout Template Test[edit]

Grilled Japanese Trout.jpg Sizzle!

The trout you used to slap another wikipedian has been gutted, roasted over the coals, and served with tartar sauce.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that, just like the trout in this picture, your trouting of Wikipedians is overdone.

Googie architecture[edit]

You have reverted my edit at Googie architecture, and reinserted:

But it is important to note Haskell was no fan of Googie, his article a scathing, by architecture critic standards, satire of the style, writing part of the piece, “Googie Architecture,” in the voice of a fictional Professor Thrugg, whose over-the-top praise was an indictment of Googie’s popular appeal. Haskell was an advocate of modernism, but a modernism constrained by his ideas of taste and refinement, writing sarcastically as Professor Thrugg: “You underestimate the seriousness of Googie. Think of it! — Googie is produced by architects, not by ambitious mechanics, and some of these architects starve for it. After all, they are working in Hollywood, and Hollywood has let them know what it expects of them.” Haskell’s disdain for Googie was clearly rooted in his hatred for the flourishes and perceived tackiness of Hollywood.

As I stated in my edit summary, this is a cut-and-paste from this article, which reads:

But Haskell was no fan of Googie and wrote a scathing (by architecture critic standards) satire of the style in the February 1952 issue of House and Home magazine. The New York-based Haskell wrote part of his article, “Googie Architecture,” in the voice of a fictional Professor Thrugg, whose over-the-top praise was an indictment of Googie’s popular appeal. Haskell was an advocate of modernism, but a modernism constrained by his ideas of taste and refinement. Haskell, writing sarcastically as Professor Thrugg: “You underestimate the seriousness of Googie. Think of it! — Googie is produced by architects, not by ambitious mechanics, and some of these architects starve for it. After all, they are working in Hollywood, and Hollywood has let them know what it expects of them.” Haskell’s disdain for Googie was clearly rooted in his hatred for the flourishes and perceived tackiness of Hollywood.

Wikipedia has little tolerance for the word-for-word plagiarism of copyrighted material. Please adjust your edit, and take a moment to familiarize yourself with editing procedures. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Magnolia, your edit summary on the edit I reverted was "One opinion about Googie should not dominate this article". Your claim now that edit was about WP:copyvio is disingenuous. If that HAD been your concern you should have paraphrased CatSmartScotland's contribution, not obliterated it, but your initial edit summary shows that really wasn't your concern, you just didn't like Haskell's opinion. You've been trying to exclude all sorts of contributions, including photos, that don't agree with your subjective opinion, and that is not your purpose on Wikipedia, you are guilty of POV pushing and Original Research here, and violating Civility and Assume Good Faith when you accused me of "spamming", so it is YOU, not I, who should be taking some time to familiarize yourself with editing procedures, and if you engage in any more incivility, I will take this to WP:ANI Mmyers1976 (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)