User talk:Clean Copy/Archive6

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * With all thanks for your efforts, it may be a better plan to let the section sit as it does until some consensus can be reached on the RfC, especially as some of the recent changes are directly addressed by comments there. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, you don't seem to be the only person with the idea. I suppose we'll see where it goes. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware that it was a little risky...but it seemed worth trying. (That's what the guy said who jumped from 25,000 feet without a parachute, too, but hey, he made it.) Cl ea n Co py talk 16:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's always good to have role models. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Metamorphoses 2.png
Thanks for uploading File:Metamorphoses 2.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Pastebinning the solution with 30d expiry (if you so choose)
I made a series of innocuous, benign changes (judge to kidnapper, inmate to pirate) and deleted sentences which seemed to convey meaning but just said something but said nothing like this statement from a news article which says X could be linked to Y:


 * The professor of Cognitive Science at UC San Diego said cursing could be linked to higher intelligence
 * His reasoning is in several parts.
 * the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him

It doesn't matter if his reasoning is in one part or several parts. That is just misdirection. The term judge's sentence here is just straight-up clever and funny, lol. I like paradoxes, jokes, or riddles like this. Anyways I hope you'd agree that paragraph #3 in the pastebin clearly makes no damn sense! If the pirate believes he can't be killed on his own execution day, then he will be in for quite a surprise. Yikes! :-) Adwctamia (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Also may I steal your colorful username thing? It's awesome! By the way -- do you know the paradox name where I can find something I read on Wikipedia maybe 5 years ago... It was something like you can ask 3 questions to 3 different people. One person always lies—one person always tells the truth—and one person randomly lies or tells the truth—and you have to identify which person is which using only 3 questions?


 * If you find that riddle/paradox for me; or:
 * if you can tell me the term for a thing which eludes you that you once saw or have seen on the internet but don't know how to describe it, thus you can't google it (this term was on reddit and is absolutely similar to white rabbit, white elephant, pink rabbit, or pink elephant—but is none of those 4 color-object pairings) and the example on reddit most people were describing paintings that looked like cliffs or mountainous landscapes or something and that thread dispensed reddit-gold at a rate that can only be imagined for people helping other people find things which have eluded them for years!

then I will return and present to you an original series of statements designed by me (read here for causal basis to understand why my motivation to write such a thing is reliant on your bringing me the riddle/paradox of which I seek) that seemingly appear to be a riddle but may or may not be! (I'm a good writer -- I'll either make the best veiled riddle/paradox or the least-veiled anti-riddle/anti-paradox which is just assembled to appear to be a riddle/paradox to people who think they know what riddles/paradoxes look like!)

I'll ostensibly claim that I know what the term for the second bulletpoint called but that I'm just "testing you" lol. I will ostensibly deny that I have lost many night's sleep thinking what if I am just a victim to a paradox where I think I saw on reddit an entire thread about people who were searching for something that they couldn't search for lol.

Either way, for some reason, writing and conveying my pensive struggle was cathartic so thank you for allowing me to form my thoughts in such a way on your talk page that genuinely reflected either my sincere motivation to communicate normally under the pretense I'm a wikipedia user named Adwctamia interacting normally on the userpage of Clean_Copy; or, my sneaky motivation to organically form a masterful riddle instead designed for CRGreathouse where only one of two mutually exclusive explanations can conceivably be even plausible (to which swapping hyperlinks in the title wasn't misdirection but 90% of the body of this message is...)

Hint: The original pastebin hyperlink I substituted in the title of this post will be disappearing in nine hours, the new one in 29 days. Is the hint relevant? Maybe... ;-) Adwctamia (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Eva Frommer
Hello CC. Thank you for your link with Anthroposophy. I hope you noticed she left a legacy to the Steiner Press who acknowledge her in at least half a dozen publications of RF works in English. She deserves to be much better known and appreciated. Kind regards, --Po Kadzieli (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's very nice, and well documented. In my judgment, this would be a notable fact in the article on Eva Frommer, but not in those on Anthroposophy or Steiner. Very best wishes --  Cl ea n Co py talk 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:New religious movements
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:New religious movements. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christmas
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christmas. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euphoria
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Euphoria. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Sungenis. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Self-hating Jew
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Self-hating Jew. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Clemens Brentano
Good day, Clean Copy. I notice you reverted my edits to Clemens Brentano without comment. Please could you explain your reason? I attempted to clarify that Bettina von Arnim was not Goethe's only correspondent as could possibly be surmised by the wording. They exchanged letters for around 4 years before she was given the brush-off. I attempted to convey this rationale in my edit summaries. Do you see this differently? Kind regards Guffydrawers (talk)


 * @Guffydrawers, Sorry, this was unintentional and I did not realize that I had done this. Mobile device and clumsy fingers,..I have undone my accidental edit, and apologize. Cl ea n Co py talk 04:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shakya
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shakya. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Spirituality reverts
Decisions about "too long" require discussion and consensus, not high-handed alienating and unexplained admin actions. Agreed that this would have been better as a new article but there wasn't any need for hasty reversions given that the content was clearly not vandalism and of good quality.


 * The admin action was against the apparent sockpuppetry, which you have explained as students working together -- I'm not sure if you realize that their actions still violated the sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry) policy. Furthermore, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is exactly what was followed here: the bold edit was followed by a revert. The next step is to discuss (not to edit war, as both you and the second student have been doing).   Cl ea n Co py talk 23:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your removal of sources
Take a look at this edit of yours. By doing this, you have removed the actual references, because in the Harvard system of abbreviated citations there must be anchors to which abbreviated references like "Long (2003)", etc. link to. By removing the full references to the sources, you effectively removed the references themselves.

If this was a singular edit like this, then please just take this info into account when you are contemplating making similar edits in the future. If this, on the other hand, was a part of your systematic effort to clean multiple articles, I would suggest you go back, review your edit history, and rectify this in other affected articles as well. cherkash (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Ouch! I did not realize what they were.  Thank you.  Fortunately, this was a one-off edit, and thanks to your timely warning, will not recur.   Cl ea n Co py talk 14:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Leads as summary of article
Your edit to Al Jolson's lead, where you wrote, "that in retrospect has been harshly critiqued as implicitly racist," is not a fact covered in the article itself. If you would like to make that a topic, you should support it with details before offering your own opinion, especially in a bio's lead. In the meantime, the statement should be removed as being OR. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is already a quote criticizing Jolson's use of blackface in the section of the article devoted to this theme that I assumed was sufficient to back this up, but I have added a specific citation to the article from which this quote was drawn, which has substantial critique. It is certainly not OR, in any case, as it is an opinion widely articulated, not my own particularly.  Cl ea n Co py talk 18:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for citing. But note that adding that it "has been harshly critiqued as implicitly racist," is still an opinion. Nor does claiming that it is "an opinion widely articulated" clarify the point, since an opinion by some modern writers does not make it a "harsh critique."
 * It also adds a bit of possible confusion for readers, since most of the paragraph and the supporting material in the body, imply the exact opposite of your concluding addition, calling him a racist. And adding opinions about what might be considered racist by today's standards, when a 100 years ago as a common theatrical convention, blackface was considered quite different and mostly innocent, only adds more confusion. The implied result, IMO, is that calling him a "racist" as the final word in the lead, even without the cite, seems contradictory and strikingly out of place. --Light show (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out; I agree entirely. I have rearranged the closing paragraph and added balance. Any feedback would be appreciated.  Cl ea n Co py talk 21:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Somewhat better, yet because "racism" is such a hot-button word, its use needs careful discretion in someone's bio, especially in the lead. Here, the 12,000-word article has one short mention implying "racism" by today's standards, commentary which you yourself added. So pointing out a backward-looking opinion about yesterday's style still seems out of place. We don't even label rap music as racist.
 * But the addition has the same effect, IMO, of quoting some current singers who might claim that his singing was very old-fashioned. Or whose songs would never be a hit today. There's almost nothing we couldn't look that far back on and criticize about anyone by modern standards. So I think any comparison, "in retrospect," of an old entertainer's style with today can be left out of the lead as mostly irrelevant. --Light show (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I have taken out the reference to racism from the lead completely.  Cl ea n Co py talk 03:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Advice and Notifications
Sir,

Thank you. I will keep this in mind for future edits. I am very grateful for calling my attention.I will appreciate if you can give me additional pointers as well.

SincerelyLOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 04:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest on Waldorf education and Anthroposophy
Hey HGilbert/Clean Copy, I just wanted to drop a note and say that I never really looked into the COI regulations/guidelines, but now that I do look, I am stricken with a question: why do you not declare your COI at the top of the talk page for Waldorf education and Anthroposophy? I won't go into details at the risk of outlining privileged information, but suffice it to say I know you have several published books, workshops, and other similar interests that put a substantial weight for you in the continued positive promotion of the subjects of the above articles. The ArbCom has also resolved as much in several past rulings.

I see that there's a COI notice on Waldorf education for HGilbert, your old account name. Will you voluntarily change it to reflect your name change? And perhaps put one up on Anthroposophy as well, given their intricately co-involved nature?

Do you dispute that you have a COI? Or do you just not agree with the guideline? It makes very clear that you should be putting a COI template at the top of the relevant talk pages so that other editors know about your conflicts.... It puts into perspective the nature of these articles and the way they've read since you became involved in editing them years ago...

To avoid getting into ad hominems, I want to say that I truly believe you think you're doing what is best for the articles themselves. But that this may not always align with what the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia dictate is the best move for the articles themselves. I also want to say that your behavior on the article is that of a gatekeeper. Every edit on those pages is filtered through you, as you edit them after everyone else continually and throughout time. You've systematically dulled all negative criticism about the subject and driven away any uninvolved editors who seek to create a NPOV and equal weight in the article text.

What is disconcerting most of all is that you haven't respected the COI guidelines which very clearly discourage COI editors from editing the affected articles. In fact, you have done exactly the opposite, editing the article almost exclusively and extensively for years to subtilely create a massive POV problem.

The fact that you stand to profit from positive understanding of the subject matter is a huge problem... Will you voluntarily declare COI and recuse yourself from further editing of Waldorf education?? You should put the interests of the wiki first and foremost, as any other good faith editor would have done. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 08:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I came straight from FTN, (after hours of delving into this walled-garden) and you are either paying heed to the above message by (who had put it way too nicely) or I will ask ArbCom to consider privileged information and issue a broad TBan in light of your agenda-driven editing and whitewashing of articles.
 * Choosing to edit elsewhere without replying to this message will be assumed as a denial of our request. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Choosing to edit elsewhere without replying to this message will be assumed as a denial of our request. &#x222F; WBG converse 13:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like to emphasize that I have repeatedly invited criticism that was cited to RSs -- and you can see in the talk page and archives how my requests have generally received no responses that include such sources -- when these sources were included, the material was incorporated promptly. The only exception is material discussing individual schools, whether positive or negative: I believe that a general article about a school movement should focus on sources that discuss the movement as a whole, or larger trends, not that one school was awarded special recognition, or that that another has come under criticism as individual schools.
 * I indeed dispute that I have a COI: I do not stand to profit from Wikipedia articles' content on Waldorf education in any way. More particularly:
 * I published one book on the subject long ago. First of all, having published on a subject does not exclude one from editing articles on that subject.  Second, I do not receive royalties from the book's sales.  There is no possible COI here. Note that I purposely have not cited the book in the article to avoid any appearance of a COI.
 * My salary is not affected by interest in Waldorf any more than, say a chemical engineer's salary is affected by articles on chemical engineering. In theory, if there was more interest in chemical engineering, would all chemical engineer's salaries increase?  Maybe, but doubtful.  Similarly with the more than 1,000 Waldorf schools: they are not-for-profit entities, and are more likely to reduce tuition than increase salaries in response to interest.  It is a purely speculative connection, and one that exists for anyone that edits articles on anything related to their work -- which is most of us, I would guess.
 * It is true that I give public workshops on the theme, but exclusively in the non-English speaking world. Again, there is no conceivable way that these articles would affect attendance at my workshops.
 * These sorts of charges have been made by extremely polemical, single-issue editors before, but to have them coming from an administrator is a shock. I am voluntarily not editing these articles at this point because I do not wish to have this kind of stigma placed on the articles themselves.  Cl ea n Co py talk 19:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to hear that you've voluntarily recused yourself, even if you don't acknowledge the COI many others (including several admins) have pointed out. I and other editors are happy to work with you via the talk page (the normal route COI editors are encouraged to use) to eliminate factual inaccuracies and continue to bring the articles to an NPOV.
 * But if you systematically edit the articles again in a way that disrupts NPOV or creates a biased view of the subject, I am confident that I or another editor will take it to ANI and eventually ArbCom. Thank you, I'm happy to know how much you value the unbiased nature of the Wiki. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 17:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice
&#x222F; WBG converse 13:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Spiritual Philosophy Editing Query
Hi Clean Copy I have been working on the 'spiritual philosophy' Wikipedia page as part of my university assignment. For the task we have to publish 2000 words to a stub Wikipedia article. Thank you for your help in editing my assignment. I have noticed that you have deleted a substantial amount of the 'Spiritual philosophy in religion' 'Buddhism' and 'Hinduism' sub sections. I was just wondering if you could please advise me of what was wrong for my own learning purposes? Thank you! - Tobin 1312  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobin1312 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback, I will be sure to implement it for the Spiritual Philosophy Wikipedia Article and subsequently my assignment Tobin1312 (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit

‎Steiner and Christianity
Hi, the full citation for Morelli 2015 would be "" However, iUniverse is a print-on-demand service & thus Morelli is a self-publisher & therefore not reliable as per WP:SELFSOURCE. Did you really mean to add an unreliable source to Rudolf Steiner? There is not even a library in Worldcat who has a copy as per. Peaceray (talk) 21:33, 13 September
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention; the edit summary was too brief to understand that this was meant. I have replaced this with a better source, and in any case my text had dropped the questionable assertions of the original editor who added this.   Cl ea n Co py talk 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

"Waldorf schools/draft" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Waldorf schools/draft. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 3 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 16:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Anthroposophy
Hi Clean Copy, you may have some thoughts to add at: Talk:Anthroposophy. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Proposed deletion of Spiritual science


The article Spiritual science has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable term with no claim to significance. No sources independent of the subject discussing it in this context."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Early history of Switzerland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Status quo ante.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
Desist from promoting pseudoscience and finding excuses for it, or be topic banned. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Clean Copy. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News
Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest. Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
 * The template db-afc-move has been created - this template is similar to db-move when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Clean Copy. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Query regarding changes to spiritual philosophy wikipedia page
Hi Clean Copy, I have been working on the 'spiritual philosophy' Wikipedia page as part of my university assignment. For the task we have to publish 2000 words to a stub Wikipedia article. Thank you for your help in editing my assignment. I have noticed that you have deleted a substantial amount of the 'Spiritual philosophy in religion' 'Buddhism' and 'Hinduism' sub sections. I was just wondering if you could please advise me of what was wrong for my own learning purposes? Thank you! - Tobin 1312