User talk:Cool Hand Luke/Archive 12

Portland Basin (geology)
Thank you. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Your name
I'd assume that this is why you chose your name. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Fluff
It's fluff and it's a great example of recentism and I can't imagine why we have it in a biography article. Asking that Fox remove his NPR identification on O'Reilly and personal comments by Vivian Schiller at the Atlanta Press Club is unimportant in the long term. Furthermore, the standalone section "Disciplined for verbal sexual harassment" is completely unprecedented in its undue weight, and no other biography of Williams or extended piece quotes sources from 1991 in this way or devotes this much space to a confidential incident that was briefly reported once by three sources, twenty years ago. Prior to political activist Davidpatrick inflating this section beyond reasonable weight, this was the appropriate weight it was given, and reflects the historical significance in the preponderance of reliable sources. Do the research and see for yourself. (I have, and I spent all this week collecting biographical sources. I discovered that the focus in our article deviates from the majority of sources on this subject.  In fact, the biographies on Juan Williams look nothing like our article, and that is cause for concern.)  Only Wikipedia (thanks to Davidpatrick, aka [redacted], known for his politically-motivated writing that does not subscribe to a NPOV) is giving this incident this much weight, no other source. Meanwhile, the talk page still hosts a discussion from a year ago accusing him of being a "Sex Scandal Figure". I'm no fan of Juan Williams, but this is not how we write articles. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

wolk
Hi, regarding this AFD, the content was also included in this article,Overlawyered basically a cut and copy of the deleted article by the blocked user Boo the puppy, the creator of the article deleted at AFD, at the time I removed it as the content was pretty contentious imo and there is now some effort to replace the deleted content, have you any thoughts as to the contents inclusion there, I consider as it has been deleted at the article its self that the inclusion at that article is like a back door insertion so to speak, thoughts? Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to look at this but to let you know, I have removed myself from the issue and as such no longer request an opinion from you, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser on a dynamic IP?
We appear to have a dynamic IP user claiming he is multiple people - he just did it here and you can see another example here. This user regularly does this in the CFS article. Is it possible to do a checkuser on his most recent comments? --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternate accounts
Greetings Cool Hand,

I was inadvertently engaged in a content dispute on Hinduism and Buddhism article in April of 2009 and one of my alternate accounts (Internet Scholar) was banned by one of the Admins but the other account (Satyashodak) was allowed to be used. However, I had a third account History Sleuth created earlier. Since May of 2009 I have used my History Sleuth account only for editorial work with complete disclosure as to the existence of other accounts on my user page. It had never been my intent to evade scrutiny and all the alternate ids were created in my exploratory phase as wikipedian when I was still discovering the use of this encyclopedia.Please note that I believe the ban of my other account was a little harsher than deserved but I accepted Admin's decision out of respect for the process.

I have not edited the article of dispute which led to the banning of my earlier account since May 2009. I am making this disclosure in good faith with the hope that tranparency and honesty remain prized virtues on wikipeida. Let me know if this anything amiss with my usage.Thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
Hello. Can you please, as member of arbitration comity, read Talk:Kosovo and post your opinion? Threat is based on WP:ARBMAC, and we are trying the last step in normal dispute resolution, before requesting full arbitration. Please, read the post, at least to the line, and post your opinion. As this is lasting for years now, we need your help to end it nicely, and without sanctions and arbitration's. Once again, Please, we need your help. -- WhiteWriter speaks 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WWII and Longevity
Hi Cool Hand Luke. I was just wondering if you intended to move to active status for the World War II and Longevity cases, or if you wished to continue to remain inactive on those. NW ( Talk ) 18:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

YellowMonkey
Could you clarify you opposition please? When you say "new concerns", I assume you mean concerns raised after the RFC was certified on 23 November, but I would rather you made that explicit. Physchim62 (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
I know this is not what this barnstar was intended for, but I could not find a more appropriate topical one, and the graphics of this one look fitting enough :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you have more time on your hands and are so inclined, sexually violent predator laws needs a fair bit of work. It's in worse shape than many of the case law articles about that topic, Kansas v. Hendricks etc., in part because it's hard to write generally about the topic. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikidrips
WikiDrip thinks that WikiDrip's account password was Compromised and is requesting WikiDrip's account be unlocked so WikiDrip can log in and change the password. WikiDrip then can if required open another Wikipedia account with a new username. WikiDrip would like to have the benefit of the doubt here. The New WikiDrip account would of course link to the original WikiDrip account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidrips


 * Note community ban discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

DF
Hey, sorry for the lag time. In short, I do not think there is any relation between the two. I very much share your suspicions that we are not dealing with someone new but for a variety of reasons that I would rather not state publicly I am 99% sure this is not spot again. Keep looking, I'll be curious to see if anything turns up. If you have any detailed questions e-mail me. - Haymaker (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What I meant by "Climate Change Court"
I had overlooked your question, so rather than put it in the middle of that very long discussion over there, I'll quote you here and answer you here. My apologies for overlooking this before: "...could you explain what you mean about the "Climate Change Court"? Are you suggesting that ArbCom should not operate in such politicized disputes?"

No, I think ArbCom should operate (currently) in whatever needs doing, including highly politicized disputes. It's hard work, and it is important work. What I meant is that I don't think we should set up separate "content area" specialist juries, for example having a "Climate Change court" and a "Scientology court" and a "US politics" court and so on.

The problem with creating bodies like that, with powers to ban people, is that those bodies would *themselves* be highly vulnerable to ideological takeover and battling. People sometime envision some benefits to such bodies from people with more experience and expertise handling things, but I think that's what WikiProjects are for, and that role doesn't require admin powers.

The problem that I'm thinking about these days is a perceived gap between the ArbCom - which does an overall excellent job of being a sort of "Supreme Court" - and day-to-day dispute resolution. The Surpreme Court can't handle every traffic case, but someone must, and we might want to look at how we are doing that now, and think about how we might improve it to bring added consistency to the process, and to bring a reduction to any perceived or actual problem of a "buddy network".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * For those of us watching at home: what does this refer to? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * See this thread: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 71. EdChem (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I saw that discussion start (being a print subscriber, I was aware) but gave up watching it as a bad job :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Shakespeare case principles
Hi. In your voting on the principles in the Shakespeare case, did you have reservations about proposed principle 5, or just inadvertently skip over it? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Proposed decision
Hi, Luke. I've posted a note on Talk:Proposed decision for the Shakespeare case that mentions you specifically, along with Brad and Shell, in case you want to take a look. Sorry to be bothering you with the orange new messages banner, but it struck me that if anybody's interested, time is a little short. Bishonen | talk 15:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

You have probably seen this, but just in case you have not...
18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Non-descriptive edit summary.
I'm curious about this edit. Your edit summary simply says 'Courtesy', which is effectively same as having no edit summary. Why did you blank this two and a half year old checkuser page? Dlabtot (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:Deletion_policy "Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration." -- Where did the discussion that led to this action take place? I would very much like to read it.  Since this action seems to blatantly violate another section of that policy:  "This is generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation." Dlabtot (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RTV? In other words he's gone from WP "finally and forever" as WP:RTV says? Any objection on my part would in that case be fairly pointless. Dlabtot (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

For reference
Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Might this be a legal term?
Ethnocism. Appears in some lawsuits. I couldn't find a serious source about it (instead of just using), so I've AfD'd it, but perhaps I'm missing something. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to tell arbcom how to run its cases
But isnt this losing sight of any real relevance to the case rather quickly? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Risker made a good point there. I think the whole thing should probably be archived now. Cool Hand Luke 14:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

History-merging

 * Please, will you be returning to doing history-merges? User:Pichpich has been shovelling dozens of db-histmerge history merge requests onto the queue, and for example I just did 23 history-merges in succession: see Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Phyrexia
That's done; User:Cool Hand Luke/Phyrexia. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Double votes
Hi Frank. You seem to have double voted at Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling, on F7, F8 and R1. Paul August &#9742; 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You still have a double vote on Remedy 1. Paul August &#9742; 23:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The NYB mafia
Re your vote on motion 1, I don't currently have a mafia, to the best of my knowledge&mdash;but maybe it's not a bad idea. Shall I post a sign-up sheet? Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wrongful convictions
I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your work on wrongful conviction cases. There was a discussion on our local radio station about the hard work being done in Hawaii recently, and it was just mind blowing. I don't think most people realize that this can happen to them. Viriditas (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt
Dear CHL, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N  466  13:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat
Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Frank, I hereby award you this kitten! Thanks for spending so much time with me yesterday talking about ArbCom: it was super-useful and I appreciate you doing it :-)

Sue Gardner (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 

Re: LaRouche
I saw your comment on the arbcom page, and although this isn't really something that interests me, the notion that the LaRouche group meets the standard definition for a cult is well-established. For more information see our article on political cults. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about appealing my topic ban
I’m hoping to ask for ArbCom to review my topic ban from the Race and intelligence arbitration case sometime soon, but I have some questions about how to go about doing that. I previously asked Newyorkbrad about this, but he appears to have gone idle right after I asked him, as he hasn’t made any edits in the past two days. Would you be able to give me some advice about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your advice, but what I’m looking for here is more than just the sort of general advice you’ve given me in response to my last comment. There are a couple of specific things I’m uncertain about regarding how to go about appealing my topic ban, and these are questions I’ll need to have answered before I can appeal my ban regardless of when I decide to do that.  Even if I’m not going to appeal it right away, it’ll still be valuable for me to know the answers to these things for whenever I eventually do.  Is it all right if I ask you the questions I have about this? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't like me
and I don't like you. Try not to spoil the effect that you're impartial with deliberate indenting to make me look foolish to people that don't look at page histories. Thank you. Pedro : Chat  19:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please never post to my talk again unless it in response to editorial issues or admin actions I have made. Your patronising "where do I know you from" is a shameful effort from an arbitrator (but to feed you - you know me from Wikipedia). Your deliberate efforts in the indentation noted above are even more loathsome. Pedro : Chat  20:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to explain on your talk page, but these comments were removed:


 * You're right; thanks for pointing out my question was unclear. I just wanted it to be clear from the top of the heading. Cool Hand Luke 19:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure who you are, and I don't know why you dislike me, but the feeling is not reciprocated (or maybe it is, and I've forgotten?). Where do I know you? Cool Hand Luke 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked my emails, and it appears the only time I've ever discussed you was in connection with a sock suspicion, which is almost certainly the reason you had a page on the arbcom wiki. We're not out to get you (or at least I'm not). Take care. Cool Hand Luke 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Banter
Re. You should post links to the pages you want commented on William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * [Copied here from my talk page - WMC]: I'm just trying to get a sense of what a user who has read a couple of arbcom-l threads thinks of the tone of discussion; I don't want views on any one particular thread or event. Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hear what you're saying but this comes across as more-of-the-same; errm, I'm not saying that well am I? I mean, its too in-club self-referential. If you want comment on something, don't make the assumption that you and your readers agree on exactly what it is you want comment on, unless you've specified it. BTW, if it helps (or not) I thoroughly disagree with Giano, below. Oh, and if you've managed to piss Pedro off (above) then you must be doing something right :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. I see what you mean, but I feel strange singling out a thread. I think we come of poorly in places, and moderately well in others. I don't want to be accused of attacking, say, Arbitrator Smith and Jones, or of trying to make the committee come off well (which I don't think it does overall). I would just like a sample to suggest whether the tone of the list itself is thought to be harmful.
 * You're right that few users are as plugged-in to these developments as we are. Maybe I could provide a handful of links as examples? Cool Hand Luke 20:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. Though plenty of people have commented without William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're finished
All trust in people like you and your kind is gone. Why don't you just save us all the embaressment and go. These daft threads you are starting are a disgrace to you and the project. You had your chance to be decent and honest and you blew it. Have some honour, go and take the cronies with you. Giacomo Returned 20:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When was I indecent and/or dishonest? Cool Hand Luke 21:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage alert
Your name has been mentioned in a discussion on User talk:Bishonen. Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC).

a note
A note to say I have been impressed by your position of openness and on wiki comments since the mail leaks. Thank you for that. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is mostly guilt over the affair. I was a big supporter of letting him back, and I feel that it's largely my own fault. Cool Hand Luke 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize there have been groans about such, but I am still impressed with your willingness to accept prior missies and take concerns on board and reevaluate with a fresh aspect and especially in a spirit of openness. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Just a note to say thanks for opening the sections at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee asking for community feedback about the recent mailing-list events. It seems to signal a new spirit of openness, and some of the feedback was very constructive, so I appreciate it that you took that approach. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 evidence and scope
Hey, some clarification here Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Evidence would be helpful. I've been asking Cla68 to refrain from posting evidence about other editors to this case per the scope statement, but he's referring to a comment you made that indicated to put it here. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help to remove these unsubstantiated claims on the evidence page
Dear Cool Hand Luke. Can you please remove the following unsubstantiated claims from User:Prioryman's evidence at the Cirt-Jayen case evidence page? The last two bullet points are what concern me. They make several claims about Jayen's motivations without providing any diffs, links or other evidence. For reference: Here is the link. Thank you for your concern with keeping the evidence page clean of unsubstantiated claims that could be construed as personal attacks. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "To the best of my knowledge, at no point did Jayen466 dispute any of those edits or articles or use any dispute resolution procedures on Wikipedia concerning any of those articles. The only conceivable purpose served by indiscriminately highlighting Cirt's contributions was to put pressure on Cirt to stop editing any article remotely related to Scientology/cults.
 * By contributing to this campaign, Jayen466 engaged in Wikihounding and off-wiki harassment. He is less culpable than DC, the instigator of the campaign, but had every reason to know that the intention of the campaign was to intimidate, harass and pressure Cirt into abandoning a topic area."
 * Note I am also cross posting this to John Vandenberg since he has also expressed concern with this type of thing. This is why I thought you might be interested in taking care of this matter, in case you were wondering.Griswaldo (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already resolved this. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I replied to you on the talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I should have asked Hersfold this and I came here out of frustration with how certain things are being handled (not frustration with Hersfold. I apologize for that. I'm going to back away for a while as I notice my levels of frustration rising and its not good for anyone. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As an FYI, there was a clerk action; as such, you may wish to re-make this comment in the proposal that was re-submitted cleanly. – xeno talk 16:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't want this to get lost in the mess
Coll Hand Luke. I appreciate that you haven't edited since Delicious Carbuncle and I posed you the same question at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Since there is so much discussion happening across several pages I wanted to make sure you didn't miss these questions. Here's mine, and here's Carbuncle's. The gist of both is the same. Appreciating that technical unvanishing may not be worth it and may not be necessary we are both wondering why a connection cannot be made to the former account and the former sanctions on Prioryman's user pages. Thanks for your attention.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
A few weeks back I sent you an email about my topic ban. Since I haven't heard anything about it, I am following up to check if the committee intends to address my situation. Zuggernaut (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

email
GunGagdin Moan 14:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * From me too. – xeno talk 16:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"spy"
Sorry. In the end I removed that sentence, taking to heart Roger's request for pruning. I will reply privately to your recent email. Mathsci (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will give a partial reply here to your remarks on the amendment page. I saw the silliness of discussing issues that had been put to rest in December and so removed stuff dating from then which is completely irrelevant now (amazon.com, etc). What I do looking out for sockpuppetry is about the same as what I have done a little at Southern Adventist University. I edit neither that article nor its talk page but helped, or at least tried to help, with two editors, BelloWello and Fountainviewkid. One is now banned and the other regrettably blocked. Not a great success. Meatpuppetry on the other hand is a completely grey area on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mentioned on the amendment page that there might be other accounts that need to be looked at. Since Boothello has just commented and I don;t want to clog up the page, I'll make some comments here about that account.


 * Boothello's account was created after the close of WP:ARBR&I and has been discussed at WP:AE. There he explained that he was previously active as a vandalism-only account editing from the Boston area. He explained that he was a reformed vandal and that his single purpose editing in R&I was due to a university course in psychology. He edited with his reformed persona twice using the IP  but apparently had a vandalistic lapse in between. Maunus had this to say about the account. Various aspects of their editing patterns suggest that this could well be a topic-banned editor making sporadic edits away from their normal computer accounts. Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Amendment thread
Per your comment here, I would really appreciate it if you could give me some guidance on what I should do if Mathsci’s behavior towards me and Ferahgo doesn’t improve. I’m less confident than you are that the opinions expressed there by arbitrators will be enough to change his behavior, because he wasn’t responsive to the advice of multiple arbitrators who told him in February that he should stop pushing for enforcement in the R&I topic area. As was pointed out in Boothelo’s comment, when Risker told him the same thing a second time in April, he responded by arguing with her and then threatening her. After there’s already been one example of him refusing to follow ArbCom’s instructions about this, I don’t feel like there’s a good reason to believe that the current situation will be different.

Coren had a suggestion about what I should do if this continues, although if you agree with Coren that the appropriate response would be starting an RFC/U, ArbCom will have to make a motion to allow that because it currently isn’t allowed by my topic ban. Whether or not you agree with Coren’s suggestion, I think there’s at least enough chance that this will go the same way it did in February and April that ArbCom should offer some instructions about what to do if that happens. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna
Your reverts do not correspond to your comments. The scheduled date for the lawsuit was reported in the news. But you removed it too. --Fayerman (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You "explained" that citing is better than quoting. Your removal wasn't proper even according to your explanation. --Fayerman (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to your last question: adding "according to the complaint" was meant to help a reader to avoid confusion and to emphasize that no original research was used. See more at the talk page. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Help
Hi.Please help me.Please tell me What I must do? I am new comer to wikipedia.I delete some mistakes and lies about Azerbaijan and Iran.But these two users User:Xooon and User:Alborz Fallah were plotting against me Sockpuppet investigations/Orartu to continue their lying about Iran and Azerbaijan.For example:When there is no valid source about Azerbaijani ancestry of a person, they insist to put them in category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent.This user User:Ebrahimi-amir and me are different users.But this user User:Xooon wants to intend we are same.They want to violate the neutrality of wikipedia.Please help me.In advance thanks a lot for your helpsOrartu (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

They want the deletion of this articleAzerbaijani Genocide in Iran too.They also couldn't tolerate an active female user from Iran.Please help me.With respectOrartu (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock
Thank you so much for your decision to unblock me, I will abide by Wikipedia policies and you will not regret your decision to unblock me. Mìthrandir (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

CongLinks
Because you commented at Template talk:CongLinks in the past, I'd like to invite you to comment on a proposed addition to the template at Template talk:CongLinks. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've learned something from you
Your method used to establish behavioral similarly in the Mantamoreland case was interesting. I've used it, albeit with less rigor, in the case of former Arb Rlevse. See WP:AN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Cool Hand Luke,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

How can I email you?
There are a couple of questions that I'd like to ask, but I cannot do so on wiki. Your user page mentions email, but no address is given. asciin2bme@gmail.com (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:EmailUser/Cool_Hand_Luke. J.delanoy gabs adds  00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your beliefs
Hi. Please note that the next months Christianity newsletter, at WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/May 2012 has a section for "I believe" information. It is my intention that the section can be used by a member of a given Christian group to describe, briefly, the comparatively unique beliefs and/or practices, perhaps including controversial ones, of a given group. A lot of our editors, unfortunately, are not really up on the details of groups to which they do not belong. Yeah, that included, and still includes to some degree, me.

You are a self-described LDS, and a highly respected member of the wikipedia community. I would be very gratified if you would perhaps consider writing the "inaugural" version of this section, or, if you so choose, perhaps asking some other Latter Day Saint you know to do so. It may well be edited for space purposes ultimately, of course, but I do think it might help stimulate interest and attention in related content, and that hopefully wouldn't be too bad of a thing. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Nomination of Deadbeat for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deadbeat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Deadbeat (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Old Sockpuppet Investigation
Hi there, I notice that you haven't been editing much lately, and I'm hoping that this will catch your eye. Do you remember the sockpuppet investigation of Xn4 in which you took part over three years ago? Well, I have a feeling that Xn4 has appeared again in the form of. I've provided some evidence on Talk:British_Raj. If you can help in any way, it would be great. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, user:RegentsPark has filed an SPI here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You're invited: Ada Lovelace, STEM women edit-a-thon at Harvard
Hello Cool Hand Luke,

can you please look at the webpage of Eric Dill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eric_Dill#Edit_request_on_2_November_2012

There are several facts proving that the notability of the singer. However, noone wants to return the previous version of the page. Can you please help me in this case? My email is dwdimov@abv.bg. If I you need any assistance or information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to receiving your comments!!!

Coming your way
I've sent you an email. Risker (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I will be updating the Patrick M. Byrne article and would like your support
His article seems famous on Wikipedia and a high point of controversy, I would like your support, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhalluka (talk • contribs) 09:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting
You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed in this discussion on Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie
Hi. Two editors are advocating for the exclusion of any mention in the Zeitgeist: The Movie article that Peter Joseph, the creator of that film has stated publicly that words attributed to him in a story cited as a source in the article misquoted him, and that he has not distanced himself from the ideas expressed in that film, as that cited source indicates. I have responded to their arguments, but neither of them has responded directly to my counterarguments, but simply repeat the same statements of theirs over and over. Myself and one other editor disagree with them, so two editors are for the material's inclusion, and two are for its exclusion, with no sign of consensus in sight. Can you please offer your viewpoint in the discussion so that we can achieve consensus? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:CongLinks
Template:CongLinks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikipedia Day @ MIT: Saturday Jan 18
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Average same-minute collisions with Mantanmoreland as function of correlation.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Need advice, please
I'm not familiar enough with the [rollback (vandal)] tag that's included at the top of the edit pages when you compare edits. I'm concerned that I'm being WP:TAGTEAM reverted, and WP:HOUNDED. I've been trying to take an article from a stub to a decent article, and my edits are constantly being reverted by the same editors over and over again. All the signs are there. I have requested mediation, but in the interim, I don't know how to protect my edits. Can you please advise? Atsme  &#9775;  talk  15:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's amazing what a newbie can learn if they'd actually listen to what seasoned editors are trying to tell them. The concerns I posted previously ^^^ look so silly to me now even though they seemed paramount at the time.  Hope it's ok that I did a strikethrough.  Atsme  &#9775;  talk  00:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're invited!
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

List of polygamy court cases
Based on your previous commentary at Category talk:Law related to Mormonism, would you be willing to look over the newish article List of polygamy court cases and the question on its talk page? — Asterisk *  Splat → 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)