User talk:Geogene/Archive 1

Barnstar for you

 * Hear hear. Do take care though not to use offensive language, be uncivil in any way, or edit war as there are those here who would not miss the opportunity to get you banned or blocked.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your posts
Hi Geogene. I just wanted to suggest that you tone down your rhetoric a bit. I was observing your posts on Talk:BP, and also your conversation with another editor above about a third party. You come across as an aggressive, partisan editor, with a strong POV and disdain for other editors, and also being somewhat on the insulting and abrasive side. Having a conversation about an unnamed editor as you do above, while probably not in breach of any policy, has a polarizing effect. I'm offering this advice in a friendly way. Feel free to delete if you disagree or feel it is out of line. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Figureofnine. You are not in any way out of line. You earned my respect the other day, but I am encouraging comments on my behavior from any party here, especially anyone I seem to be having trouble with. I may not agree but can only benefit from such feedback, positive or negative, because I have a lot more learning to do about protocols here. And I hope to work well with all of you, though we do seem to be off to a bad start. I believe some of this comes down to matters of perception. All editors have POV, but we all view POV through blinders that make our own invisible while exaggerating those of others with different views. My views seem to be a little different from the rest, and that's the ultimate source (from both directions) of tension. Being direct in addressing problems with an article can sometimes seem aggressive even if that is not my intent, although I have probably crossed that line any number of times in fact. Trying to make an article more neutral can be misinterpreted as partisanship, because it's hard to objectively define what is "neutral" with POV blinders on. On the other side, that someone accused me of being part of a conspiracy to bias a Federal court case is more than a little insulting and abrasive, and frankly it seems crazy. Doing it to other people habitually merits outside attention. Even if discussing how to handle those allegations is "polarizing", I don't know how that can be helped. I may be misinterpreting you, but the gist of that seems to be that I must tolerate abuse if I want other editors to be AGF towards me. I can't accept that. But I will be toning down the rhetoric. I hope that we can all work together to write better articles. Geogene (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a constructive answer, thank you. I was concerned by your most recent post in Talk:BP. The atmosphere there has soured to the point that I personally steer clear of it, and it has tended to sour me on Wikipedia generally. Please don't contribute to that. Using the "undo" tool also generates hard feelings. It is better to come to a compromise instead of just rolling back an edit you don't agree with. Your conversation on this page regarding the transgressions of an unnamed editor concerned me even more, whatever the provocation. What you seem to be doing is working with another editor to intimidate a third party, justifiably or not. That's all. I appreciate your cooperative attitude in addressing this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that you point that out I see what you mean, though I didn't intend it that way. I did hope the user we're disputing with would see things more from my viewpoint this way. The "undo" tool is just a tool, my additions get "undone" from time to time, usually for a good reason. But you're right, the fact that it pings makes it seem a little confrontational. Be advised I left you a reply in the Talk:BP thread as well that is more defensive. I think we have a opposing POV but you're a good editor, and I don't want to run you off. I don't want to run anybody off, but in one instance I feel like I was put in a situation that should get outside attention. We'll see if I can avoid being run off myself because the whole environment is souring on me too. I prefer less controversial subjects, and anything more controversial than this I avoid. Geogene (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Figureofnine, I can't speak for Geogene, and I've never participated at Talk:BP, but I assure you that I personally have absolutely no desire to intimidate anyone or to create a polarizing environment. In fact, my goal in the above conversation is to create a less intimidating, less polarizing environment in which editors having different POVs can resolve their disagreements civilly and productively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom?
Geogene, you once mentioned the possibility of asking Arbcom to arbitrate on the BP and related articles. My respose was that Arbcom will not arbitrate on content issues but, on reflection, I think that the anti-business, anti-oil pressure on WP is so important to its future and credibility that they may take on the case. There are also some editor behaviour issues such a page ownership and unsubstantiated claims of COI editing that they may look at too. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What would we be asking them for as far as content is concerned? I think that to address those issues would be good for Wikipedia, but I'm not so sure that the community realizes it. On the other issues, I am very interested in asking that the unsubstantiated COI claims be addressed, as I've found them to be bothersome, persistent, and known by everyone to be against the rules. In fact I believe that the community has tolerated them this long because they are generally associated with BP articles. Geogene (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding content, we would be would be asking that the article should be written in an encyclopedic style rather than be a vehicle to attack a company which some see as bad.


 * I thing Arbcom may well take action about the false COI claims, which have also been made against me and others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The root problem is that all editors are self-selected and so the majority of the edits will be done by the people that feel most strongly about the subject of the article. The Hitler and Pol Pot articles were written by history buffs. There are no corporation buffs, so corporate articles tend to be written by editors motivated by anti-corporate views. This is why articles about corporations can be more negative than those of genocidal dictators. I see no solution to this. WP's model is not perfect but I'm surprised it isn't much worse than it is.


 * I think that something BP-related will eventually go to ArbCom, and if it does I want to be part of it. I might or might not initiate such a submission, but a submission of one from me is not imminent. I will not submit something myself without coordination with you others. There might still be some other avenue of mediation that should be tried first. I doubt ArbCom will be interested in content especially after that RfC, which is unfortunate, because I have read the comments and am not impressed with the arguments presented. Today I was told I have been edit-warring, so I would best back away from this for a while. I'm not in a hurry. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As you rightly point out above, the problem here is larger than the BP article. For many contentious topics there are sets of editors on both sides, leaving the 'encyclopedists' holding the balance of power.  For business articles, may pro-business editors would be considered to have a COI and be discouraged from editing.  This leaves the anti-business, anti-oil editors free to take over articles.  I see this as a very serious threat to the authority and credibility of WP that fully deserves the attention of Arbcom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. How to go about it? Geogene (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
I saw an article in an actual newspaper which I thought was going to have a significant amount of information that could be added, but apparently not. Some of what was in the article was already there in a sense, but I don't think anyone wants to go through all the specifics of how the company feels it is being cheated and I don't feel comfortable trying to add anything to that.

On the other hand, a couple of other details were in that article and I tried to fit them in, but one didn't have an appropriate section already and the other may be all right where I put it. By creating a new section, I hope I started something that could be expanded on. I figure you have an interest in seeing that the article is expanded in appropriate ways.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that was just a back-and-forth where BP would certainly like the cleanup to be over, and the government says it's certainly not over. I'm not sure that has much significance in itself. If they're out of the penalty box for government leases now, that's probably notable, as an update to material already in the article. I would really like to know if BP's going to be resuming deepwater drilling in the Gulf, and especially if they're going to try drilling the Macondo Prospect again. Geogene (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks on ANI

 * For your information, it is considered to be a personal attack to accuse another contributor of having a mental illness or condition, particularly as a debating point.
 * Your ANI edit here did so regarding Petrachan47.
 * Without attempting to interfere with the general give and take of the ANI discussion, I would like to request that you redact or strike the portions of that comment making aspersions regarding mental condition.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I will do that, Georgewilliamherbert, but I hope that you or someone else will investigate the conduct between that person and myself over the past four months. I do not want to take this to ArbCom. I will strike it out because last time I redacted my own incivility I was accused of being "sneaky" and castigated for it for days. You have no idea. But thanks for reading that thread. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that all, Georgewilliamherbert? I see that you have not corrected anyone else. It's remarkable that I can never find an admin to hear my complaints but they're never far away for my incivility...or even to accuse me of things I haven't done. And there's plenty of incivility to go around there, and there has been for months. I hate to push this point, but I resent that other editors are allowed to cast aspersions on my motivations for weeks at a time. I resent having been told, by an admin, that nobody will be willing to hear my complaints, and that I'll have to take it ArbCom to find mediation. Yet admins appear out of the woodwork to accuse me of things I haven't even done, based on my timestamps! Why is that? Why the hell should I continue editing here anyway? All you get for it is abuse, day in and day out. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me put this in context... Accusing someone of having a mental condition is around an 8 on a 1-10 scale of seriousness, and is easy and obvious to spot.  Let us say this is a 2 on the difficulty scale of understanding and then intervening.  Trying to unravel 3+ months of multiparty argument and bad behavior on several pages, the worst of which seems to rise to about a seriousness of 6 by itself lacking bigger picture context, is about a 8 on the difficulty scale of understanding and then intervening, possibly 9.  The only factors which would make this worse would be more editors involved and sockpuppetry, I think.
 * Resolving that type of incident can take months of calendar time, and multiple person-weeks of effort to understand and then respond to appropriately (hundreds of person-hours).
 * If that is unsatisfactory to you, I don't have a good answer.
 * You have made a specific and possibly actionable complaint. I have not ignored it.  But it cannot be acted upon without due diligence and research.  I cannot at this time in any fair manner tell who started which, nor do I have anything approaching a coherent picture of who did what abuses, be they direct incivility or personal attacks, disruptive or obstructive editing, etc.  A quick overview makes me think *all* of you are to blame, but that sort of initial impression is unwise to act upon.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay...I see that you are being helpful, and I appreciate that. I also agree, basically, with your observations above. But what I'm hearing at my end is that this situation will never be resolved. I can accept that, but I don't have to like it. Geogene (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New Madrid Seismic Zone
I am concerned about the amount of material you have removed from this article, which has been relatively stable for a while until your recent editing. Are these changes absolutely necessary? Have you given every deletion the due consideration it deserves before removing the material? I trust that your knowledge of this subject is vastly superior to mine, so I'm not in a position to argue with your deletions on specific matters, but it does concern me that you, of all the editors who have passed through the article, seem to be the only one who sees a need for deletions of considerable size. BMK (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi BMK. What does it means when we say that an article is "stable"? What does it mean when we mention to someone else, in passing, that the article was "stable" before they decided to edit it? I think you've been involved in the article for longer than I have, but I thought it was fairly stable when I made these edits in 2009. (,, ?). I made a lot of changes in June of that year, and it returned to a state of "stability" when I was done. I'm going to take this to the NMSZ talk page and give some thoughts on why I did what I did today. That way we can discuss it with a potentially wider audience, and decide what ought to be added back. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please understand clearly, I am not saying that your edits were wrong -- if I thought that I would say so, unequivocally. My comment was not a passive-aggressive way of criticizing you, it was precisely what it appears to be: an editor concerned about the deletions being made to an article, and asking the deleting editor if they had carefully considered them. That you're taking your reasoning to the NMSZ talk page is fine, but, really, all you had to do was offer some assurances that your edits were well-considered. BMK (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I had a bad experience with the Stability Argument last time I heard it, but your concerns are reasonable. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

United States Senate Republican primary election in Mississippi, 2014
I saw your talk page edit here. []. I agree with you. It needs work. But what an interesting race. I have been meaning to doing some work on it. I would love it if you took a look at it.Casprings (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my unnecessarily snarky tone in that post, which I have since retracted. This article and my own partisan perspective encouraged me to look a little too hard for POV-tilt in the articles related to this election. But the RFC process that took place on the Chris McDaniel article showed consensus seeking and even-handedness that one would not find an article being interfered with by a campaign. I do have a sense of it being a little more about McDaniel, and his endorsements, and his battle with the "establishment". But I also must consider that that's a big part of the election's notability. I also feel like it is a little soft on the antics of some of his supporters, but I understand the desire to avoid attack pages takes precedence. Geogene (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My Mistake
I looked at the history on the wrong tab, and came up with March 2014. Sorry about that. Cadwallader (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah. For the record, I've never seen Talk page redactions from other editors before. I think the climate there is going downhill. Geogene (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Following up on your comment from BP Talk
Hi Geogene, I've been meaning to reply to the comment you left on the BP Talk page in mid-June about natural gas being included in BP's renewable energy investments. However, that conversation was recently archived so I'm leaving you a message here.

I wanted to let you know that I chose not to make an issue of it at the time but BP's natural gas operations is part of the company's Upstream business, not the Alternative Energy division. Therefore the $8.3 billion that BP has invested in alternative energy sources has primarily gone towards biofuels and wind, not natural gas. There was a discussion on the talk page last year about BP's alternative energy investments that discusses this in more detail. You can see that here if you're interested.

I also wanted to respond to your comment about whether the information about BP's alternative energy investments merits inclusion. Because the article currently discusses (in several locations) the fact that BP's investments in alternative energy are much smaller than its investments in oil and gas I think it is appropriate to at least explain more about the alternative energy investments somewhere in the article.

Hope this additional information is helpful to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Arturo. Thanks for clarifying those two points. I saw your Talk Page request regarding tar sands vs. oil sands. I don't have a strong opinion on either being preferred use. Neither is especially accurate and both seem to be used in the current literature. There are some strong opinions in the community against "oil sands" so it should have a clear consensus and be of considerable benefit to the article to make the change. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Also, if you haven't seen it, RockyMtnGuy made some informative, and I think, persuasive comments on the BP Talk page in response to my question about the Canadian tar/oil sands heading. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dog-attack photo
Hi, and thanks very much for your pointing out that the photo on the James Bevel page would need more data. I added it back with the photographers details from his page. I didn't know about Hudson, so have added him to the 'Photographers of the American civil rights movement' page as well, and added the movement template to his page. Please check out the changes and see if they are appropriate to what you're thinking. Good to meet you, and thanks for inspiring the addition of Hudson to the CRM photographers article. Randy Kryn 22:07 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding Hudson to the CR photographers' article, I'm surprised he wasn't already there, because that's such a powerful image. Thank you for correcting that oversight. My concerns with the photo in the James Bevel article are based on the minimal usage criterion for non-free imagery (as found here: WP:NFC) and the non-free content "unacceptable use" criterion #7 here: WP:NFC, that applies to photographs belonging to press agencies. Basically we avoid them to the extent that we can because of their commercial value; where we do display them they have to be a subject of sourced commentary in the article, to be sure that the Fair Use exemptions in copyright laws are satisfied. I'm not certain that the current use fully satisfies the WP guidelines, but your revision of the caption to include commentary is a definite improvement there. It describes the scene and clearly links the iconic photo to Bevel through his students. Geogene (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to know about Hudson's history. I wrote up a stub article for photographer James Karales awhile back, another man who took an iconic photo during the civil rights movement. Quite the picture, taken on the march from Selma to Montgomery. I wish Wikipedia could use that one on Karales' page, on the Selma march page, etc. I literally knew nothing about Hudson until your comment. I wonder if the young man in the photo is still alive (and those in other iconic photos from the era). Wonder what photos would have been gotten if everyone had a cell phone camera at the time (the dogs attacking from the students point of view)! Randy Kryn 22:22 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Raising the Flag at Ground Zero
I didn't understand your rationale for removing this image from the NYC article based on a fair use issue when it was directly wikilinked to an article with the same name and having the same photo - could you be mistaken here? Castncoot (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course. But my understanding is that the fair use criteria guidelines at WP:NFC apply to every instance in which the image is used, and each article in which a fair use image is displayed should have its own non-free-use rationale. The idea is that the number of places in which the image is displayed somewhere in Wikipedia is kept to a minimum, and only used in places where it's necessary and clearly covered by the educational fair use exemptions in copyright laws (where it's the subject of the article or a subject of sourced commentary). I don't think these requirements will be met in the New York City article, but the article about the image is fine. I don't necessarily agree with its usage in an article about a TV show episode, but that use seems to be consistent with the guidelines. Geogene (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight. Image swapped. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Before Building Consensus?
Hi Geogene, why are you deleting the Ashby page? Why not improve it? Also, shouldn't consensus be built before deleting a page? Regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'm not an administrator so I can't actually delete articles or files, and even the admins don't just go around deleting without consensus. Normally that's a long process. I nominated that page for speedy deletion, which only applies in some situations, and would allow any passing administrator that agreed with my nomination to delete it. In this case, an admin disagreed, and instead turned it back into a redirect page, protected the article to keep us from edit warring over it, and removed the intervening versions of the pages from the page history. Geogene (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, he did not disagree: he did agree with the deletion. He also took the time to explain the whole thing to me and it made sense: Ashby is only known for that one thing. I did propose to write a real article about him and show it to him before publishing it. I would just like for the story to be told, although my stub definitely seems not to be compliant with Wikipedia: I was simply not aware of that rule. --Mondschein English (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Question on images etc.
I have seen you knowledgeably address WP copyright issues in other places. I have a question (not a complaint) about the use of WHO (World Health Organization) graphics as UN policy on copyright issues do not appear to be the same as US gov policy. As an example this graophic https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_Africa_Ebola_treatment_centers.png is currently used in the 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak article. What such WHO grahics and under what conditions are useable? If you have the time, thanks for the info. Juan Riley (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Well, I nominated the example you gave for deletion at Wikimedia Commons because I noticed the WHO website asserts a copyright on their material and expresses a clear desire to control who uses it and for what purpose, even for non-commercial purposes . Commons material must be useable by anyone for any purpose. The only way I see to use that content at WP would probably be to try to get WHO to donate some images through the WP:OTRS system. There is a Fair Use system that can be used at WP, but the images would have to be unreasonably difficult/impossible to replace with any free equivalent, and I think that's unlikely to be met in this case. I think the best thing to do with that article is to scour the CDC websites where most of the content will probably be US-PD. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I will not however do anything with it. Was just trying to see if WHO stuff was as "usable" as CDC. Thanks again. Juan Riley (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Doh...what is US-PD if I might be so bold as to pick your mind again? Juan Riley (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind...figured it out to be Public Domain. Thanks again from a non-lawyer. Juan Riley (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Except, lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not a lawyer. Geogene (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to helpful to be a lawyer? Juan Riley (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Further Revert of MH 17 edits ?
Hi Geogene,

I just noticed that you partially reverted two edits from another wikipedian on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Those two edits completely removed the article's source for when the DSB preliminary report was published. Unless you have other reasons not to, would you consider reverting all of the two edits you partially reverted? (I am unsure if I can figure out how to do it myself, with a third (yours) edit there). Thanks either way. Lklundin (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it fixed? Geogene (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. For the actual (PDF) report as source I tried to use the 'dsbprelim' name to avoid duplicating the reference, but that source reference in now duplicated again. Further, the quote from page 30 of the report now is missing the word 'penetrated' and now has 'impacts' which is also found in the report. I think 'penetrated' is preferable, because it implies 'impacts'. Thanks for your interest. Lklundin (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice
RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, RGloucester, for this notification that is, most certainly not a warning, but is definitely a prelude to an AE. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no interest in that article, nor in that dispute. I merely figure that you should be made aware of these sanctions, as should all editors involved as such. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it before, so I'm aware that some people do use it as a warning. But I think this instance is linked to the AN/I report I made earlier today. If civility is restored in that article, you should visit it. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways: Request for comment because of deletion of referenced criticism sections
See: Talk:Solar_Roadways

Thoughts? Please comment on the article talk page. Thewhitebox (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Allen Forrest
please email me at (contact info redacted) and I will send you whatever you what ever information you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAllenForrest (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My opinion really doesn't matter--I can't withdraw my nomination now that there's a debate in progress. And I don't have the power to delete anything myself. What matters is whether there are reliable, independent sources on that page. Geogene (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Concord Center
The article is properly sourced and contains historical information. Your reasoning for deletion seems to be somewhat overaggressive and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhamAla (talk • contribs)
 * It's a routine process...and are you representing the city in some way here? Just curious. Geogene (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

JC Hall Lineillism
Dear Geogene, Perhaps you didn't read the article or the accompanying link to a larger article that was posted on JC Hall and his innovative Lineillism technique. I think that creating a new art form/ painting technique certainly merits an inclusion in Wikipedia.


 * I read that piece. Seems to be a local business journal dedicated to startups in Ohio. I would rather see substantial coverage in academic sources by art critics. When that happens, then it should be an article. Right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Geogene (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Art Critics have indeed confirmed it as a new and different technique. Hall is 82 and didn't feel well enough to stage a show in New York as some suggested. He had a thorough (more than 30 pieces) show that was extensively covered and written about. I fear your apprehensions are another sad example of someone thinking that accomplishments in art aren't legitimate if they don't happen in New York City. Once I am able to post more photos of his work and other articles, you will see that it certainly has merit - especially when you think about all of the lesser entries that have merited inclusion.

Alper Kucukural
Sorry, I did not notice it was a new page. Thanks for catching that. Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry my edit summary seemed harsh. Probably 99% of blanking is vandalism that needs reverting. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. An occasional reminder to be alert is good. Donner60 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Federal Relocation Services
Hello Geogene. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Federal Relocation Services, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the note. Geogene (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Lineillism
I have been traveling and shooting a documentary and I just saw that you were successful in deleting my first-ever entry to Wikipedia on Lineillism. You made false charges in your push to have the entry eliminated. The articles on JC Hall were published by journalists - NOT publicists or other PR people as you asserted. This is most disturbing. I also was quite taken aback by other assertions you made. Rest assured, I will continue to work on getting Jim Hall the online credit he deserves for his work. Oldfieldsteve (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. Geogene (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad COI Template Test Run
Hello, Geogene. We appreciate your concerns of possible conflict of interest editing, but if you believe that a Wikipedia user may be editing with a conflict of interest, please follow the procedure in the conflict of interest guideline.


 * Do not ever out an editor or personally identify them on Wikipedia!


 * Ask the editor in a civil manner whether they feel they have a conflict of interest related to the article.

If you are not satisfied with their answer:


 * File a report at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Editors there will be able to assist you.


 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's policies on harassment. Accusations of COI should not be used to gain leverage in a content dispute.

Geogene (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But will it mess up the formatting of later text... Geogene (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pings
Hi Geogene, add the following, exactly as you see it in read mode:

to your common.js. That should produce two little ping templates at the bottom of the edit window. See discussion here. I hope it works for you. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks! Geogene (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question
Some things are still ongoing. Atsme ☯  Consult  23:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, never. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is that how you spell "ongoing"? SMirC-wink.svg  See you at the article TP.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Second request to strike unfounded remarks at ANI
Geogene, Please don't leave the personal attacks against me without either striking them or providing evidence of their validity, as I have already asked. Once the ANI has closed, it may be too late to correct yourself and that would be unfortunate. You don't want a reputation for telling untruths at the administrators' noticeboard, and it does not look good that you deserted the thread after being asked for evidence. There is evidence of a long-standing resentment against me on this very talk page, and to use noticeboards to carry out revenge is a big no-no. Please be careful to make policy-based comments rather than opinions, and always leave evidence when making a claim about another editor. Thanks, and have a nice day,   petrarchan47  t  c   22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's true that bullies have thin skin. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note for future reference,, accusing me of "seeking revenge" for the remark in question, which was accompanied by evidence, is casting aspersions and a personal attack. Geogene (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification: Fringe Science topics
Geogene (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

HUH?
Georgene, I don't know if I did something horrible to you in a past life, but if I did, I don't recall it. My advise to you is to go research what a UFO is. Then when you finally realize that it just means we don't know WTF it is, you may lighten up here a bit. You are no more qualified to evaluate the goings on in a photograph than I am to becoming a Rocket Scientist by the first of May. You won. The picture has been removed from everywhere but my hometown's page as a night shot. I'm done. I wish you were too, though I will never understand your motives, and I'll never believe that this photo doesn't absolutely belong in all the articles I originally placed it in. However, I do see that I might have used more discretion in the captions under the photos, to better explain what an unexplained airborne object is with the scientific communities definition of it. Thus, you might have communicated with me and put this issue on the talk pages the photo was in, to let those in the know come to a consensus, before you just blurted out: "Looks like a Plane to me", and deleted it from everywhere. Not cool at all. This place can not only be educational, but fun as well when the established editors all work together-Pocketthis (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no 'r' in my username. But lots of people assume that there is, or should be, and that's understandable, just a little weird for me. As for the rest, we can agree to disagree and it's done. Geogene (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this personal. While it may be obvious to you that the image shows a UFO, that does not mean that it is a UFO. More importantly, at Wikipedia we can really only repeat what other (reliable sources) have already stated. This is why not just Geogene but a second editor chose to remove your addition of that image and its caption. And if those two had not done the removal, some other editors would surely have done it. So please try to not get upset with yourself or any other Wikipedian. After that, you could try to look for a different improvement to that article - or just do something else that you would like to do. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First, Thank You for the nice gesture here. Now your quote: "While it may be obvious to you that the image shows a UFO, that does not mean that it is a UFO". That is your statement concerning the image?? No harm meant, but you obviously don't know what a UFO is. A UFO means "We Don't yet know what it is". PERIOD. There has been at least five opinions of what that thing in the photo is, ranging from and airplane to a drone to who knows what. That is what makes it a UFO: Unidentified flying object. You and Geogene both think that a UFO is an alien ship from outer space. IT IS NOT. It's simply not been positively identified. I promise you guys one thing: I will never post in the UFO article again, unless I'm sitting next to ET. Thanks for the pleasant but slightly uniformed post-Pocketthis (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In my previous edit summary I hinted rather strongly (The Treachery of Images) at my point: You cannot look at and interpret a computer image and assume that it is the same as the physical object you believe it depicts. The uploader does not qualify as a reliable source and the photo itself even less so since the photo metadata shows it was processed with photoshop, which is specifically made to allow for alteration of an image. Please read on only after you have taken some time to reflect on this. OK. I try to separate my contributions to Wikipedia from my day-time job, which happens to be image analysis of astronomical data. I can guarantee you that a reliable source (e.g. a person like myself, except acting in an official capacity) would _not_ call _anything_ on the disputed photo a UFO. I would not object to analysing the photo for benefit of you and anyone else who might be interested, but again, without a reliable source for the photo, such an analysis would not change anything for the usage of the photo here on Wikipedia. Please try to accept that and move on. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Done.......the nicest word I've heard here in two days. Yes, (r) I thought it was the feminine of George...sorry. One last question: What is your area of expertise? I have a BA in music composition and photography. It still baffles me that you just deleted me without discussion. I never implied extraterrestrial. That was "your" perception. Our perceptions are not always correct, and they certainly aren't facts. We acquire them as we get older. Some are helpful, others hurtful. -Pocketthis (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It baffles you, Well, perhaps you could explain your mindset here:  and here . Why did you, in your words on the Fringe board, "treat them like vandals"? Since I'm still a topic of conversation there. Here's some more recent examples of your reversions:, , and here is a recent example of your hypocrisy  towards reversion. Why is it that you can revert everybody else, but you make a big deal out of anyone reverting you? Geogene (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets truly put it to rest now. The only reason you got mentioned in the other article, was because you got me there. Good luck, and happy editing-Pocketthis (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the easiest question I've had to answer all day: "Because they both were vandals". The first guy #10, put a dead, crushed, dried up cottontail in the gallery. That page is viewed almost exclusively by grammar school kids, and the wiseguy knew it. The second one: We have a major problem on the Sunset page that's been going on for years. Everyone with a camera wants their sunset photo on that page. As you know, that is impossible. Usually I edit out a photo that gets posted in the now full gallery, however, sometimes I have to revert to let a repeat offender know that we mean business. If you go to that guys talk page, as I did, you will see he is new, and is getting flack from everyone for posting photos that look like he shot with a Brownie. I have a policy I really try to stick to about not reverting established editors. I'll do an edit, or go to the talk page, but sometimes they leave you no choice. What shocked me about your reverts of my photos was that the photos had been up for months......no problems. Then One by one, article after article, down they went in 10 minutes. No one has ever pulled that on me before, and quite frankly, I didn't know how or what to do about it. I HATE going to an administrator and bitching. That wasn't going to happen. However, when I reverted you back......well we know the end of the story. You win and me and the public loses. Please don't try and compare your massive multiple revisions of my work, with an occasional revision of my own where I truly believe one is needed.


 * I don't care why you chose to make an issue of my behavior two hours after this issue was "done", but you did, and you can imagine what I think of that. Okay, so you're admitting that you still don't understand why you were wrong here, and think you're right. Even after a lot of people have tried to explain this to you. So...why should I have asked you nicely first? What would that have accomplished? Nothing. The only thing you seem to respect is numbers, and the only way I could get that was at a noticeboard. Frankly, I saved some time, and maybe some drama. Also, the photo I reverted of yours (there is only one) had been up since early March. "Months?" That's a stretch, don't exaggerate things. You seem to have a problem accepting criticism. You aren't the only one, but that will play badly here. Geogene (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing: quit telling lies about your fellow editors. This: is not a "dead, crushed, dried up cottontail". It's a painted depiction of a live rabbit, and a work of art on display in a museum. You weren't protecting the children from anything, and that editor doesn't seem to have been a vandal. What were you really doing there? Geogene (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, That "vandal", that put the "crushed/dead rabbit" in that article, is user:Janbat. According to the userpage, that's an institutional Wikipedian, who is doing cultural outreach here. Really, a "vandal"? Geogene (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The photo, is a DEAD rabbit lying on its side in the leaves. It has no place in the cottontail article. The following is a fact: "I am around cottontails all day here on my ranch". For the past 15 years, I've been feeding anywhere from 20-50 per day, twice a day, thus the close-up shots in the cottontail articles, and the "15 for dinner shot as well". The only time I have observed a rabbit lying completely on its side with its eyes open, is if it's been seriously ill or dead. They don't even sleep in that posture. I truly consider myself an expert on these animals, and wrote a fair share of the copy in two of the articles.

As far as what the difference would have been if you discussed the image on the talk page before reverting?....Or, came to my talk page to alert me of your intentions? All the difference. You went to that photo's details page, and one by one took it down from everywhere. You could have changed the caption on at least one of them and left it. You never told me what your area of expertise is. If you are a professional photo-annalist, I would have loved to hear your explanation of the airborne object. If you were an astronomer, I would like to hear your opinion on the meteor shower event. Then if you made a valid argument, I would have adjusted the captions, and deleted the photo myself. I admit, in hindsight, that I over reacted, and I apologize for that. It was a knee-jerk reaction, and at my advanced age I should be beyond those reflexes. All this now is just a waste of both of our times. You and your friend here don't like me. That's fine. There's a lot of that on a site like this. We all think we have the answers, and sometimes we don't, but we persist that we do. Ego is part of the human condition, and educated humans are the best examples of it. None of us are perfect, I'm sure not. I try to keep ego in check, but I must admit, I am proud of that photo, and to have it torn apart by encyclopedians who are jacks of all trades, and master of just some, is a far cry from due justice. Just like the guy who posted last and claims to name two of the stars in the shot, because they are relatively in the same area two of the meteors are. Yes, I've made mistakes, and yes, I have reverted hastily when it could have been avoided. However, a mass extinction of a photo from 5 articles was something I don't think you will find on my record. I forgive you. Please forgive me. What's done is done.

Wikipedia's reputation falls a bit short in the media's viewpoint as you know, and a lot of it has to do with our vetting. Of course when you advertise that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, you are in above your ankles already. However, I must admit that we do a damn good job in spite of ourselves, and our policies. I'll do my best to avoid you in the future. Been here almost 5 years and never heard of you until Wednesday. Perhaps it will be another 5 years until we speak again. Oh... one more thing: I suggest that you edit your user page, because it says you're on hiatus.-Enjoy your editing experiences here on Wikipedia-Pocketthis (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is what you want to protect the children from. THIS IMAGE:
 * [[File:Brooklyn Museum - The Cotton-Tail Rabbit among Dry Grasses and Leaves - Gerald H. Thayer - overall.jpg]]


 * It's hard to explain why you're misrepresenting this as being something horrible. I think it must be that, since all the other photos there are yours, you're trying to exclude it as some kind of competition. That's why articles like "Sunset" and "Sky" and "Storm" are all filling up with images from the Mojave Desert. Your images. Geogene (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes..that is a dead rabbit, and what possible use could it be on a site like cottontail? Let's talk about my images. Cottontail: I live with the little critters here, so I have images that would be almost impossible for anyone else to photograph. Rabbits run from humans. They don't run from me here. They love me because I feed them. Sunset: I have none in the gallery, and two in the article. Sky: I have no idea why no one else has added a photo to the sky gallery, I assure you it is not my doing. Storm: I have no more or less than anyone else. I can't help where I live. The weather patterns here are beautiful, and ever changing, and I'm lucky to live where I do, and be able to capture the beauty of the sky with my camera. Many experienced photographers post in the sky related articles. The only article that has been a nightmare has been Sunset. Before me, there was a self appointed guardian of that article, who would delete all but his own shots. Go to the talk page and read the photographer's comments about being mad that this fellow was deleting all of their photos, as well as mine. You will now find their photos in the Gallery. There wasn't even a gallery permitted on the page until this year. I was asked by them to post the photos of mine that I posted. Read the talk page. That's all I intend on commenting on in this regard. You are trying to provoke me again with words like "competition". Give it a rest. This is the absolute last comment you will find on this talk page by me. I'm exhausted. If you write more text here concerning our issues, you are writing to yourself, because I won't be back here. Even an apology from me wasn't enough for you. I just realized, after your antagonistic "competition" remarks, that I have been completely wasting my time here trying to communicate with you. After I answer your friends question below, I am DONE-Pocketthis (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You wrote "You never told me what your area of expertise is. If you are a professional photo-annalist, I would have loved to hear your explanation of the airborne object. If you were an astronomer, I would like to hear your opinion on the meteor shower event".
 * There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. You do not have to be an expert or a professional in a given field, in order to make good contributions to it on Wikipedia - all you need is enough knowledge to find good, on-topic sources and to quote them properly. That is a significant difference. Personally, I use Wikipedia a free writing class on writing in about eight languages (i.e. with free feed-back on what I write). If for example I were to write "photo-annalist", then someone will surely come along and demonstrate the difference between a writer of photo annals and one who performs an analysis of photos, i. e. a "photo analyst". And all of it for free. What a bargain.
 * On the topic of the "meteor shower event", I would much appreciate if you would take the time to describe one part of the contested image that you consider to self-evidently be part of the "meteor shower event" and not a UFO. Just curious. Thanks in advance. Lklundin (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to do the research, and add a citation. It's another to follow a photo to all of its articles, and make it extinct. No more comment on that will be made here by me.

If I understand your question above, you want me to comment on the meteor aspect of the photo, and not the UFO. There is nothing self evident in the photo regarding a meteor event. I concede that it will be argued as stars until the end of time. The only reason I say it is a meteor shower, is because "I witnessed it". It was the reason the camera was hurried outside on the tripod. When I saw a few more coming through the atmosphere, I hit the shutter. Other than what's on the image....I have no other credible argument. Thanks for the question.-Pocketthis (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Since you like that meteor shower photo, would you perhaps consider reading about star trails (and perhaps follow its link to Wikimedia Commons for lots of photos on that topic), take another look at the photo and then reconsider your answer? Later I can then comment on how the hurrying left a tiny but visible blemish on the otherwise very well made photo (in my opinion). Lklundin (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Starmus edits
I was flagged as a user who had edited Starmus articles, which is questionable seeing as how I am on the Board of Directors for the organisation. The account from which I made the edits is my own personal account, rather than our other account which has slightly more history. My son is being paid to make edits on these pages by the Starmus organisation, so I am unsure as to how to remove this conflict-of-interest flag on my user talk page without simply deleting it. Lincoln18612000 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a notification that the subject is being discussed on one of the noticeboards here, you can delete that and generally anything else on your user talk page if you wish. Being on the board of an organization whose article you edit is likely to be a conflict of interest, the use of multiple accounts, sharing accounts, and being paid by an organization to edit its articles are all usually violations of policy. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunguska event
I have set up a section on the Talk page of the article to discuss the geophysical hypothesis. Please also consider WP:BRD. TheSeven (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tornado/Toronado
Why did you accuse me of vandalism? I have been a Wikipedia user since 2009 and I have never been accused of being a vandal, though of course it's possible that I make mistakes, especially in the English Wiki, as English is not my first language. But was changing tornadoes to tornadoes really a mistake? Until yesterday the article "Toronado" was about Zorro's horse, and after moving it to Tornado (horse) I had to fix all the redirects; now I am trying to have "Toronado" speedy deleted so that I can move "Toronado (disambiguation)" to "Toronado". As for the article Mansfield, Ohio: isn't tornado (rather than "toronado") the correct singular form of "tornadoes"? --Newblackwhite (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in my carelessness I saw that as "Tornado" not "Toronado", which looked to me like the kind of small test edits vandals sometimes seem to make to test the system (I did not look at your edit history). I self-reverted and included an edit comment that your edit was definitely not vandalism. I will have to be more careful. Geogene (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the important thing is that we clarified the matter, and thanks for including that comment in your edit summary. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

NEXT?
Hey man, just wondering your reasoning for taking about the summary of the 6 projects the NEXT Foundation has been involved in? They are quite interesting and give people a sense of what Next Foundation is and does? Is that not what Wikipedia is meant to do? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it needs to be sourced. Reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the organization. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As in news articles on the projects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if the news source is considered mainstream / reliable per WP:SOURCE. Geogene (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, I've done that, all reliable sources. Hopefully that fixes the problem. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It also needs to be encyclopaedic, and wp:NOTPROMOTIONAL. Make sure you aren't copying or closely paraphrasing from the organisations  webpage, or indeed any other non-free sources. 220  of  Borg 23:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers guys, just getting the hang of it. Have added some more sources and deleted some more promotional content. Should make it quite reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of the sources added were press releases. And like last time, the article was full of WP:COPYVIOs. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox
Can you have a look at recent edits and the present state of the article: Fermi Paradox? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Fermi lunch story, specifically, I approve of the current version of it, and left a note on the talk page to that effect. I have some other thoughts about the article, but will get around to those in time. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just trying to get interested people to weigh in, and the lunch story is only part of my concern. I advocated for something short, but I accept your opinion as reasonable. I invite you, however, to have a look at the content in the hypothetical section: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree the article needs improvement. But it's hard since there are so many possible explanations. You can improve each of them, but it's hard to throw any out as "undue weight" or "fringe" since almost all have been proposed in reliable sources. Even organizing them is difficult since many explanations fit into more than one potential category. So let's all keep improving, but continue this conversation on the talk page, where it's more easily seen (and hopefully joined) by other editors. LouScheffer (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammerscale (archaeology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman. 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) 09:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

== 2015 Chattanooga Shootings ==

How do I ask for a consensus of administrators on my edit. I want a consensus of administrators on my edit, so that I am not accused of engaging in an edit war, or of violating the three reverts in 24 hours rule!

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Chattanooga Shootings
How do I ask for a consensus of administrators on my edit. I want a consensus of administrators on my edit, so that I am not accused of engaging in an edit war, or of violating the three reverts in 24 hours rule!

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. You can use the article's talk page here: to propose changes and see if people agree with you. That's how you get consensus (they don't have to be admins). Also, be careful not to keep making the same change if someone elses' edit changes your own (as that's the three-revert rule). This will help you avoid being in an edit war. I'm not an administrator, usually you don't have to get an admin's permission before making a change--just don't keep repeating the same edits if other people disagree with you. Geogene (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right
You're right. Upon inspection, I realize I did violate the 1RR rule. I don't normally edit controversial topics, so it didn't even occur to me to be wary of it. Mea culpa. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know....
...that regardless of the outcome of the case I filed at ANI, I hope you don't ever doubt your abilities as a writer who considers promotion to GA and FA as a significant accomplishment on WP. You are a good writer - don't let anyone convince you otherwise - but do listen to the criticism and always try to improve. Keep trekking forward to make mediocre articles GAs - it does count and it should never be used against you as others have tried to do to me. You are doing the right thing by improving the encyclopedia. Atsme 📞📧 23:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On meteor incandescence
Hi Geogene, I just wanted you to take a look at the entry that I made at Talk:Meteoroid. This is not my technical area, but the matter of meteor incandescence appears to need a more authoritative citation. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Largest Artificial Non-Nuclear Explosions
Greetings, I noticed that you removed my contribution to Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions (Eddystone explosion) as well as a couple of others, with the comment that "some of these don't belong here - looking for blocks leveled, ships sunk, etc."

I can appreciate your POV on that, but that is a personal assessment on your part. However, upon reflection, I agree that the article should be exclusive, no matter what the specific criteria are - after all, it is a list of largest artificial non-nuclear explosions; I think we can agree that a list of "largest" loses its value if it balloons to the "largest 100" or "largest 200" or some such.

My more significant concern is, on that basis, why not also remove the Silvertown, Split Rock, or Quickborn explosions from the list, which were contemporaries of Eddystone and were comparable in scale, damage and death toll? Is there reason to believe these events were more devastating than Eddystone? I'm interested in understanding your specific mindset at removing some entries while leaving others in place.

Regards, Apostle — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApostleGreen (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right that it's just personal opinion, but is "largest explosions" ever formally defined? Silverton: "The blast was felt across London and Essex and was heard over 100 mi (160 km) away, with the resulting fires visible for 30 mi (48 km)." (I doubt that, but it would make it a very large explosion if true.) Split Rock: "Approximately 1–3 tons of TNT" (near my arbitrary cutoff of 1 ton). Quickborn: I nearly got that one too, but the academic source made me think twice. (It probably doesn't belong.) Eddystone was very tragic, but most those killed were in a single room, and according to the source (findagrave) the factory was back in production two weeks later. A related issue is that, as far as I know, findagrave itself isn't considered a very reliable source. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Good points and food for thought... much appreciated. Cheers!
 * ApostleGreen (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid rumor
97kaylum1: Is the asteroid gonna hit earth on September 24, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * No, that's just a false rumor. But there are always rumors like that out on the Internet so some people that edit that article talked about whether the article should mention it, and most agreed that it might be better just to not mention it at all. Geogene (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page confusion
Can you move this comment to the correct section? It's getting very confusing. I think you meant it to go to one of the threads related to wording, not the one about 11 million cars in the lead. Also, might want to read this -- it was cited in the article about 3 hours ago, and VW confessed to intentional deception. They did so formally, and "went over written details provided to the participants explaining how software used in its diesel cars was able to manipulate emissions tests in the United States." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment is in the appropriate section -- which discusses the first sentence in the lead. Do you have the transcript of what Volkswagen admitted to? Geogene (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Transcript? Why would I want to use a primary source? We normally want to use secondary sources to provide us with an interpenetration. See WP:ANALYSIS. Even if we had the transcript, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Reuters is our secondary source, giving us our interpretation. Which is they got caught illegally cheating. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * because I want to know exactly what VW "admitted" to, and you should be interested in that as well. Now, there's something I think I need to point out to you. When you shop around for the most salacious accusations you can find, and use them preferentially to the bulk of RS, that's a POV push. On that talk page I see you arguing with multiple editors about wording. You've argued for hours to use "cheat", "illegal", etc., over more encyclopedic wording. This is unusual. Why do you care? Geogene (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then cite something else. NYT, Reuters, NPR, WaPo, Telegraph, Guardian. I thought I was citing the most mainstream, unbaised sources possible. I don't think you have to "shop around" to find a Reuters article; they're like the oldest, largest news service on Earth, no? I've repeatedly asked you to cite anyone who doubts it was cheating, or doubts it was illegal, or doubts they got caught cheating. Please go over to the talk page and post your citations of which source you think are better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea is to extract information from sources, not words or style. The argument seems to be over what wording is encyclopedic. You seem to be outnumbered. I don't care enough to be that involved. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not outnumbered, and anyway it's not a vote. You act like you care -- at least by the duck test. All this time spent commenting looks like caring. I only came here to your talk page because I thought you should move your comment to a new section and it would be rude if I did it without asking. I really think it would help if you would cite sources that share your position, or at least admit that your wording and tone do not conform with the vast majority of mainstream news media. I would be very happy to admit I am wrong if there are in fact other reliable sources who present a different point of view. My motivation is grounded in the fact that sources are speaking with one voice here. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate being shown those citations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I get accused of being a shill on a fairly regular basis. Interestingly, in every single instance, it was a frustrated POV pusher that did the accusing. That's more or less what I think I see here. Be careful that you don't offend me to the point where I do seriously oppose you there. Geogene (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't see the relevance. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured. Is English not your native language? I feel like perhaps this is due to misreading words somewhere. Maybe when you see these news media the meaning of them strikes you differently. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you just don't understand that quote in context. Geogene (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. If you ever find any sources you can cite that are contrary to the ones I've given, please share them over at the emissions violations talk page. I would be grateful for them, since I myself can't find any at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
''You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms'' arbitration case: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

The speedy deletion article.
The man was the oldest living man at the time of his death, he is most certainly notable. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in 2007 because sources couldn't be found. There are still no sources. But if a few reliable sources are produced (enough for a stub bio) then it won't get deleted. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Same pattern with other editors?
MarlinespikeMate and Science-ToDaMax. Typing from phone, so can't add to possible sock puppet list. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen in the archived cases, I expect there are about five active socks. But I haven't seen those and don't have any others in mind. Geogene (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)/Archives/

}}
 * format=Y/F
 * age=300

Barnstar for you

 * Hear hear. Do take care though not to use offensive language, be uncivil in any way, or edit war as there are those here who would not miss the opportunity to get you banned or blocked.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your posts
Hi Geogene. I just wanted to suggest that you tone down your rhetoric a bit. I was observing your posts on Talk:BP, and also your conversation with another editor above about a third party. You come across as an aggressive, partisan editor, with a strong POV and disdain for other editors, and also being somewhat on the insulting and abrasive side. Having a conversation about an unnamed editor as you do above, while probably not in breach of any policy, has a polarizing effect. I'm offering this advice in a friendly way. Feel free to delete if you disagree or feel it is out of line. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Figureofnine. You are not in any way out of line. You earned my respect the other day, but I am encouraging comments on my behavior from any party here, especially anyone I seem to be having trouble with. I may not agree but can only benefit from such feedback, positive or negative, because I have a lot more learning to do about protocols here. And I hope to work well with all of you, though we do seem to be off to a bad start. I believe some of this comes down to matters of perception. All editors have POV, but we all view POV through blinders that make our own invisible while exaggerating those of others with different views. My views seem to be a little different from the rest, and that's the ultimate source (from both directions) of tension. Being direct in addressing problems with an article can sometimes seem aggressive even if that is not my intent, although I have probably crossed that line any number of times in fact. Trying to make an article more neutral can be misinterpreted as partisanship, because it's hard to objectively define what is "neutral" with POV blinders on. On the other side, that someone accused me of being part of a conspiracy to bias a Federal court case is more than a little insulting and abrasive, and frankly it seems crazy. Doing it to other people habitually merits outside attention. Even if discussing how to handle those allegations is "polarizing", I don't know how that can be helped. I may be misinterpreting you, but the gist of that seems to be that I must tolerate abuse if I want other editors to be AGF towards me. I can't accept that. But I will be toning down the rhetoric. I hope that we can all work together to write better articles. Geogene (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a constructive answer, thank you. I was concerned by your most recent post in Talk:BP. The atmosphere there has soured to the point that I personally steer clear of it, and it has tended to sour me on Wikipedia generally. Please don't contribute to that. Using the "undo" tool also generates hard feelings. It is better to come to a compromise instead of just rolling back an edit you don't agree with. Your conversation on this page regarding the transgressions of an unnamed editor concerned me even more, whatever the provocation. What you seem to be doing is working with another editor to intimidate a third party, justifiably or not. That's all. I appreciate your cooperative attitude in addressing this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that you point that out I see what you mean, though I didn't intend it that way. I did hope the user we're disputing with would see things more from my viewpoint this way. The "undo" tool is just a tool, my additions get "undone" from time to time, usually for a good reason. But you're right, the fact that it pings makes it seem a little confrontational. Be advised I left you a reply in the Talk:BP thread as well that is more defensive. I think we have a opposing POV but you're a good editor, and I don't want to run you off. I don't want to run anybody off, but in one instance I feel like I was put in a situation that should get outside attention. We'll see if I can avoid being run off myself because the whole environment is souring on me too. I prefer less controversial subjects, and anything more controversial than this I avoid. Geogene (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Figureofnine, I can't speak for Geogene, and I've never participated at Talk:BP, but I assure you that I personally have absolutely no desire to intimidate anyone or to create a polarizing environment. In fact, my goal in the above conversation is to create a less intimidating, less polarizing environment in which editors having different POVs can resolve their disagreements civilly and productively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom?
Geogene, you once mentioned the possibility of asking Arbcom to arbitrate on the BP and related articles. My respose was that Arbcom will not arbitrate on content issues but, on reflection, I think that the anti-business, anti-oil pressure on WP is so important to its future and credibility that they may take on the case. There are also some editor behaviour issues such a page ownership and unsubstantiated claims of COI editing that they may look at too. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What would we be asking them for as far as content is concerned? I think that to address those issues would be good for Wikipedia, but I'm not so sure that the community realizes it. On the other issues, I am very interested in asking that the unsubstantiated COI claims be addressed, as I've found them to be bothersome, persistent, and known by everyone to be against the rules. In fact I believe that the community has tolerated them this long because they are generally associated with BP articles. Geogene (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding content, we would be would be asking that the article should be written in an encyclopedic style rather than be a vehicle to attack a company which some see as bad.


 * I thing Arbcom may well take action about the false COI claims, which have also been made against me and others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The root problem is that all editors are self-selected and so the majority of the edits will be done by the people that feel most strongly about the subject of the article. The Hitler and Pol Pot articles were written by history buffs. There are no corporation buffs, so corporate articles tend to be written by editors motivated by anti-corporate views. This is why articles about corporations can be more negative than those of genocidal dictators. I see no solution to this. WP's model is not perfect but I'm surprised it isn't much worse than it is.


 * I think that something BP-related will eventually go to ArbCom, and if it does I want to be part of it. I might or might not initiate such a submission, but a submission of one from me is not imminent. I will not submit something myself without coordination with you others. There might still be some other avenue of mediation that should be tried first. I doubt ArbCom will be interested in content especially after that RfC, which is unfortunate, because I have read the comments and am not impressed with the arguments presented. Today I was told I have been edit-warring, so I would best back away from this for a while. I'm not in a hurry. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As you rightly point out above, the problem here is larger than the BP article. For many contentious topics there are sets of editors on both sides, leaving the 'encyclopedists' holding the balance of power.  For business articles, may pro-business editors would be considered to have a COI and be discouraged from editing.  This leaves the anti-business, anti-oil editors free to take over articles.  I see this as a very serious threat to the authority and credibility of WP that fully deserves the attention of Arbcom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. How to go about it? Geogene (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
I saw an article in an actual newspaper which I thought was going to have a significant amount of information that could be added, but apparently not. Some of what was in the article was already there in a sense, but I don't think anyone wants to go through all the specifics of how the company feels it is being cheated and I don't feel comfortable trying to add anything to that.

On the other hand, a couple of other details were in that article and I tried to fit them in, but one didn't have an appropriate section already and the other may be all right where I put it. By creating a new section, I hope I started something that could be expanded on. I figure you have an interest in seeing that the article is expanded in appropriate ways.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think that was just a back-and-forth where BP would certainly like the cleanup to be over, and the government says it's certainly not over. I'm not sure that has much significance in itself. If they're out of the penalty box for government leases now, that's probably notable, as an update to material already in the article. I would really like to know if BP's going to be resuming deepwater drilling in the Gulf, and especially if they're going to try drilling the Macondo Prospect again. Geogene (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks on ANI

 * For your information, it is considered to be a personal attack to accuse another contributor of having a mental illness or condition, particularly as a debating point.
 * Your ANI edit here did so regarding Petrachan47.
 * Without attempting to interfere with the general give and take of the ANI discussion, I would like to request that you redact or strike the portions of that comment making aspersions regarding mental condition.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I will do that, Georgewilliamherbert, but I hope that you or someone else will investigate the conduct between that person and myself over the past four months. I do not want to take this to ArbCom. I will strike it out because last time I redacted my own incivility I was accused of being "sneaky" and castigated for it for days. You have no idea. But thanks for reading that thread. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that all, Georgewilliamherbert? I see that you have not corrected anyone else. It's remarkable that I can never find an admin to hear my complaints but they're never far away for my incivility...or even to accuse me of things I haven't done. And there's plenty of incivility to go around there, and there has been for months. I hate to push this point, but I resent that other editors are allowed to cast aspersions on my motivations for weeks at a time. I resent having been told, by an admin, that nobody will be willing to hear my complaints, and that I'll have to take it ArbCom to find mediation. Yet admins appear out of the woodwork to accuse me of things I haven't even done, based on my timestamps! Why is that? Why the hell should I continue editing here anyway? All you get for it is abuse, day in and day out. Geogene (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me put this in context... Accusing someone of having a mental condition is around an 8 on a 1-10 scale of seriousness, and is easy and obvious to spot.  Let us say this is a 2 on the difficulty scale of understanding and then intervening.  Trying to unravel 3+ months of multiparty argument and bad behavior on several pages, the worst of which seems to rise to about a seriousness of 6 by itself lacking bigger picture context, is about a 8 on the difficulty scale of understanding and then intervening, possibly 9.  The only factors which would make this worse would be more editors involved and sockpuppetry, I think.
 * Resolving that type of incident can take months of calendar time, and multiple person-weeks of effort to understand and then respond to appropriately (hundreds of person-hours).
 * If that is unsatisfactory to you, I don't have a good answer.
 * You have made a specific and possibly actionable complaint. I have not ignored it.  But it cannot be acted upon without due diligence and research.  I cannot at this time in any fair manner tell who started which, nor do I have anything approaching a coherent picture of who did what abuses, be they direct incivility or personal attacks, disruptive or obstructive editing, etc.  A quick overview makes me think *all* of you are to blame, but that sort of initial impression is unwise to act upon.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay...I see that you are being helpful, and I appreciate that. I also agree, basically, with your observations above. But what I'm hearing at my end is that this situation will never be resolved. I can accept that, but I don't have to like it. Geogene (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coati, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New Madrid Seismic Zone
I am concerned about the amount of material you have removed from this article, which has been relatively stable for a while until your recent editing. Are these changes absolutely necessary? Have you given every deletion the due consideration it deserves before removing the material? I trust that your knowledge of this subject is vastly superior to mine, so I'm not in a position to argue with your deletions on specific matters, but it does concern me that you, of all the editors who have passed through the article, seem to be the only one who sees a need for deletions of considerable size. BMK (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi BMK. What does it means when we say that an article is "stable"? What does it mean when we mention to someone else, in passing, that the article was "stable" before they decided to edit it? I think you've been involved in the article for longer than I have, but I thought it was fairly stable when I made these edits in 2009. (,, ?). I made a lot of changes in June of that year, and it returned to a state of "stability" when I was done. I'm going to take this to the NMSZ talk page and give some thoughts on why I did what I did today. That way we can discuss it with a potentially wider audience, and decide what ought to be added back. Geogene (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please understand clearly, I am not saying that your edits were wrong -- if I thought that I would say so, unequivocally. My comment was not a passive-aggressive way of criticizing you, it was precisely what it appears to be: an editor concerned about the deletions being made to an article, and asking the deleting editor if they had carefully considered them. That you're taking your reasoning to the NMSZ talk page is fine, but, really, all you had to do was offer some assurances that your edits were well-considered. BMK (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I had a bad experience with the Stability Argument last time I heard it, but your concerns are reasonable. Geogene (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

United States Senate Republican primary election in Mississippi, 2014
I saw your talk page edit here. []. I agree with you. It needs work. But what an interesting race. I have been meaning to doing some work on it. I would love it if you took a look at it.Casprings (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my unnecessarily snarky tone in that post, which I have since retracted. This article and my own partisan perspective encouraged me to look a little too hard for POV-tilt in the articles related to this election. But the RFC process that took place on the Chris McDaniel article showed consensus seeking and even-handedness that one would not find an article being interfered with by a campaign. I do have a sense of it being a little more about McDaniel, and his endorsements, and his battle with the "establishment". But I also must consider that that's a big part of the election's notability. I also feel like it is a little soft on the antics of some of his supporters, but I understand the desire to avoid attack pages takes precedence. Geogene (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My Mistake
I looked at the history on the wrong tab, and came up with March 2014. Sorry about that. Cadwallader (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah. For the record, I've never seen Talk page redactions from other editors before. I think the climate there is going downhill. Geogene (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Following up on your comment from BP Talk
Hi Geogene, I've been meaning to reply to the comment you left on the BP Talk page in mid-June about natural gas being included in BP's renewable energy investments. However, that conversation was recently archived so I'm leaving you a message here.

I wanted to let you know that I chose not to make an issue of it at the time but BP's natural gas operations is part of the company's Upstream business, not the Alternative Energy division. Therefore the $8.3 billion that BP has invested in alternative energy sources has primarily gone towards biofuels and wind, not natural gas. There was a discussion on the talk page last year about BP's alternative energy investments that discusses this in more detail. You can see that here if you're interested.

I also wanted to respond to your comment about whether the information about BP's alternative energy investments merits inclusion. Because the article currently discusses (in several locations) the fact that BP's investments in alternative energy are much smaller than its investments in oil and gas I think it is appropriate to at least explain more about the alternative energy investments somewhere in the article.

Hope this additional information is helpful to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Arturo. Thanks for clarifying those two points. I saw your Talk Page request regarding tar sands vs. oil sands. I don't have a strong opinion on either being preferred use. Neither is especially accurate and both seem to be used in the current literature. There are some strong opinions in the community against "oil sands" so it should have a clear consensus and be of considerable benefit to the article to make the change. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Also, if you haven't seen it, RockyMtnGuy made some informative, and I think, persuasive comments on the BP Talk page in response to my question about the Canadian tar/oil sands heading. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Dog-attack photo
Hi, and thanks very much for your pointing out that the photo on the James Bevel page would need more data. I added it back with the photographers details from his page. I didn't know about Hudson, so have added him to the 'Photographers of the American civil rights movement' page as well, and added the movement template to his page. Please check out the changes and see if they are appropriate to what you're thinking. Good to meet you, and thanks for inspiring the addition of Hudson to the CRM photographers article. Randy Kryn 22:07 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding Hudson to the CR photographers' article, I'm surprised he wasn't already there, because that's such a powerful image. Thank you for correcting that oversight. My concerns with the photo in the James Bevel article are based on the minimal usage criterion for non-free imagery (as found here: WP:NFC) and the non-free content "unacceptable use" criterion #7 here: WP:NFC, that applies to photographs belonging to press agencies. Basically we avoid them to the extent that we can because of their commercial value; where we do display them they have to be a subject of sourced commentary in the article, to be sure that the Fair Use exemptions in copyright laws are satisfied. I'm not certain that the current use fully satisfies the WP guidelines, but your revision of the caption to include commentary is a definite improvement there. It describes the scene and clearly links the iconic photo to Bevel through his students. Geogene (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to know about Hudson's history. I wrote up a stub article for photographer James Karales awhile back, another man who took an iconic photo during the civil rights movement. Quite the picture, taken on the march from Selma to Montgomery. I wish Wikipedia could use that one on Karales' page, on the Selma march page, etc. I literally knew nothing about Hudson until your comment. I wonder if the young man in the photo is still alive (and those in other iconic photos from the era). Wonder what photos would have been gotten if everyone had a cell phone camera at the time (the dogs attacking from the students point of view)! Randy Kryn 22:22 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Raising the Flag at Ground Zero
I didn't understand your rationale for removing this image from the NYC article based on a fair use issue when it was directly wikilinked to an article with the same name and having the same photo - could you be mistaken here? Castncoot (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course. But my understanding is that the fair use criteria guidelines at WP:NFC apply to every instance in which the image is used, and each article in which a fair use image is displayed should have its own non-free-use rationale. The idea is that the number of places in which the image is displayed somewhere in Wikipedia is kept to a minimum, and only used in places where it's necessary and clearly covered by the educational fair use exemptions in copyright laws (where it's the subject of the article or a subject of sourced commentary). I don't think these requirements will be met in the New York City article, but the article about the image is fine. I don't necessarily agree with its usage in an article about a TV show episode, but that use seems to be consistent with the guidelines. Geogene (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight. Image swapped. Best, Castncoot (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion Before Building Consensus?
Hi Geogene, why are you deleting the Ashby page? Why not improve it? Also, shouldn't consensus be built before deleting a page? Regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'm not an administrator so I can't actually delete articles or files, and even the admins don't just go around deleting without consensus. Normally that's a long process. I nominated that page for speedy deletion, which only applies in some situations, and would allow any passing administrator that agreed with my nomination to delete it. In this case, an admin disagreed, and instead turned it back into a redirect page, protected the article to keep us from edit warring over it, and removed the intervening versions of the pages from the page history. Geogene (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, he did not disagree: he did agree with the deletion. He also took the time to explain the whole thing to me and it made sense: Ashby is only known for that one thing. I did propose to write a real article about him and show it to him before publishing it. I would just like for the story to be told, although my stub definitely seems not to be compliant with Wikipedia: I was simply not aware of that rule. --Mondschein English (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Question on images etc.
I have seen you knowledgeably address WP copyright issues in other places. I have a question (not a complaint) about the use of WHO (World Health Organization) graphics as UN policy on copyright issues do not appear to be the same as US gov policy. As an example this graophic https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:West_Africa_Ebola_treatment_centers.png is currently used in the 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak article. What such WHO grahics and under what conditions are useable? If you have the time, thanks for the info. Juan Riley (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Well, I nominated the example you gave for deletion at Wikimedia Commons because I noticed the WHO website asserts a copyright on their material and expresses a clear desire to control who uses it and for what purpose, even for non-commercial purposes . Commons material must be useable by anyone for any purpose. The only way I see to use that content at WP would probably be to try to get WHO to donate some images through the WP:OTRS system. There is a Fair Use system that can be used at WP, but the images would have to be unreasonably difficult/impossible to replace with any free equivalent, and I think that's unlikely to be met in this case. I think the best thing to do with that article is to scour the CDC websites where most of the content will probably be US-PD. Geogene (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I will not however do anything with it. Was just trying to see if WHO stuff was as "usable" as CDC. Thanks again. Juan Riley (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Doh...what is US-PD if I might be so bold as to pick your mind again? Juan Riley (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind...figured it out to be Public Domain. Thanks again from a non-lawyer. Juan Riley (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Except, lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not a lawyer. Geogene (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to helpful to be a lawyer? Juan Riley (talk) 02:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Further Revert of MH 17 edits ?
Hi Geogene,

I just noticed that you partially reverted two edits from another wikipedian on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Those two edits completely removed the article's source for when the DSB preliminary report was published. Unless you have other reasons not to, would you consider reverting all of the two edits you partially reverted? (I am unsure if I can figure out how to do it myself, with a third (yours) edit there). Thanks either way. Lklundin (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it fixed? Geogene (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really. For the actual (PDF) report as source I tried to use the 'dsbprelim' name to avoid duplicating the reference, but that source reference in now duplicated again. Further, the quote from page 30 of the report now is missing the word 'penetrated' and now has 'impacts' which is also found in the report. I think 'penetrated' is preferable, because it implies 'impacts'. Thanks for your interest. Lklundin (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice
RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, RGloucester, for this notification that is, most certainly not a warning, but is definitely a prelude to an AE. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no interest in that article, nor in that dispute. I merely figure that you should be made aware of these sanctions, as should all editors involved as such. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen it before, so I'm aware that some people do use it as a warning. But I think this instance is linked to the AN/I report I made earlier today. If civility is restored in that article, you should visit it. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways: Request for comment because of deletion of referenced criticism sections
See: Talk:Solar_Roadways

Thoughts? Please comment on the article talk page. Thewhitebox (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Allen Forrest
please email me at (contact info redacted) and I will send you whatever you what ever information you need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAllenForrest (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My opinion really doesn't matter--I can't withdraw my nomination now that there's a debate in progress. And I don't have the power to delete anything myself. What matters is whether there are reliable, independent sources on that page. Geogene (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Concord Center
The article is properly sourced and contains historical information. Your reasoning for deletion seems to be somewhat overaggressive and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BhamAla (talk • contribs)
 * It's a routine process...and are you representing the city in some way here? Just curious. Geogene (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

JC Hall Lineillism
Dear Geogene, Perhaps you didn't read the article or the accompanying link to a larger article that was posted on JC Hall and his innovative Lineillism technique. I think that creating a new art form/ painting technique certainly merits an inclusion in Wikipedia.


 * I read that piece. Seems to be a local business journal dedicated to startups in Ohio. I would rather see substantial coverage in academic sources by art critics. When that happens, then it should be an article. Right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Geogene (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Art Critics have indeed confirmed it as a new and different technique. Hall is 82 and didn't feel well enough to stage a show in New York as some suggested. He had a thorough (more than 30 pieces) show that was extensively covered and written about. I fear your apprehensions are another sad example of someone thinking that accomplishments in art aren't legitimate if they don't happen in New York City. Once I am able to post more photos of his work and other articles, you will see that it certainly has merit - especially when you think about all of the lesser entries that have merited inclusion.

Alper Kucukural
Sorry, I did not notice it was a new page. Thanks for catching that. Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry my edit summary seemed harsh. Probably 99% of blanking is vandalism that needs reverting. Geogene (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. An occasional reminder to be alert is good. Donner60 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Federal Relocation Services
Hello Geogene. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Federal Relocation Services, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for the note. Geogene (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Lineillism
I have been traveling and shooting a documentary and I just saw that you were successful in deleting my first-ever entry to Wikipedia on Lineillism. You made false charges in your push to have the entry eliminated. The articles on JC Hall were published by journalists - NOT publicists or other PR people as you asserted. This is most disturbing. I also was quite taken aback by other assertions you made. Rest assured, I will continue to work on getting Jim Hall the online credit he deserves for his work. Oldfieldsteve (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. Geogene (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad COI Template Test Run
Hello, Geogene. We appreciate your concerns of possible conflict of interest editing, but if you believe that a Wikipedia user may be editing with a conflict of interest, please follow the procedure in the conflict of interest guideline.


 * Do not ever out an editor or personally identify them on Wikipedia!


 * Ask the editor in a civil manner whether they feel they have a conflict of interest related to the article.

If you are not satisfied with their answer:


 * File a report at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Editors there will be able to assist you.


 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's policies on harassment. Accusations of COI should not be used to gain leverage in a content dispute.

Geogene (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * But will it mess up the formatting of later text... Geogene (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pings
Hi Geogene, add the following, exactly as you see it in read mode:

to your common.js. That should produce two little ping templates at the bottom of the edit window. See discussion here. I hope it works for you. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks! Geogene (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer your question
Some things are still ongoing. Atsme ☯  Consult  23:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, never. Geogene (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is that how you spell "ongoing"? SMirC-wink.svg  See you at the article TP.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  00:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Second request to strike unfounded remarks at ANI
Geogene, Please don't leave the personal attacks against me without either striking them or providing evidence of their validity, as I have already asked. Once the ANI has closed, it may be too late to correct yourself and that would be unfortunate. You don't want a reputation for telling untruths at the administrators' noticeboard, and it does not look good that you deserted the thread after being asked for evidence. There is evidence of a long-standing resentment against me on this very talk page, and to use noticeboards to carry out revenge is a big no-no. Please be careful to make policy-based comments rather than opinions, and always leave evidence when making a claim about another editor. Thanks, and have a nice day,   petrarchan47  t  c   22:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess it's true that bullies have thin skin. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note for future reference,, accusing me of "seeking revenge" for the remark in question, which was accompanied by evidence, is casting aspersions and a personal attack. Geogene (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Notification: Fringe Science topics
Geogene (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

HUH?
Georgene, I don't know if I did something horrible to you in a past life, but if I did, I don't recall it. My advise to you is to go research what a UFO is. Then when you finally realize that it just means we don't know WTF it is, you may lighten up here a bit. You are no more qualified to evaluate the goings on in a photograph than I am to becoming a Rocket Scientist by the first of May. You won. The picture has been removed from everywhere but my hometown's page as a night shot. I'm done. I wish you were too, though I will never understand your motives, and I'll never believe that this photo doesn't absolutely belong in all the articles I originally placed it in. However, I do see that I might have used more discretion in the captions under the photos, to better explain what an unexplained airborne object is with the scientific communities definition of it. Thus, you might have communicated with me and put this issue on the talk pages the photo was in, to let those in the know come to a consensus, before you just blurted out: "Looks like a Plane to me", and deleted it from everywhere. Not cool at all. This place can not only be educational, but fun as well when the established editors all work together-Pocketthis (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no 'r' in my username. But lots of people assume that there is, or should be, and that's understandable, just a little weird for me. As for the rest, we can agree to disagree and it's done. Geogene (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this personal. While it may be obvious to you that the image shows a UFO, that does not mean that it is a UFO. More importantly, at Wikipedia we can really only repeat what other (reliable sources) have already stated. This is why not just Geogene but a second editor chose to remove your addition of that image and its caption. And if those two had not done the removal, some other editors would surely have done it. So please try to not get upset with yourself or any other Wikipedian. After that, you could try to look for a different improvement to that article - or just do something else that you would like to do. All the best, Lklundin (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * First, Thank You for the nice gesture here. Now your quote: "While it may be obvious to you that the image shows a UFO, that does not mean that it is a UFO". That is your statement concerning the image?? No harm meant, but you obviously don't know what a UFO is. A UFO means "We Don't yet know what it is". PERIOD. There has been at least five opinions of what that thing in the photo is, ranging from and airplane to a drone to who knows what. That is what makes it a UFO: Unidentified flying object. You and Geogene both think that a UFO is an alien ship from outer space. IT IS NOT. It's simply not been positively identified. I promise you guys one thing: I will never post in the UFO article again, unless I'm sitting next to ET. Thanks for the pleasant but slightly uniformed post-Pocketthis (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In my previous edit summary I hinted rather strongly (The Treachery of Images) at my point: You cannot look at and interpret a computer image and assume that it is the same as the physical object you believe it depicts. The uploader does not qualify as a reliable source and the photo itself even less so since the photo metadata shows it was processed with photoshop, which is specifically made to allow for alteration of an image. Please read on only after you have taken some time to reflect on this. OK. I try to separate my contributions to Wikipedia from my day-time job, which happens to be image analysis of astronomical data. I can guarantee you that a reliable source (e.g. a person like myself, except acting in an official capacity) would _not_ call _anything_ on the disputed photo a UFO. I would not object to analysing the photo for benefit of you and anyone else who might be interested, but again, without a reliable source for the photo, such an analysis would not change anything for the usage of the photo here on Wikipedia. Please try to accept that and move on. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Done.......the nicest word I've heard here in two days. Yes, (r) I thought it was the feminine of George...sorry. One last question: What is your area of expertise? I have a BA in music composition and photography. It still baffles me that you just deleted me without discussion. I never implied extraterrestrial. That was "your" perception. Our perceptions are not always correct, and they certainly aren't facts. We acquire them as we get older. Some are helpful, others hurtful. -Pocketthis (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It baffles you, Well, perhaps you could explain your mindset here:  and here . Why did you, in your words on the Fringe board, "treat them like vandals"? Since I'm still a topic of conversation there. Here's some more recent examples of your reversions:, , and here is a recent example of your hypocrisy  towards reversion. Why is it that you can revert everybody else, but you make a big deal out of anyone reverting you? Geogene (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets truly put it to rest now. The only reason you got mentioned in the other article, was because you got me there. Good luck, and happy editing-Pocketthis (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the easiest question I've had to answer all day: "Because they both were vandals". The first guy #10, put a dead, crushed, dried up cottontail in the gallery. That page is viewed almost exclusively by grammar school kids, and the wiseguy knew it. The second one: We have a major problem on the Sunset page that's been going on for years. Everyone with a camera wants their sunset photo on that page. As you know, that is impossible. Usually I edit out a photo that gets posted in the now full gallery, however, sometimes I have to revert to let a repeat offender know that we mean business. If you go to that guys talk page, as I did, you will see he is new, and is getting flack from everyone for posting photos that look like he shot with a Brownie. I have a policy I really try to stick to about not reverting established editors. I'll do an edit, or go to the talk page, but sometimes they leave you no choice. What shocked me about your reverts of my photos was that the photos had been up for months......no problems. Then One by one, article after article, down they went in 10 minutes. No one has ever pulled that on me before, and quite frankly, I didn't know how or what to do about it. I HATE going to an administrator and bitching. That wasn't going to happen. However, when I reverted you back......well we know the end of the story. You win and me and the public loses. Please don't try and compare your massive multiple revisions of my work, with an occasional revision of my own where I truly believe one is needed.


 * I don't care why you chose to make an issue of my behavior two hours after this issue was "done", but you did, and you can imagine what I think of that. Okay, so you're admitting that you still don't understand why you were wrong here, and think you're right. Even after a lot of people have tried to explain this to you. So...why should I have asked you nicely first? What would that have accomplished? Nothing. The only thing you seem to respect is numbers, and the only way I could get that was at a noticeboard. Frankly, I saved some time, and maybe some drama. Also, the photo I reverted of yours (there is only one) had been up since early March. "Months?" That's a stretch, don't exaggerate things. You seem to have a problem accepting criticism. You aren't the only one, but that will play badly here. Geogene (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing: quit telling lies about your fellow editors. This: is not a "dead, crushed, dried up cottontail". It's a painted depiction of a live rabbit, and a work of art on display in a museum. You weren't protecting the children from anything, and that editor doesn't seem to have been a vandal. What were you really doing there? Geogene (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, That "vandal", that put the "crushed/dead rabbit" in that article, is user:Janbat. According to the userpage, that's an institutional Wikipedian, who is doing cultural outreach here. Really, a "vandal"? Geogene (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The photo, is a DEAD rabbit lying on its side in the leaves. It has no place in the cottontail article. The following is a fact: "I am around cottontails all day here on my ranch". For the past 15 years, I've been feeding anywhere from 20-50 per day, twice a day, thus the close-up shots in the cottontail articles, and the "15 for dinner shot as well". The only time I have observed a rabbit lying completely on its side with its eyes open, is if it's been seriously ill or dead. They don't even sleep in that posture. I truly consider myself an expert on these animals, and wrote a fair share of the copy in two of the articles.

As far as what the difference would have been if you discussed the image on the talk page before reverting?....Or, came to my talk page to alert me of your intentions? All the difference. You went to that photo's details page, and one by one took it down from everywhere. You could have changed the caption on at least one of them and left it. You never told me what your area of expertise is. If you are a professional photo-annalist, I would have loved to hear your explanation of the airborne object. If you were an astronomer, I would like to hear your opinion on the meteor shower event. Then if you made a valid argument, I would have adjusted the captions, and deleted the photo myself. I admit, in hindsight, that I over reacted, and I apologize for that. It was a knee-jerk reaction, and at my advanced age I should be beyond those reflexes. All this now is just a waste of both of our times. You and your friend here don't like me. That's fine. There's a lot of that on a site like this. We all think we have the answers, and sometimes we don't, but we persist that we do. Ego is part of the human condition, and educated humans are the best examples of it. None of us are perfect, I'm sure not. I try to keep ego in check, but I must admit, I am proud of that photo, and to have it torn apart by encyclopedians who are jacks of all trades, and master of just some, is a far cry from due justice. Just like the guy who posted last and claims to name two of the stars in the shot, because they are relatively in the same area two of the meteors are. Yes, I've made mistakes, and yes, I have reverted hastily when it could have been avoided. However, a mass extinction of a photo from 5 articles was something I don't think you will find on my record. I forgive you. Please forgive me. What's done is done.

Wikipedia's reputation falls a bit short in the media's viewpoint as you know, and a lot of it has to do with our vetting. Of course when you advertise that "anyone can edit" Wikipedia, you are in above your ankles already. However, I must admit that we do a damn good job in spite of ourselves, and our policies. I'll do my best to avoid you in the future. Been here almost 5 years and never heard of you until Wednesday. Perhaps it will be another 5 years until we speak again. Oh... one more thing: I suggest that you edit your user page, because it says you're on hiatus.-Enjoy your editing experiences here on Wikipedia-Pocketthis (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is what you want to protect the children from. THIS IMAGE:
 * [[File:Brooklyn Museum - The Cotton-Tail Rabbit among Dry Grasses and Leaves - Gerald H. Thayer - overall.jpg]]


 * It's hard to explain why you're misrepresenting this as being something horrible. I think it must be that, since all the other photos there are yours, you're trying to exclude it as some kind of competition. That's why articles like "Sunset" and "Sky" and "Storm" are all filling up with images from the Mojave Desert. Your images. Geogene (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes..that is a dead rabbit, and what possible use could it be on a site like cottontail? Let's talk about my images. Cottontail: I live with the little critters here, so I have images that would be almost impossible for anyone else to photograph. Rabbits run from humans. They don't run from me here. They love me because I feed them. Sunset: I have none in the gallery, and two in the article. Sky: I have no idea why no one else has added a photo to the sky gallery, I assure you it is not my doing. Storm: I have no more or less than anyone else. I can't help where I live. The weather patterns here are beautiful, and ever changing, and I'm lucky to live where I do, and be able to capture the beauty of the sky with my camera. Many experienced photographers post in the sky related articles. The only article that has been a nightmare has been Sunset. Before me, there was a self appointed guardian of that article, who would delete all but his own shots. Go to the talk page and read the photographer's comments about being mad that this fellow was deleting all of their photos, as well as mine. You will now find their photos in the Gallery. There wasn't even a gallery permitted on the page until this year. I was asked by them to post the photos of mine that I posted. Read the talk page. That's all I intend on commenting on in this regard. You are trying to provoke me again with words like "competition". Give it a rest. This is the absolute last comment you will find on this talk page by me. I'm exhausted. If you write more text here concerning our issues, you are writing to yourself, because I won't be back here. Even an apology from me wasn't enough for you. I just realized, after your antagonistic "competition" remarks, that I have been completely wasting my time here trying to communicate with you. After I answer your friends question below, I am DONE-Pocketthis (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You wrote "You never told me what your area of expertise is. If you are a professional photo-annalist, I would have loved to hear your explanation of the airborne object. If you were an astronomer, I would like to hear your opinion on the meteor shower event".
 * There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. You do not have to be an expert or a professional in a given field, in order to make good contributions to it on Wikipedia - all you need is enough knowledge to find good, on-topic sources and to quote them properly. That is a significant difference. Personally, I use Wikipedia a free writing class on writing in about eight languages (i.e. with free feed-back on what I write). If for example I were to write "photo-annalist", then someone will surely come along and demonstrate the difference between a writer of photo annals and one who performs an analysis of photos, i. e. a "photo analyst". And all of it for free. What a bargain.
 * On the topic of the "meteor shower event", I would much appreciate if you would take the time to describe one part of the contested image that you consider to self-evidently be part of the "meteor shower event" and not a UFO. Just curious. Thanks in advance. Lklundin (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's one thing to do the research, and add a citation. It's another to follow a photo to all of its articles, and make it extinct. No more comment on that will be made here by me.

If I understand your question above, you want me to comment on the meteor aspect of the photo, and not the UFO. There is nothing self evident in the photo regarding a meteor event. I concede that it will be argued as stars until the end of time. The only reason I say it is a meteor shower, is because "I witnessed it". It was the reason the camera was hurried outside on the tripod. When I saw a few more coming through the atmosphere, I hit the shutter. Other than what's on the image....I have no other credible argument. Thanks for the question.-Pocketthis (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Since you like that meteor shower photo, would you perhaps consider reading about star trails (and perhaps follow its link to Wikimedia Commons for lots of photos on that topic), take another look at the photo and then reconsider your answer? Later I can then comment on how the hurrying left a tiny but visible blemish on the otherwise very well made photo (in my opinion). Lklundin (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Starmus edits
I was flagged as a user who had edited Starmus articles, which is questionable seeing as how I am on the Board of Directors for the organisation. The account from which I made the edits is my own personal account, rather than our other account which has slightly more history. My son is being paid to make edits on these pages by the Starmus organisation, so I am unsure as to how to remove this conflict-of-interest flag on my user talk page without simply deleting it. Lincoln18612000 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a notification that the subject is being discussed on one of the noticeboards here, you can delete that and generally anything else on your user talk page if you wish. Being on the board of an organization whose article you edit is likely to be a conflict of interest, the use of multiple accounts, sharing accounts, and being paid by an organization to edit its articles are all usually violations of policy. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunguska event
I have set up a section on the Talk page of the article to discuss the geophysical hypothesis. Please also consider WP:BRD. TheSeven (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tornado/Toronado
Why did you accuse me of vandalism? I have been a Wikipedia user since 2009 and I have never been accused of being a vandal, though of course it's possible that I make mistakes, especially in the English Wiki, as English is not my first language. But was changing tornadoes to tornadoes really a mistake? Until yesterday the article "Toronado" was about Zorro's horse, and after moving it to Tornado (horse) I had to fix all the redirects; now I am trying to have "Toronado" speedy deleted so that I can move "Toronado (disambiguation)" to "Toronado". As for the article Mansfield, Ohio: isn't tornado (rather than "toronado") the correct singular form of "tornadoes"? --Newblackwhite (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in my carelessness I saw that as "Tornado" not "Toronado", which looked to me like the kind of small test edits vandals sometimes seem to make to test the system (I did not look at your edit history). I self-reverted and included an edit comment that your edit was definitely not vandalism. I will have to be more careful. Geogene (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the important thing is that we clarified the matter, and thanks for including that comment in your edit summary. --Newblackwhite (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

NEXT?
Hey man, just wondering your reasoning for taking about the summary of the 6 projects the NEXT Foundation has been involved in? They are quite interesting and give people a sense of what Next Foundation is and does? Is that not what Wikipedia is meant to do? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, it needs to be sourced. Reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the organization. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

As in news articles on the projects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if the news source is considered mainstream / reliable per WP:SOURCE. Geogene (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, I've done that, all reliable sources. Hopefully that fixes the problem. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It also needs to be encyclopaedic, and wp:NOTPROMOTIONAL. Make sure you aren't copying or closely paraphrasing from the organisations  webpage, or indeed any other non-free sources. 220  of  Borg 23:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers guys, just getting the hang of it. Have added some more sources and deleted some more promotional content. Should make it quite reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardhkrishna (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of the sources added were press releases. And like last time, the article was full of WP:COPYVIOs. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fermi Paradox
Can you have a look at recent edits and the present state of the article: Fermi Paradox? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean the Fermi lunch story, specifically, I approve of the current version of it, and left a note on the talk page to that effect. I have some other thoughts about the article, but will get around to those in time. Geogene (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just trying to get interested people to weigh in, and the lunch story is only part of my concern. I advocated for something short, but I accept your opinion as reasonable. I invite you, however, to have a look at the content in the hypothetical section: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree the article needs improvement. But it's hard since there are so many possible explanations. You can improve each of them, but it's hard to throw any out as "undue weight" or "fringe" since almost all have been proposed in reliable sources. Even organizing them is difficult since many explanations fit into more than one potential category. So let's all keep improving, but continue this conversation on the talk page, where it's more easily seen (and hopefully joined) by other editors. LouScheffer (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hammerscale (archaeology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roman. 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) 09:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

== 2015 Chattanooga Shootings ==

How do I ask for a consensus of administrators on my edit. I want a consensus of administrators on my edit, so that I am not accused of engaging in an edit war, or of violating the three reverts in 24 hours rule!

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Chattanooga Shootings
How do I ask for a consensus of administrators on my edit. I want a consensus of administrators on my edit, so that I am not accused of engaging in an edit war, or of violating the three reverts in 24 hours rule!

Hardcoreromancatholic (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. You can use the article's talk page here: to propose changes and see if people agree with you. That's how you get consensus (they don't have to be admins). Also, be careful not to keep making the same change if someone elses' edit changes your own (as that's the three-revert rule). This will help you avoid being in an edit war. I'm not an administrator, usually you don't have to get an admin's permission before making a change--just don't keep repeating the same edits if other people disagree with you. Geogene (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You're right
You're right. Upon inspection, I realize I did violate the 1RR rule. I don't normally edit controversial topics, so it didn't even occur to me to be wary of it. Mea culpa. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know....
...that regardless of the outcome of the case I filed at ANI, I hope you don't ever doubt your abilities as a writer who considers promotion to GA and FA as a significant accomplishment on WP. You are a good writer - don't let anyone convince you otherwise - but do listen to the criticism and always try to improve. Keep trekking forward to make mediocre articles GAs - it does count and it should never be used against you as others have tried to do to me. You are doing the right thing by improving the encyclopedia. Atsme 📞📧 23:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On meteor incandescence
Hi Geogene, I just wanted you to take a look at the entry that I made at Talk:Meteoroid. This is not my technical area, but the matter of meteor incandescence appears to need a more authoritative citation. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Largest Artificial Non-Nuclear Explosions
Greetings, I noticed that you removed my contribution to Largest artificial non-nuclear explosions (Eddystone explosion) as well as a couple of others, with the comment that "some of these don't belong here - looking for blocks leveled, ships sunk, etc."

I can appreciate your POV on that, but that is a personal assessment on your part. However, upon reflection, I agree that the article should be exclusive, no matter what the specific criteria are - after all, it is a list of largest artificial non-nuclear explosions; I think we can agree that a list of "largest" loses its value if it balloons to the "largest 100" or "largest 200" or some such.

My more significant concern is, on that basis, why not also remove the Silvertown, Split Rock, or Quickborn explosions from the list, which were contemporaries of Eddystone and were comparable in scale, damage and death toll? Is there reason to believe these events were more devastating than Eddystone? I'm interested in understanding your specific mindset at removing some entries while leaving others in place.

Regards, Apostle — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApostleGreen (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right that it's just personal opinion, but is "largest explosions" ever formally defined? Silverton: "The blast was felt across London and Essex and was heard over 100 mi (160 km) away, with the resulting fires visible for 30 mi (48 km)." (I doubt that, but it would make it a very large explosion if true.) Split Rock: "Approximately 1–3 tons of TNT" (near my arbitrary cutoff of 1 ton). Quickborn: I nearly got that one too, but the academic source made me think twice. (It probably doesn't belong.) Eddystone was very tragic, but most those killed were in a single room, and according to the source (findagrave) the factory was back in production two weeks later. A related issue is that, as far as I know, findagrave itself isn't considered a very reliable source. Geogene (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Good points and food for thought... much appreciated. Cheers!
 * ApostleGreen (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid rumor
97kaylum1: Is the asteroid gonna hit earth on September 24, 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * No, that's just a false rumor. But there are always rumors like that out on the Internet so some people that edit that article talked about whether the article should mention it, and most agreed that it might be better just to not mention it at all. Geogene (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page confusion
Can you move this comment to the correct section? It's getting very confusing. I think you meant it to go to one of the threads related to wording, not the one about 11 million cars in the lead. Also, might want to read this -- it was cited in the article about 3 hours ago, and VW confessed to intentional deception. They did so formally, and "went over written details provided to the participants explaining how software used in its diesel cars was able to manipulate emissions tests in the United States." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment is in the appropriate section -- which discusses the first sentence in the lead. Do you have the transcript of what Volkswagen admitted to? Geogene (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Transcript? Why would I want to use a primary source? We normally want to use secondary sources to provide us with an interpenetration. See WP:ANALYSIS. Even if we had the transcript, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Reuters is our secondary source, giving us our interpretation. Which is they got caught illegally cheating. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * because I want to know exactly what VW "admitted" to, and you should be interested in that as well. Now, there's something I think I need to point out to you. When you shop around for the most salacious accusations you can find, and use them preferentially to the bulk of RS, that's a POV push. On that talk page I see you arguing with multiple editors about wording. You've argued for hours to use "cheat", "illegal", etc., over more encyclopedic wording. This is unusual. Why do you care? Geogene (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then cite something else. NYT, Reuters, NPR, WaPo, Telegraph, Guardian. I thought I was citing the most mainstream, unbaised sources possible. I don't think you have to "shop around" to find a Reuters article; they're like the oldest, largest news service on Earth, no? I've repeatedly asked you to cite anyone who doubts it was cheating, or doubts it was illegal, or doubts they got caught cheating. Please go over to the talk page and post your citations of which source you think are better. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea is to extract information from sources, not words or style. The argument seems to be over what wording is encyclopedic. You seem to be outnumbered. I don't care enough to be that involved. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not outnumbered, and anyway it's not a vote. You act like you care -- at least by the duck test. All this time spent commenting looks like caring. I only came here to your talk page because I thought you should move your comment to a new section and it would be rude if I did it without asking. I really think it would help if you would cite sources that share your position, or at least admit that your wording and tone do not conform with the vast majority of mainstream news media. I would be very happy to admit I am wrong if there are in fact other reliable sources who present a different point of view. My motivation is grounded in the fact that sources are speaking with one voice here. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate being shown those citations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I get accused of being a shill on a fairly regular basis. Interestingly, in every single instance, it was a frustrated POV pusher that did the accusing. That's more or less what I think I see here. Be careful that you don't offend me to the point where I do seriously oppose you there. Geogene (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Carl Sagan. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't see the relevance. Geogene (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured. Is English not your native language? I feel like perhaps this is due to misreading words somewhere. Maybe when you see these news media the meaning of them strikes you differently. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you just don't understand that quote in context. Geogene (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. If you ever find any sources you can cite that are contrary to the ones I've given, please share them over at the emissions violations talk page. I would be grateful for them, since I myself can't find any at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
''You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms'' arbitration case: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

The speedy deletion article.
The man was the oldest living man at the time of his death, he is most certainly notable. DN-boards1 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in 2007 because sources couldn't be found. There are still no sources. But if a few reliable sources are produced (enough for a stub bio) then it won't get deleted. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Same pattern with other editors?
MarlinespikeMate and Science-ToDaMax. Typing from phone, so can't add to possible sock puppet list. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen in the archived cases, I expect there are about five active socks. But I haven't seen those and don't have any others in mind. Geogene (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

delete this timeline?
Timeline of Solar System astronomy. It is too long and has only three references when clearly there should be 20x more or something. I'm not sure if it's a reason to consider it for deletion... Huritisho 02:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right about it needing more than three references, but that's a different problem from notability. Notability means that some subjects, including people, are too obscure to be a topic for the encyclopedia. I don't think we should delete Timeline of Solar System astronomy, it is notable enough that it should have an article, and potential sources are out there. Geogene (talk) 02:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Astronomy meets Popular Culture
I am sorry about the reception of your nomination at Articles for deletion/Tabetha S. Boyajian. I was going to put my two cents in and should have done so when I first saw it. Not that it would have made any difference. It is too soon for her as an academic, and one event as a discovery (multiple newspaper articles from one press release add up to one source). But people get excited about it. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Geogene. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Not even wrong

 * anybody who edits from a neutral perspective (meaning: aligned with the view of most scientists) is either going to be driven off or will be really unpopular and make a lot of enemies.

I'm afraid your assumptions are erroneous. There is, for example, no relationship of any kind between NPOV and SPOV. For you to make such a claim tells me you need to read the actual policies. Further, I glanced at your recent edit summaries and contributions. You appear to be editing under a number of outdated notions. For example, you recently claimed that panspermia was fringe. Panspermia has not been considered a "fringe" theory for almost 20 years. I'm curious, do you get out much? Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that the dinosaurs were made extinct by Space AIDS? Because that's the context of my edit you're disputing. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not sure how seriously I should take your definition of fringe. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. I'm just pointing out that I read and follow the space science literature, and that the concept of panspermia is not fringe as you claim. Whether the idea has been misused by an editor in an inappropriate context, I have no opinion about. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the edit you're commenting on . One of the problems with that content is that some of it was fringe: that some virus or bacteria might have been on the K/T asteroid that was lethal to dinosaurs. You came here to claim otherwise, I'd have thought you'd read it first, even though I understand the real problem you have with my edit history is that we're supporting opposing sides in an ARBCOM case. Geogene (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at your edit and I still haven't looked at it, because I'm busy working. I just noted that your claim that panspermia is a fringe theory in the edit summary is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that if the specific claim is that life *might* have come from Mars to Earth in a meteorite, that wouldn't be fringe. I think that if the specific claim were that H5N1 flu came to Earth in a meteorite a few years ago, that would be very fringe. Both claims could be called panspermia. Geogene (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Geogene!


Happy New Year! Geogene, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

The IP addresses
It is ultimately the contributor's choice how a user uses IP addresses on Wikipedia. I am not saying that these are your IP addresses on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster, but if they are, I wanted to let you know that referring to yourself as an IP address after a comment by your account has confused me. I am not saying there's a rule against this, but it can confuse users. Plus, it is highly recommended on most wikis to use an account instead of an IP. I am not saying there's anything wrong with it, keep doing what you want to do, but I'm just saying the IP use made me a bit confused and maybe you could clarify that these IPs are linked to this account? Or if you want to hide that they are linked to this account, then not use the IPs in discussions so much? Just a suggestion.

If these IPs are not yours then this doesn't apply to you so you don't even have to respond to or read this message at all if you haven't a desire to do that. I just suspected that they were due to the closeness of the comments in the discussion and due to similar opinions. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those comments are very similar so they do look like I was editing logged out, but that's actually a different user. You're probably not the only one wondering about that, so I'll append a note to that effect after my most recent comments on that talk page. Geogene (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Societal Collapse, Sub Replacement Fertility, Fermi Paradox
The overcrowding hypothesis can be verified in this NIMH published article.

http://tomax7.com/HeyGod/misc/MousePopulationStudy.PDF

promet14Promet14 (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to watch the article talk pages. Geogene (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Role in biological and ecological systems
Your deletion of the edit below, justified by a claim that the content of the the text was original research, is patently untrue. All claims are substantiated by the authors of the cited papers. On what grounds are these findings original research? Shall I have quoted passages from the cited text directly?

"Carbon-based fulgurites, produced directly on biomass, such as wood, or as scavenged biogenic (humic), sediment, or precipitation (atmosphere-derived) carbon, are now known to exist; these are termed phytofulgurites. Carbon fixation can thus be achieved directly through a physical pathway within thunderstorms and in sediments. Reduction of metals and other elements in fulgurites may not require the oxidation of carbon, however, and boron or carbon may be involved with metals in a reciprocally-complex redox catalytic system.   In a phytofulgurite found in Russia - the type specimen - abundant non-racemic amino acids, with preference for left-handed chirality, and other organic compounds (complex hydrocarbons) have been analytically-identified, although there is still uncertainty as to which fraction had survived the extreme electro-pyrolytic conditions, or conversely, had been authigenically-synthesized during its electro-pyrometamorphic formation. The long-term survivability of chiral organic compounds native to organisms has been demonstrated reliably in carbonaceous chondrites such as the Murchison, a CM chondrite. Reduced phosphorus as phosphides and phosphites have been identified through quantitative analyses of a representative sample of 10 fulgurites recovered from most continents, in the form of schreibersite (Fe3P, (Fe,Ni)3P) - terrestrially extremely rare, but common on meteorites, comets, interplanetary dust, and some planetary bodies - and TiP, which is unique to fulgurites. Reduced phosphorus species were necessary for the development of DNA and RNA in proto-biotic systems that eventually emerged as primitive life, and is essential for the production of ATP, among other key functions in cellular physiology - availability of which within ecosystems is a critical factor that effectively limits population growth. There is also experimental evidence that lightning is responsible for greater than 50% of all terrestrial nitrogen fixation. "

The Star of Bethlehem
Hello Geogene, you recently deleted the section on dating the birth of Christ under a claim of it being "cruft". Instead of it being useless, it has been long viewed as among the most important issues in determining what, if anything, the Star of Bethlehem was. Knowing where in the sky to look depends on the date of Herod's death. I encourage you to revert your text deletion. If you do not understand how Herod's death is involved, I will be happy to discuss it with you. Al Leluia81 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. The subsection should probably be modified so that point is clear. It wasn't obvious to me at the time. Geogene (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. The theme runs through the entire subject but it is not currently brought out in the article. In this article astronomer Bidelman says, "It's really all tied up with the time of the death of Herod ...". Eventually I hope to bring it out. Nice meeting you. Al Leluia81 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist influences on Christianity
Hi, I saw you reverted me on Buddhist influences on Christianity. That was not original research and all of those facts are definitely common knowledge among any reliable academic research. Did you read any of the actual links? This stuff is not even slightly questionable. If you want me to add links that can easily be found in the other material, I can do so, but that looks rather noisy in the lead. Look forward to feedback. Thanks! Lipsquid (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Lipsquid. Let's talk about this . The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament that was translated into Greek for the benefit of Hellenized Jews living in Alexandria. This translation was popular in ancient times but is generally not used by Jews or Christians today because there are better sources available, although Christianity itself is having trouble dealing with the fact that it has canonized some of those mistranslations. I'm not sure if the Greek dialect it is in is Koine or not but that is the original language of the entire New Testament. Koine was never the lingua franca of the entire Middle East-I consider the Middle East to include the entire Arabian peninsula, for example-though it was the language that most early Christians used. The content is unsourced and so looks like OR to bolster some connection between Buddhism and Christianity. Geogene (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. Koine Greek The first and second lines of the article state:
 * "Hellenistic Koiné", in the sense of "Hellenistic supraregional language"), was the common supra-regional form of Greek spoken and written during Hellenistic and Roman antiquity. It developed through the spread of Greek following the conquests of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BC, and served as the common lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East during the following centuries.

Here is a map to help out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koin%C3%A9_language#/media/File:MacedonEmpire.jpg
 * Here is an additional reference used https://books.google.com/books?id=WrQxT4sk2x8C&lpg=PA8&ots=V4pAYGXPnw&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * Additionally both the Old Testament was translated from Koine Greek and the New Testament was written entirely in Koine Greek even though many of the writers were in fact located in the Middle East.
 * "Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Greek Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:

The Septuagint, a 3rd-century BC Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and texts not included in the Hebrew Bible; The Greek New Testament, compiled originally in Greek.
 * I already said I didn't make any OR regardless of how it looks and I obviously have the facts to back up what I said. Unsourced material is rather common in leads as long as the article contains the asserted information.  It keeps things clean looking.  Would you like it with more sources in the lead?  Expand other sections, what would you like to see?  Thanks again for the feedback! Lipsquid (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you're right about Koine being the language of the Middle East, and of the Septuagint. I can't find the text in question in the body, can you quote it? Geogene (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that it requires some previous knowledge about the subject which other readers may not have, if you like i can add it back and add new sources, but if you were new to the article and followed the wikilinks to grasp additionally available material on Wikipedia, you would have no doubts that all of these items are factual. While I did not add sources at first thinking of WP:BLUE, I can see how maybe more should be added.  Which part of the new material do you think should be sourced in this article?  The options would seem to be
 * That the Bible is written in Koine Greek?
 * That Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca of the Middle East and Mediterranean?
 * Or that Koine Greek became the lingua franca following the conquests of Alexander the Great?
 * Lipsquid (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That Koine Greek is the language of the Septuagint and the lingua franca of the Middle East; but also that it is relevant in the context of syncretism between Buddhism and Christianity. The first two could be covered by WP:Blue, but possibly not the third. Geogene (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is not relevant and going from this discussion, I don't believe you have much to stand on from your revert. I will try to clean it up and add some sources. Lipsquid (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If sources aren't presenting this as relevant, then it's WP:SYN, a form of original research. Geogene (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I will add sources.  Lipsquid (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Egypt Air Flight 804
Please do not remove structure from articles. As you are aware, it is a developing story. In these cases, it is normal for a stub article to get posted, then improved as info becomes available. Addition of structure is part of the normal editing process. Therefore, I reverted your edits. Mjroots (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please address my question on the talk page. Geogene (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mjroots (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tunguska event
I reverted part of your change; an overly anthropocentric view, is, IMHE, not conductive to accuracy, or even NPOV. (BTW, you might want to update the notice on your luser page -- it implies you're inactive...) 83.208.207.158 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, my wording is completely in accordance with NPOV. It's "neutral" with the way most English speakers (who are all humans, by the way) would state it. Saying "immensely destructive to life" or whatever the exact wording was isn't how sources state it, so it isn't Neutral as we understand it. Also, even when you imply that it was destructive you're making a value statement on a natural event, which is impossible to do from a position of complete neutrality. Fungi, for example, would be just fine with flattening a bunch of forest: more food for them. So when you imply that was destructive, you're making a value statement. So this idea that you can even pretend to be neutral in the usual sense by rejecting "anthropocentrism" and implying that you can write from some viewpoint on life as a whole is complete nonsense. From an anthropocentric standpoint, at least biases are logically consistent and don't contain the kind of contradictions you get when you weigh the interests of trees against fungi. And if an encyclopedia is a compendium of knowledge, then how is it possible for Wikipedia to include non-human knowledge? How would you even define such a thing? I don't think you're really serious, I think you're trolling, but this is interesting and creative enough to reply to. Geogene (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's wise to make such bold statements in this matter? Even most English speakers will recognize other organisms as life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a value judgement ("the loss of human life is worse than the loss of non-human life") implied in your argument, though I myself immediately admit that my initial edit to the article was slightly sarcastic (I sometimes just can't help myself...) and thus somewhat inappropriate in that regard. But to get to the point, should we be making such value judgements in an encyclopedia? I know we can't always avoid making them, but I think we should at least try not to... 83.208.207.158 (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Magnitude of quake in Italy
Hi Geogene, did you happen to read the two blog posts I linked at the bottom of the discussion in Talk:2016 Central Italy earthquake? I still don't think that USGS data are the ones to report here.--Japs 88 (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Los Alamos Socks?
Have a look at my comment here:. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Two more? I'll have a look. Geogene (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah., , , , , . That's either a sock farm or meatpuppetry. Sockmaster would be UareNumber6 since it's the oldest account. But, they may come to the table and discuss rather than edit warring. Geogene (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Bonilla and 12P/Pons-Brooks
Restored text, because Pons-Brooks was indeed mentioned in the article you deleted--Zimriel (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * there are plenty of issues with that text, including basing such hysterical speculation "in which case Earth barely avoided multiple Tunguska events or even a mass extinction" on a single paper that is, essentially, interpreting a UFO report. Please find secondary sources for it, if you feel it should persist in the article. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, although the Mexican arxiv paper did get quoted in the media. On topic, that silly "ancient religions" thing, which used to be in the article's introduction, also had problems. So I moved that one. Maybe a section on "speculations" might work with those two as subsections.--Zimriel (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for Graham Phillips, the undue-weight tag is fair.--Zimriel (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for letting me know that I misread that source. Most likely, I misused the Ctrl-F function. It's not the first time I've made this specific error, but I'll try to be more careful about that. Geogene (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Can we promote this article beyond start class? I've found some very interesting material from Daniel Kirkwood in the 1880s about the comet. He confirms the 1313 (rather, the Koreans confirm him), and he proposes the comet became periodic in 991 CE. --Zimriel (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's around B-class now. I haven't done any article assessments so that might be worth a grain of salt. Geogene (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

COIN notification of other editors
There's a red box at the top of WP:COIN saying you have to notify other editors when you mention them. I did it for you in the case you just opened. - Brianhe (talk) 02:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Geogene (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, just thought you might want to be careful next time in case I'm not the one who comes across it. It could result in a hand slap from someone else. - Brianhe (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geology of Venus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eolian. 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) 09:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 7th Floor Group
Hello. Per the notice you received above, a tag had been placed on 7th Floor Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. Please note that after review, I have declined the deletion request so you do not need to worry about this article being speedily deleted. Please note that speedy deletion is only one of three deletion processes on Wikipedia; my decline does not prevent users from invoking the separate, longer term deletion methods of proposed deletion or bringing the article to articles for deletion. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not vandalism
Hello, I understand. I've seen several occasions of vandalism here. Also, only later I realized it could be misunderstood as a hangover, since they both use the same word. "Ressaca meteorológica" or "ressaca do mar" should be enough for disambiguation, if you search the web. Cheers! Vapocalypse (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Jason Colavito
We can use his website. See WP:PARITY. He is a published author with a solid reputation in the archaeological community that takes an interest in this sort of stuff and of course in the sceptical community. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You were mentioned and are invited to participate at Talk:Tucson artifacts.
 * For the record, you appear to be involved in a edit war and are on the line for WP:3RR at Tucson artifacts. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for info about that source, the 3RR reminder, the WP, and for inviting me to the talk discussion, but the two of you got the article into a shape I'm happy with. The mention of that History Channel program is now neutral, and will help the readership next time they air that re-run. I'm aware that the original mention of the program was a longstanding version and not something new, but it remains my opinion that merely mentioning the program without some debunking provided was undesirable. Geogene (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Herp derp misclick...
sigh. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

See my polite reply
Dear Geogene,

Please see, on my user:synchronist talk page, my polite reply to your post on that very same page.

Regards, GlennSynchronist (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
Sorry I did not reply earlier to your comments about conspiracy theories. None of them are plausible, which is what makes them conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. Plenty of things I don't get around to replying to. Geogene (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

American politics editing - please read
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy
In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Village pump (policy)

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Revert
There was a long discussion on the subject earlier on the talk page, with input from many editors. The majority opinion was for inclusion. The material was subsequently removed without discussion. Perhaps you can do the honors and restore the material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you link to it? Geogene (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Before reverting, you should have looked through the talk page archives to find the discussions. In any case, I think you're aware of them, since you mentioned them on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember the outcome differently. Geogene (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You can go back and check the talk page archives. I mentioned the outcome in my edit summary. It would have been good form on your part to refresh your memory before reverting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about that. I've self-reverted my removal since it was probably against prior consensus. I'm not ready to to endorse it in the current form, but will save that for the article talk page later. Geogene (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Event Driven Marketing
The page for Event Driven Marketing has been 'stub'ed because of (non-existant) copyright issues. Anyway, these have now been resolved with help from wikipedia support and a copyright usage email sent to permissions.

Can you please authorise the re-instatement of this page.

Regards,

Mark Holtom


 * I don't have the user authority to restore the visibility of the old revisions, so I'll ping who does. But I oppose the restoration of the article to those versions for a number of reasons. Those versions aren't encyclopedic in tone, eventricity is probably not a reliable source, and the prior versions seemed to exist solely to promote that business. Wikipedia is not social media and shouldn't be used for promotional ends. If those revisions are restored, I will recommend deletion on those grounds. It's best to leave it as a stub. Geogene (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IMHO, There are a couple of problems with your comments. Whilst the article may not be encyclopaedic, I would argue that it is detailed, accurate, referenced and with sources. Further I would argue that is is specifically non-partisan, providing information on all major players in this area. As for eventricity, this is my company and we are recognised as world leaders in this specific field. Whilst other companies (who are referenced in the article) claim to do this, they do not choose to share or document this. Whereas we are happy to put this information into the public domain. The article specifically does NOT promote eventricity. First of all, it provides a detailed definition of EDM along with explanations of each type of Event. This is non-specific to eventricity. It then references and cites all other players in this area of marketing. Again, it should be noted that eventricity is the only company that chooses to document and share this information.

so, you may choose not to re-instate this article, but then the only source of detailed information on this subject would be our website. If you check the internet, then you will find that this article and eventricity's site are the only sources of this information, and the wiki article is specifically NOT promotional for eventricity in any way.

Currently the article states 'this is a stub' asking for more detailed information, when you have deleted this yourselves. If you look at the history, there have been no other meaningful contributors. Thus if not reverted, it is likely that it will remain a stub.

Seth Rich
Geogene, I do not feel that this warrants discussion at Talk:Seth Rich as opposed to this location, nor that my framing is understood.

I don't see why those sources aren't reliable.: To begin, I objected only to the inclusion of WaPo's analysis written by Dave Weigel. I even explicitly noted that the NYT, LATimes, Snopes, Politifact are sufficient WP:RS citations for the Wheeler fabrications.

I have other remarks but want to clarify this first, and, besides, need to sleep. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that content, so obviously there's at least one other editor that might have an opinion on it. This should be discussed on the article's talk page. Geogene (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, I'm glad you liked it. That article gets a lot of pet theories, and I was just trying to press the need for proper sourcing by laying out a skeptical case. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"‪Russian interference in the 2016 US elections‬"
Why am I getting a message from you re: "‪Russian interference in the 2016 US elections‬"? Keith McClary (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a standard Discretionary Sanctions notice for articles involving US politics. Geogene (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Spreading OR templates like sprinkles on a frosted cooky
In your edit of the 21 of March at 23:20 hours in the Space-based solar power article, you placed an OR template after "exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2" which has a perfectly valid in-line citation. I have removed your unneeded template and have given in reference the exact quotation from the public domain government source that supports the statement. Is there something that I did not notice that would require an OR template there? Please be more careful to not place unneeded templates in articles. - Fartherred (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because you can't use OSHA limits (which are based on healthy adults exposed at 40 hours a week) to make general remarks about what is or is not a safe level of exposure to microwaves for the general public. That is original research. It's also taken out of context, and therefore wrong, at least for our purposes (a crowdsourced encyclopedia). That would be fine in another context, like in a technical paper. Geogene (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you consider the article as I edited it, you can see that the reference I gave refers to workplace exposure limits for microwaves, "not a safe level of exposure to microwaves for the general public". Your edit immediately following constitutes tendentious editing favoring the non-policy point of view that Wikipedia articles cannot refer to workplace exposure limits but only to the "safe level of exposure to microwaves for the general public".  Following text referring to the energy remaining after the 95% that falls on the antenna and claiming levels less than standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world is supported by a different citation, IEEE, 01149129.pdf.  Wikipedia readers can determine for themselves what statements are related to their interests and to what extent.  They do not need your false suggestions that statements need a citation and constitute original research according to Wikipedia policy.  - Fartherred (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since we're talking about outside the fenceline, we are necessarily talking about public exposure. You cannot cite an OSHA PEL for workers to assert that the same level of exposure is acceptable to the public. Who is being tendentious here? Probably the one trying to OR a positive assertion of safety out of an unrelated primary source. Geogene (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm looking at that again, the comparison to the solar constant is also an issue. Clearly this was written to downplay any potential safety concerns; the question is, where are the sources to justify that? If they don't exist, then it's OR. Geogene (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that I missed a relationship in reading, which is can result from my favoring the idea of space-based solar power. There would need to be means to keep the general public out of any area that has more than a level of microwave power generally recognized to be safe for the general public.  I do not know of references for a planned system that includes that feature, although my guess is that it is possible.  - Fartherred (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The public will need to be kept away from any levels that interfere with their consumer electronics devices as well. If it ruins their Wifi or messes with their cellphones, they'll obsess about it. And then they'll blame every headache or cancer diagnosis on it, and this will eventually become a political issue. Not something I'd put in the article, just my own OR. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not OR for people to discuss in a talk section the sort of facts that are missing from an article and for which sources ought to be sought. I have difficulty even guessing what sort of information it would be profitable to seek.  SBSP compares to 60 cycle AC in interference with electronic devices.  In my childhood 60 cycle hum was common on radios because the 60 cycle electromagnetic radiation leaked from transformers, household wiring, distribution wiring, and appliances; and affected the audio amplifier of the radio completely bypassing the radio frequency amplifier.  Since then things have been better designed for less leakage and less suseptability to 60 cycle ER.  In a similar way the general public should be kept further away from a rectenna than its edge at which some fraction, perhaps 95%, of the beam power is intercepted.  Also devices such as pacemakers and cell phones should be designed to resist widespread microwave energy in low energy lobes of the power beam that still have energy enough to overwhelm communication microwaves near its frequency.  The frequency of the power beam will be lost to communication.  I would like to find reliable sources related to these statements, confirming things relavent to the article that could be included.  However, my library research skills are small and I do not take the time to even read everything that I can find.  - Fartherred (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Dude
You are under no obligation to respond to repetitive leading questions on Russian talk. There's no support for fringe POV edits, so even if they briefly appear in the article, they'll soon be removed. I know you agree with me we're here in a collaborative work environment and anyone who's not willing to learn and apply WP site policies is only wasting valuable editor time. #Resist. :) SPECIFICO  talk  00:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for the reminder. Geogene (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

(Not mentioned in a bad way.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  21:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I knew that thread would go places from the moment I saw it. Geogene (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"this new hyperpartisan version by James Lambden is egregious"
That was your edit summary here. But an examination of the history will show I restored the previous version unchanged per WP:BRD. It was neither new nor my version. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I apologize for taking that unwarranted stab at you. An edit summary, once entered, cannot be changed. Geogene (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments
You removed my comments. That's an asshole move. Don't be an asshole. 5.157.7.26 (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Should I care what a blocked user thinks? Geogene (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Debate style
When debating on an article's Talk page, I think it's better to make a point without speculating what may be in another editor's mind. For example, in this comment the following point was made,
 * "The intention here seems to be to insinuate that hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time, and therefore what Russia did is totally okay and not a major international incident at all. That might or might not be a valid personal opinion, but categories shouldn't be used to insinuate something into an article that sources don't allow to be stated explicitly."

I would suggest expressing the point without speculating about what may be in an editor's mind, for example in the following way.
 * Adding the category 'Foreign intervention' would seem to imply that hijacking foreign elections is something everyone does all the time, and therefore what Russia did is totally okay and not a major international incident at all. That might or might not be true, but categories shouldn't imply something in an article that sources don't allow to be stated explicitly.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. Geogene (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think your above comment was sincere, so it looks like you've had a relapse. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * quit the needling, alright? I don't recognize you as even being conversant with behavioral norms. My "agreeing" with your remarks above was attempted de-escalation, another concept that I don't think you grasp. I would much rather have hit the backspace key, and that's what's likely to happen if you post here again. Geogene (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Iben Browning
New Warning- Geogene summarily deleted mitigating referenced information regarding Iben Browning's mixed legacy, favoring sources to suit his bias. No recognition of Browning's best work, only failed probabilistic conjecture. Like any great scientist, Browning was flawed, but far more worthy than Geogene allows. NYT obit and USGS "ambiguous" conclusion represents a more balanced view of Browning. dave santos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Browning's career as a technologist isn't what made him notable, and that's why you're not going to find reliable independent sources about it. Outside of the famous earthquake incident, he's extremely obscure. Geogene (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, Iben Browning had a long career in science and technology, a noted figure in early AI theorizing and other visionary work, like his famous (in robotics) Bell labs report in Robots on your doorstep book, that you deleted, long before his controversial earthquake miscalculation. That's why NYT presents a balanced obituary. I have no conflict of interest, never knew the man, nor anyone who did. Its pure paranoia to think the NYT balance is undue, and to imagine a COI. The POV push is yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have independent reliable sources covering Browning's career in science outside of his consulting business? I don't consider the obit independent, and it certainly isn't as reliable as Farley's book, which you keep deleting from the article. Geogene (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Bell Labs reports are quite reliable, and the reprinted version in "Robots at your doorstep" is sound. Max Planck wrote, "it is not possible to introduce really new ideas - even in the exact sciences - without taking risks." That's what Browning did, take what he thought the lesser risk, warning the public. Did not mean to delete Farley, also not able to find it, and also p11 of the USGS report does not seem to contain the slur you printed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't reliable in any imaginable context. I said it wasn't reliable in the context in which you are trying to use it: as a WP:PRIMARY source about Browning's career. It's not about Browning, it's a vintage book on robotics. Its reliability is limited to that topic. Anything you take from it to describe its author is original interpretation/research, and not usable. Would also recommend you tone down your edit summaries a bit. Not sure what the problem with Farley is, books published by university presses are usually considered about as good as potential sources can be. Geogene (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Untrue. The Bell labs report in "Robots" is reprinted faithfully, including illustrations, and is the most available public version. You should read it to reconsider how you are mistaken that he is not known except as you think him. Read the Amazon reviews. The man was more than one mistake. Asking for dispute resolution if Geogene is intent on pure defamation.(2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC))
 * And you're ignoring the point. Not productive. Geogene (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind mentioning his career as a technologist, but that's not why he is notable enough to justify him having an article. The earthquake prediction is the reason the article exists. Geogene (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And, WP:SECONDARY sources are necessary for that. Geogene (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I recall the sixties and seventies, and Browning really was a quite notable public thinker in early AI and robotics, and other fields as well. One did not simply fake one's way into Bell Labs, the top technological institution of its era. If the article is only supposed to be about the sad last half year of a long colorful career, with no mitigating info, that's horrible; why not an article just about the controversy itself? The reason his forecasts drew so much attention was his established reputation, as the reference trail will ultimately prove. It even seems he may have in later years suffered from dementia, but his earlier work inspired many scientists. True, he was most notable, even legendary, in a geeky elite class of technologists, but Wikipedia is supposed to recognize that sort of notable life, not just be fodder for any cranky debunker's POV editing. So now the NYT is suspect, and I am suspected of COI, a double paranoia with no substantiation. Wikipedia is not about your suspicions. This discussion is productive, to keep the editing accountable to the whole truth. The actual USGS conclusion of "ambiguous" is at odds with your unambiguous POV bias. In fact, the hypothesis that tidal forcing influences volcanoes and earthquakes was scientific, even though the proven effects have been shown to be smaller than Browning calculated, if you do the review of third-party geological research. (76.250.84.42 (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)).
 * There's nothing "ambiguous" about the USGS conclusions: that it's pseudoscience, and further, that the scientific community was not as aggressive towards Browning as it should have been. Same with Farley's book, but with more detailed coverage. And because those two documents appear to represent the extent of reliable sourcing on Browning, they set the tone for what the article is going to say. That is what "neutrality" actually means in Wikipedia terms, it means articles are neutral (in tone and coverage) towards the sources, which is very different from being neutral towards the subject, which is what you're advocating for. Departure from the sourcing is a POV-push. Yes, I have good reason to suspect there's COI here as well. I don't understand why various single purpose IP editors that geolocate from the same area keep returning over a period of years to that fairly obscure article to try to re-write well sourced history, but everyone with experience in Wikipedia biographies knows what that means. I'm probably not the only that feels like my intelligence is being insulted when this is denied. Geogene (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

USGS quote- "ambiguous"; Geogene non-USGS quote- "pseudoscience". You can't "understand why" your POV is rewritten if you willfully overlook that Browning was indeed publicly notable for decades before the big failed forecast. As a newbie editor, I am grateful for this reminder that you promptly undid, of extensive Browning sources to be respected-

Geogene's note: this is my talk page.

To promptly dismiss this helpful editor's comment with "go away", is the same bias. Yes, good point, Browning was also a very prolific inventor, as the USPTO record documents.(2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

Looking into Wikipedia's notability criteria. Hope this helps-

"In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.[16]"

This seems like a reasonable path forward. (2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)) (2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC))


 * I'm not against an article about the 1990 earthquake scare, but I don't see that as a way to move the earthquake scare out of the Browning article. I think the best way to give more coverage to his work in robotics is to find more secondary sources about his work in robotics. As I've said, most of the sourcing about him that I've seen is in the context of the earthquake scare. There may be more out there but I haven't seen it.


 * As for the USGS calling it pseudoscience, I think the search function in your PDF reader may be misleading you. It's an old paper; they spell it "pseudo-science". Searching the document for "pseudo" will generate two results from the USGS and several more from non-USGS sources that the USGS included in the Appendix. From the USGS portion of the document:


 * * Ultimately then, Browning's prediction became an example of pseudo-science overwhelming mainstream science. (page 22)


 * * Why was Browning's prediction taken seriously?....Inexperience of regional scientists, media, and public with earthquake pseudo-science. (page 23)


 * So since the USGS characterizes it as pseudoscience, other authorities call it pseudoscience it in the Appendix, and Farley calls it pseudoscience in his book published by a university press, what purpose does it serve to not call it pseudoscience in the article? Geogene (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

So please go ahead and cite pseudo-science POVs. The bias complaint is that you do not accept any Browning source that supports the idea that he also had notable scientific merit in other areas, mostly decades earlier, and thus his legacy is complex. BTW, I only just saw the Browning article a few days ago. Your suspicion I may be someone with a COI who spoofs is unfounded(2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

This may help understand how just invoking pseudoscience is not enough- Wikipedia- "The boundary between science and pseudoscience is disputed and difficult to determine analytically, even after more than a century of study by philosophers of science and scientists, and despite some basic agreements on the fundaments of scientific method.[1][84][85] " The Browning story is far more than reliance on un-nuanced summation of the man's life so. When Geogene moves on, Iben Browning will be presented more fairly, for both his genius and errors.(2602:304:CFA5:42A0:2C3F:64DB:95C8:530A (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC))

TWA flight 800 revert
Dear Geogene,

thank you for your help in advance. Would you please attend to my question on the talk page?


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:TWA_Flight_800#wikilinking_to_Borjesson_article

--Mick2 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I watch that page, so this is not necessary. Geogene (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Russians!
Notice how "AGF" is trotted out to mean "don't hold me accountable for my behavior". As if, like, an airline should assume your checked bag weighs 6 pounds when there's something looks like there's an elephant's trunk sticking out of one end and a squiggly tail out of the other.

One of the simplest most instructive things to consider is that WP is a workplace where we assemble with a common goal in mind. Basically, there's no reason we should tolerate any disruption of this workplace any more than we would tolerate it at our places of employment -- where at least we get paid to put up with a certain amount of frustration.

Thanks for all your contributions. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 22:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Geogene (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Notifying you of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanengr (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. Geogene (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: OP narrowly avoided a topic ban. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jusdafax (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, another one. And of course you're involved. Geogene (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: archived with no action. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Geology of Venus
Just expressing appreciation for your efforts and edits on Geology of Venus. Your changes were necessary and useful, and the added cites at least help towards further article improvements. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. It's always good to be vigilant about sourcing. Geogene (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Alert
Merely a formality: it does not look like you've been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a new one for me. Geogene (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

2016 Democratic National Committee email leak
Please explain what you think was left out of my edit regarding the fact tat the DNC servers were not examined by the FBI.Phmoreno (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That wasn't your edit, unless you just confessed to sockpuppetry. I think some clarification from you is now in order. Geogene (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see what happened. I thought you were contesting my revision of a third party's content dealing with the Comey testimony the other day. In fact. somebody else reverted you over different material just now, but my username is in the edit summary because it was "my" revision that was reverted to. Understood. Geogene (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I see what happened now to.Phmoreno (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The ar-15 articles
For what it's worth I'm not opposed to inclusion of the Port Arthur shooting in the Colt AR-15 article. However, other editors make a very good point, has it notably impacted the rifle vs the rifle impacted the crime. What is often argued is resiprocity of notability. That is if an event is notable and an item was a notable in context of the event then reverse must be true, the event must be notable in terms of the item. Of course this isn't true, for example a RFC here found that overwhelmingly the DC sniper attacks were not notable in context of the Chevy Caprice []. It's perhaps an example of emotion over logic that the Bushmaster rifle page does mention the crime[]. Anyway, I bring that up simply to explain why many editors are against these inclusion even though reliable sources about the crimes (rarely RS's about the gun) make the connection.

That said, what I really wanted to ping you about what the articles you listed here [] (all based on one BS article in The Verge). Several editors have brought those up as if they are independent, objective investigations. Sadly they are largely just plain wrong in their telling of the facts. I was asked to comment by the author but didn't since the tone of the author's bias was clear in the email.
 * ''So I have a bit of time and thought I would share my take on the four articles you posted (thanks BTW for the recent edits to the summaries). I basically see the News Week, and Haaretez as repeating the claims of The Verge.  The Week was of course its own thing.  Anyway, The Verge's author did ask me for a quote but just 24 hours before.  His question was vague (other than making the tone of the article clear).  I decided not to reply and I don't think a well thought out reply would have mattered.  I think there were two things the author got really wrong.


 * ''First, the sequence of events related to the AR-15 pages. As I recall and based on my limited exposure to the article prior to this year, there were kind of two debates going on.  The first was the scope of the article.  The Colt AR-15 article, as I gather, started as the general AR-15 page.  My early involvement was around the time there was a big debate about what the scope of the AR-15 page should be.  Some editors felt that, since AR-15 was a trademarked name it should only be about the "Colt AR-15".  So the people who were trying to keep general AR-15 material (primarily crime material) out were doing so based on keeping the article on topic (thus not a PAG violation).  As I gathered, the outcome of this debate was to change what was the AR-15 article to the Colt AR-15 article and then start a second article that was the generic page.  Of course that didn't go smoothly.  First, until recently, the AR-15 search term went to the Colt article vs a disambiguation page.  So when someone searched for "AR-15" they found the Colt AR-15 page then assumed the removal of general AR-15 material was only due to trying to keep the material off Wikipedia vs just keeping the article focused.


 * ''That would have been easier to deal with if the generic page had been created properly (note: I'm really vague on this part of the history). I recall debates about what to call the page.  At some point it appears that Modern Sporting Rifles was picked or morphed into the generic page.  I have an issue with that since, as I understand it, not AR-15s can be MSRs.  I also see why people who wanted to put some thing about a crime wouldn't think to search for that page and AR-15 didn't redirect there.  So that I what I see as the setup that caused most of the issues The Verge reported.  The biggest issue was that when the AR-15 page went non-generic, the creation of the generic page and setting up of disambiguations wasn't done correctly/at all.  I'm not sure if this was a deliberate effort to keep this material out of any article or more likely just people weren't worried about creating the generic page so it was never really done.    As it relates to the Verge, well, that author made it sound like this was a planned or controlled thing vs just the sort of outcome that inevitable given the circumstances.


 * ''Another issue with The Verge is conflating the removal of a given passage as refusal to allow any such material in the article. A number of the passages I've removed over the last 1.5 years were edits made by the many socks of HughD.  Even the material we ended up adding to the AR-15 style rifle page started off as a HughD sock addition.  When the reporter would see a single passage from the NRA article get removed he didn't distinguish between not wanting the general material included vs not wanting the specific text.  As an example, I haven't been happy with the racism and NRA material but I was having trouble expressing why (beyond feeling that the facts didn't fit the conclusion drawn in the citations).  I think this recent edit nailed my issue really well [].  I've had this issue with other articles where material that is, if you will a subjective conclusion, is presented as an established fact.  That was one of the issues I had during a protracted edit war at the Ford Pinto article.  It took a lot of effort to craft what I thought was a honest telling of events based on RSed material given all the inflammatory articles that can be quoted talking about Ford's heartless Pinto choices.  Sorry, off subject :D  Anyway, the Verge assumed a motivation without considering that material is sometimes removed for reasons other than suppression.

I hope you don't mind the length. Absent context I can understand how one might think the Verge was onto something. Having observed things from the inside it was clear the author didn't do his homework and didn't care. Springee (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree that the mentions of the DC sniper case and Oklahoma City bombing in those respective vehicle articles was misguided, because the vehicles weren't instrumental in carrying out the respective crimes to the extent that a rifle is instrumental in a mass shooting, or a huge pile of ammonium nitrate is instrumental in a bombing. I also agree with the underlying point that there are various degrees of notability, and that not every subject of a low notability article requires a reciprocal mention in a higher notability article. Applying this to the current debate, though, I'd like to point out that the people that say we shouldn't mention the Port Arthur massacre for this reason in the Colt AR-15 article are making an assumption that it's the gun that's more notable than that particular crime. Actually, what I've found in looking for sources on the history of the AR-15 is that almost nothing has been written about it other than what you find in post-shooting mainstream media coverage. Google Scholar searches yield a lot more results for ["ar-15" rifle] than for ["port arthur massacre"], but those are mostly patents.


 * As for the Verge piece, agree the simplest explanation is that nobody was thinking about search engine rankings when they moved the page. I didn't mean to imply a full endorsement of the aspersions in it, only that not having any coverage of gun control issues tends to discredit the article for at least some people. That was a response to someone else's argument that including coverage of gun control might look like agenda-pushing to others. I'm not going to keep bringing it up or try to use it as a cudgel in content disputes, etc--because that's the kind of thing that gets handled at AE. Geogene (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I suspect part of the problem we have is that much of what ends up in articles is based on what we can find in news/newsmagazines because it's easy to find on line. The sort of sources that talk about guns are either webforums/blogs or books that aren't as easy to search.  I found something like this when I was working on the Ford Pinto article.  So many mentions in articles were just the common knowledge understanding of the subject.  Authoritative sources were much harder to find.


 * I don't fully agree with you regarding the DC sniper case. In that crime the shootings were single shot events.  A single shot, bolt action rifle would have been just as effective.  In a sense the rifle was nothing special.  What was special was the car had been modified to act as a sniper's nest.  Thus in this case the car was more significant to the conduct of the crime vs the gun.  As to which is more significant, the gun vs the shooting, well both are significant and we have articles for both.  In encyclopedic terms the Oklahoma bombing is far more significant than a Ford F-600 in in context of an article about the Ford F-600 truck the bombing isn't overly significant.  However, if you look at my comments in the previous discussion I've supported inclusion.


 * I'm glad we agree on the Verge article. I was frustrated that the author contacted me 24 hours before going to press and asked me a vague but clearly accusatory question about the issue.  I guess understanding the real back story would take much of the wind out of his sail.  Thanks for the reply!  Springee (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey
I saw the mess at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and I thought that I'd say that, usually, when you're trying to find the WikiProjects (=groups of people) who will be interested in an RFC, you don't need to look any further than the top of the talk page where the RFC is being held. In this case, that would mean contacting the WikiProjects that have tagged the Colt AR-15 page, and possibly the WikiProjects that tagged the Port Arthur massacre (Australia). When editors go much further afield than that, it's more likely to end up like playing a game than in reaching people who are actually interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. I don't think I've ever publicized an RfC before. There are guidelines on how to do that, and that's not in any of the ones that I saw. They just say "post in relevant projects". Thanks for pointing out what that actually means. Geogene (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think that there is any advice written down anywhere about how to decide which groups are "relevant". Most of the time, I think that notifying the groups that have already tagged the specific article is likely to get you the most responses for the least controversy.  However, this is not a hard-and-fast rule.  Sometimes an article "should" be tagged by a WikiProject but isn't (e.g., maybe they just haven't noticed that it was created yet), so sometimes it's best to err on the side of over-inclusion.  Other times, you will want to skip a group because you know that they're interested only in a different aspect of the subject.  You'll always want to use some judgment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Massive apology about my edits to MH17
'''I am sorry. I really am. I'm serious.''', I just wanted to be honest. I was not being mean or disrespectful, but if I was, I'm sorry. I explained my feelings carefully. I never had any intentions to cause an ultimatum or additional controversy. I just read the rules. I now know that I'm an uninvolved administrator and I understand that I can get restricted from editing, banned, or blocked. This time, and I MEAN IT this time, I will leave the trivia the way it is, and will be extremely careful the next time that I edit MH17.As an additional apology, I'll delete the "comparison to other accidents" page. The next section that I insert in the talk page will be within the guidelines. I am extremely sorry. This will never happen again. I will be more careful from now on. Tigerdude9 (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

TNT's inexperience
I'm curious what you mean by "The fact that TNT is a new and inexperienced admin" TNT has been administrator for 2 years and is also a WP:STEWARD. Not trying to attack any part of the statement just curious what you meant by that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Two years isn't long at all. But I doubt that he enjoyed that case request, and now that that has run its course, I don't feel justified in criticizing him further. The kinds of admin stuff he does most of the time, he does well. Geogene (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

 * Thanks. Same to you. Geogene (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

MEDRS
By the way, press releases are not reliable sources whether or not a WP:MEDRS source is required based on the subject matter. Natureium (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You must be referring to Newswise, a site I'm not familiar with. By the way, I see that you also reverted similar content here that was sourced to The Intercept. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I... what? When you aren't familiar with a source, you need to check it out, not just revert. Natureium (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The statement that was being sourced--that the new conclusion was similar to one previously made by a Cuban panel--was completely non-controversial. It's something that I already knew, as would anyone reading the article. In fact it would probably have fallen under WP:SKYISBLUE. I did choose to remove the questionable source to avoid setting a precedent. Geogene (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

BRD violation
This is a BRD violation, because it is under discussion please self revert. Here is an explanatory link WP:BRD. SCAH (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Geogene (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How is not? Someone made a bold edit which was reverted they opened a discussion rereverting violates BRD. SCAH (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * BRD is short for Bold, Revert, Discuss. It's not Bold, Revert, Restore, Discuss. Geogene (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that was content that had been the article for a long time. I thought it was a new addition. Still a 1RR violation though, and I did give you a courtesy notice. Geogene (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So revert until discussion is over SCAH (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  13:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you're using that template correctly. Requests for Adminship inherently carry a lower expectation of AGF than other areas of project space, because the forum exists for no other purpose than to determine whether someone should be trusted with the tools. I think you already know that? Which raises the question of why you are here. Geogene (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC at WikiLeaks talk page
Hello,

Since you participated in the previous conversations, I figured I would notify you about the RFC here. Aviartm (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Fermi paradox
I hope you don't give up on the page, it needs oversight. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
Dear Geogene, thanks for your message on my user page. If you have the time, I would much appreciate your assistance to better understand the matter. AFAIK the fundamental requirement for an edit are: Well, as far as I can see my edit is *strictly* along this lines ... while the objections I have read are entirely the opposite, i.e. they are POV (attributing me an attempt to hint at a Ukrainian responsibility, and if you read my edit there is *absolutely* no trace of that whatsoever), neither anybody have provided anything that could demonstrate that my entry is either factually wrong or unreferenced or based on unreliable sources. I'm not that deep into Wikipedia rules and procedures, so I confess that I'm a bit lost on why such a straightforward, not-controversial entry could stir this sort of debates. If you look at my contributions history, both in English and in my mother-language (Italian), you will se that I'm a strictly polite, moderate, reasonable and not-controversial contributor, honestly attempting to bring my puny teaspoon of knowledge to the WP project in full respect of all its rules: to find myself target by (unofficial) disciplinary warnings or (on the Talk page of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 article) unfounded accusation of manipulation or worse is deeply puzzling and, honestly, deeply unsettling. Your help in better understanding the problem will be very welcome. Thanks in advance, and kindest regards. --Arturolorioli (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not POV. It must not contain statements reflecting the author personal opinion about the article's contents.
 * Documented. The edit must contain factually exact information.
 * Referenced. Authoritative, demonstrable and verifiable sources supporting the edit claim.
 * also appeared to understand that the point of the edit was to detract from the mainstream point of view ( It looks like there is a consensus on this page to remove anything that would suggest that Ukraine could be responsible for this disaster. ). It's probably a misunderstanding. I gave the DS notice because of edit warring; the page may be under a DS-related revert restriction. Geogene (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not what I said. My point is that a bunch of editors on this page are angry at Putin. They are willing to go to ridiculous lengthes to remove anything that doesnt support their view. This is perfectly illustrates by the recent reverts. Heptor (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Geogene, thanks for your reply. Yes it is quite clearly a misunderstanding, and your answer fits with the one that I got from user Ahunt on his user page talk. I would be grateful if you could read my last reply to him at [User_talk:Ahunt#Buk_missiles]), that I guess could address your residual doubts about my intentions and the meaning of my edit, that I firmly believe is both fully relevant to the page *and* strictly according WP rules both in form and content (i.e. neutral, not POV, factual and referenced). Thanks again for your answer, and all the best. --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Who posted the unsigned comment??? --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee,  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Aestivation hypothesis
Hi, it appears we are not in agreement about the relevance of mentioning aestivation hypothesis in Fermi paradox. Please see Talk:Fermi_paradox. Besides, as per WP:EW, I think we should probably abstain from further edits on that page and wait for input from other editors. Regards, --a3nm (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My edits to Sneaker Wave
Whoever you are, thank you for pointing this out to me regarding my edits to the sneaker wave article. 208.59.132.152 (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Meters that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''NPA and What part of "please stop posting about this on my talk page" do you not understand? Keep it on the article's talk page where I (and other editors) can respond if we so please. Stay off my talk page.'' Meters (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Templating the regulars, Meters? Okay. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly will when they ignore a request to stop posting on my talk page about something, and make a personal attack to boot. You should know better. Meters (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should just ban you from my own talk page, then? What is the point of this, Meters? If you had a coherent argument, I'd have seen it by now. Geogene (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brown Mountain Lights, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morganton. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Please step back, take a deep breath, and try to practice AGF
Geogene, When an editor says "that is not what I said" or "you misunderstood what I said", replying by insisting that you know what I said better than I do is simply unacceptable. It is entirely possible that I did not explain my point as well as I could, but that does not excuse your behavior. Also, the idea that I have "lost" an "argument" about what I said is...c'mon man, surely you can see how bizarre that sounds, right? Take a deep breath, step back, and try to remember that this is a collaborative project. And please do not attempt to tell me, or any other editor, what our comments mean again. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's talk about this post.
 * you tried to ping me, apparently to make damn sure I saw it (even though I was already very active on that page, and had been replying to you consisently)
 * I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT RS OR MEDRS STANDARDS shouting
 * Lemme give you a tip: when someone says "you misunderstood what I said", your response should not be to immediately tell me what I said. Overt condescension, unsolicited "life advice" given in an aggressive context
 * I am giving you a chance to strike demanding a gesture of submission
 * your bad faith AGF violation
 * personal attack perhaps?
 * trollish comment PA Geogene (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * And before I finish, this last little post you left on my talkpage And please do not attempt to tell me, or any other editor, what our comments mean again. is a threat. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I pinged you mostly to differentiate who I was responding to, my initial comment appeared to be responding to another editor due to how it was threaded. Don't believe me, check the edit history, you'll see I added the ping in a minor edit after the main comment.  As for the rest, you repeatedly mis-stated and mis-represented my comment, I used all caps to emphasize the part you kept mis-representing.  The rest was advice that you might want to step back and consider.  No threats intended, implied, or given.  Wikipedia isn't about "winning arguments".  It's about collaborative discussion.  As I said, if an editor tells you that you misunderstood the meaning of their comment, ask for clarification, don't double-down and try to "win the argument" over what the other editor said.  Think about it, how was that supposed to end, with me stepping back and saying "yeah, you're right, that's really what I meant"?  As I said, when an editor says "I didn't say X, I said Y", AGF means specifically not turning it into an argument of "no, you said X, you said X!"

Courtesy notice
RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you are so much smarter than the entire editorial staff of North America's premier newspapers, why are you editing Wikipedia instead of running their newsrooms? Geogene (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your passive-aggresiveness. What I care is about what is written in reliable sources. As you surely know, it's always better to go directly to the original source, instead of playing a game of Chinese whispers. Hence right to the scientists and not to the journalists. And then you realise the journalists, as is common with WP:MEDPOP sources, have got it wrong. But that's not surprising, because science is a complex issue. What is needed is a modicum of intellectual rigour: looking at multiple reliable sources and seeing what they say, instead of jumping to conclusions based on what one newspaper says. Try taking a look Pubmed (or this, which seems to go filter things more effectively, since all papers inherently mention the consensus opinion). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Geogene, you may be blocked from editing. User talk pages are included in the WP:TALKO rule: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." This pattern of behaviour, where you remove other editors' comments you don't like, undermines the ability to have discussions on Wikipedia - please stop. Gronk Oz (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Gronk Oz, don't template the regulars, and especially don't come back days later to restore things I deleted. This is *my* talk page. 107.77.219.218 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * can I assume that anonymous comment is from you, based on the fact that you refer to this as your talk page? If so, I ask that you please read the link I gave above (TALKO) about the limits to what is acceptable behaviour on "your" User Talk page - especially about not deleting or changing other editors' comments.  The page actually belongs to Wikipedia, not to you or me, so it is subject to Wikipedia's rules.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevant PAG here is WP:Blanking, which means I can delete template/awareness warnings whenever I want. 107.77.219.218 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment on whether the removal from Talk:Havana syndrome was appropriate, but users are well within their rights to remove messages from their own talk pages; that's taken as an indication that the message has been read. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Note on your recent ArbE
You may want to put "N/A" in the previous sanctions section, since I have no previous sanctions. Thanks-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent activity at Meteorite
You may wish to engage at Talk:Meteorite. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion re Assange wording
You rightly pointed out in the Assange talk page (rfc) that Guccifer 2.0 is not generally thought to be a single individual – in response I have suggested | here altering the wording of option F to the following: “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material." I hope this suggestion addresses you concern and meets your approval Prunesqualor   billets_doux  11:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments
You have deleted my comments from Talk:Havana syndrome are are continuing an inappropriate discussion there. Please resore my contribution and heed WP:TPG. Alexbrn (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn You have tried to prevent me from commenting on that page by unilaterally closing a discussion involving five different users. If you believe it was some kind of infraction to revert your bold close, then you may report in whatever DR venue you find appropriate. Geogene (talk) 04:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ANI, where I have raised this and mentioned your actions. Alexbrn (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. Geogene (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Since this resulted in more general attention to the article, which is a good thing, it's a possible opportunity for the wider community to improve it. This is generally possible with less drama by notifying relevant noticeboards when needed like WP:FTN, WP:RSN, WT:MED, WP:NPOVN (usually one at a time to avoid WP:FORUMSHOP)... — Paleo Neonate  – 01:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I should've taken this to FTNB a while ago instead. Geogene (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 02:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Pit_Bull Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted
The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed
An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
 * Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
 * is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
 * GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
 * Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: 

Robert Bartholomew - List of books
Hello, Geogene. I note your comment that "I think the complete bibliography is excessive detail". So I wanted to draw your attention to the relevant section of the Manual of Style (MOS:LISTSOFWORKS), which says "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". Also pinging .--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiLeaks
You are of course free to do so. The fact that you've essentially refused to engage in discussion on Talk is relevant. I've laid out the problems as I see them; you've simply ignored them and reverted the tag. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 01:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 02:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That one's particularly ironic. Geogene (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the removal of my text.
It is always good to see how Wikipedia really works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.f.almada (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * is referring to this . Geogene (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Rock balance canvassing
Will take this to your talk page as it doesn't seem useful to sidetrack the RfC at Talk:Rock balancing. What's your concern about rock balancers "trying to distort Wikipedia's consensus processes"? Lord Belbury (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a violation of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. Geogene (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Who are you alleging this against, though? The various IP editors in May? Or the editors who are contributing to the RfC? --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no way to tell who, specifically, is being canvassed. Only that canvassing attempts are apparently in progress. This will have to be considered when the RfC is closed. Geogene (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sure it will be. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

That's Quite a Dog Fight You're In!
Hi, Geogene, I was reading the Staffordshire Bull Terrier talk page, and it seems as if you were attacked by a pack of pit bulls, metaphorically speaking of course. Glad you survived. Send me an email if interested and I will tell you more. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Geogene! I see you have also been on the receiving end of attacks from Unbiased6969, so I included one of the threads you participated in on the page "Personal attacks and aspersions from Unbiased6969" if you would like to participate.

PartyParrot42 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Revert on Cat predation on wildlife
Hi there, I think your revert here [] is wrong (of course I would say that!)

I don't understand your comment. "undue emphasis on pet cats vs. feral cats. " I don't think it's undue emphasis to add some context to numbers that we quote, especially when the study we're discussing says, in the abstract, that " Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. " it's not like I've gone digging to find it, I think my edit made it clear that we're talking specifically about the findings of that study.

o me "Free-ranging domestic cats" sounds like we're talking about pets only,  so I think not clarifying at least that we're including feral cats in that number would be misleading. Would you be happier with something along the lines of "..both owned and un-owned domestic cats.." instead of 'Free-ranging domestic cats', I think that reduces the scope for misunderstanding.

Jeff UK 18:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "both owned and unowned domestic cats" is okay. Because of the edit summary, I just want to note that while feral cats do about 89% of the damage in the U.S., the study also said, Although our results suggest that owned cats have relatively less impact than un-owned cats, owned cats still cause substantial wildlife mortality (Table 2); simple solutions to reduce mortality caused by pets, such as limiting or preventing outdoor access, should be pursued. Efforts to better quantify and minimize mortality from all anthropogenic threats are needed to increase sustainability of wildlife populations. I don't want to mislead the readership on this point, but I also don't want to encourage people to think that outdoor pet cats are a non-issue, because that goes against the authors' intention. Geogene (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Old Review of Yours
About a decade ago you commented on and eventually advocated for the deletion of Appalachian temperate rainforest. Recently I have rewritten/revised essentially the whole article and was wondering if you'd be willing to read through it and give suggestions if you have any. I just think it would tie the story together nicely, and its always good to get the opinion of a critical viewpoint. Brooklaika (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reliable source noticeboard and dog breed sites
Thank you for your response on the RSN. The editing of the editor who raised the query is concerning, given the amount of material being deleted. The speed at which this is being done suggests that these deletions are probably based on a mere cursory review of the articles, and valuable and almost certainly accurate information is being lost. I have tried to get across that, where information needs supporting by more reliable sources, a mix of tagging and talk page discussion is sufficient, given that there are no legal or BLP or political issues involved, and nothing urgent or critical that requires relatively mundane and inoffensive facts about dog breeds to be deleted in such large quantities. Thanks again MapReader (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, that user just now spontaneously appeared in my Watchlist again, this time nothing to do with dogs. I appreciate their interest in reliable sourcing, but the rate of deletion and the tempo of a minute or two between deletions is concerning. Geogene (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Dog aggression study.
Apologies, I'd been logged out and I didn't notice due to the introduction and abstract being full length. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * No problem. Geogene (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

re Cat predation on wildlife
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @VampaVampa Okay. Geogene (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)