User talk:Jonathanwallace

Roma (Romani subgroup)
Can you please supply page numbers relating to this edit in order that a correct reference can be made. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please use them. It's painful to try to figure out who's commenting on what from the history otherwise. Best, Ray  Talk 19:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Assme you mean on discussion pages? Will do....Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers
In the Alexandra Powers article I created I found a website that says she is in Scientology. Here's the website: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/a/alexandra-powers.html Should this be used as a reference in the article? Please let me know. (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bambu
User Nahome and other keeps reverting your changes from when the article was contested to non-unbias blabber about brand, and un-relevant and unsupported facts. Why is this article being lambasted by soo many people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.114.50 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure but it certainly is a volatile environment over there. I posted something at Editor Assistance Requests asking for an admin to take a look. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's please talk about this on the Bambu talk page. There needs to be references for every item. I am not slandering anyone on purpose or otherwise, I am only removing ad-text and re-inserting referenced items that seem to be contrary to your brand IP user (sorry).  See you on the talk page!Nahome (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP discussion re Sarah Palin
In Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, you wrote:

"Someone said 'I object to the implication that invoking the mantra 'BLP', without more, constitutes an argument for omitting information.' Since in recent weeks I have made that same argument here in four or five other disputes, I wanted to specify why I don't agree on this one. ... However, I believe the existence of a porn film purporting to portray or satirize the subject, without her consent, is not notable, significant, relevant, useful, or 'encyclopedic'."

The holidays prevented me from rejoining the discussion, but I wanted to clarify what I, as the "someone", wrote. Almost nowhere in that whole thread do I see any reasoned argument for saying that giving our readers this information would be a BLP violation. In fact, I see very few attempts. What I see are flat assertions that the information should be omitted because it's a BLP violation. My point is that that's not an argument. It's not really worthy of much attention at all. BLP is like any other policy in that it's not self-executing. An editor must explain why certain material would violate BLP. That's what I meant by the phrase "without more" -- merely saying "BLP" isn't enough.

Your comment was a cut above most because you at least didn't think that three letters constitutes a reasoned analysis. In this particular case, I partially disagree with your reasoning, because I think that "not notable, significant, relevant, useful, or 'encyclopedic'" aren't BLP considerations. If Palin died tomorrow, the arguments about the film would be unaffected (unless she died of a heart attack precipitated by finding out about the film). I think the film is only a little bit notable, significant, relevant, useful, or encyclopedic, which is why I thought that one or two sentences in one of the 20 or so Palin daughter articles would be about the right amount of coverage and would not be undue weight.

Incidentally, I largely agree with the "Bios of living people" section on your user page. JamesMLane t c 07:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good word. I liked the phrase of yours I quoted because it expresses my reaction in the other disputes in which I took the side of including information. You are correct that people arguing "not BLP", without more, has no more content than if they merely said "I win". Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Jonathanwallace, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Jonathanwallace/DraftJoeWilson. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk page
I was moving my mouse over my watch list and accidentally clicked rollback and then immediately reversed my edit. My apologies. TFD (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

De Brazza
I agree with your paragraph but edited it by adding that "the Congolese who fought against colonization". De Brazza is not looked upon by most Congolese as a "humanitarian" and that we believe that colonizers should not looked upon as heroes, especially since our for-fathers fought against them for their freedom.

The Mausoleum for this colonizer is a controversy and should have it's own paragraph or at the very least, the heading for Death and Memorials should be titled differently.

Thank you for edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzingamina (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jonathan, - sorry coming back to this late - I have been travelling. Many thanks for your intervention in this matter. I had referred this topic on because, as you yourself discovered, for some years any attempt to edit Nzingamina's text has previously been reverted enigmatically "from a Congolese point of view of our history". Its hard to AGF & NPOV in the face of these edits, and when requests for substantiation on the talk page are ignored with counter-accusations in the edit summaries. You will have seen that I have made efforts to improve the museum controversy section of the article. Thank you too for identifying a better source of the allegation against de Brazza. However, I still have a question about the inclusion of this allegation.  It seems Obenga is the only person to make this allegation and quotes his source as 'oral history', which to the best of my knowledge is not classed as RS in WP. If Obenga can be seen as an academic scholar (and not just a respected politician) then I can understand the inclusion of this allegation. I would also feel more comfortable if Obenga's own WP page was unquestioned. The allegation is not mentioned in any other works I have seen that cover de Brazza during the colonisation of the Congo; placing it in WP:FRINGE.  In the context of the tribal and colonial history of the Congo this allegation of rape - while serious - seems to pale in the context of the gruesome and cannibalistic violence commonly meted out between groups at that time. Yet, in contrast to most colonial conquests, de Brazza's journeys appear to have been amazingly peaceful - making this allegation even more surprising and requiring good substantiation.  The interpretation of an event that happened more than century ago is inevitably mired in speculation when there is no surviving written history or evidence other than a century-old folk story - apparently not even an oral tradition. So are you happy that the wording now properly reflects that and is not giving WP:UNDUE? As a postscript - do you think the last paragraph warrants its own top-level heading?   Ephebi (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan. Thank you for your assistance, it is greatly appreciated since I believe that history should be told from the point of view of the colonizers and those colonized. The Mausoleum Controversy section has been on wiki for nearly two years. I fail to understand why Ephebi wished to delete the section, since it has been referenced and was approved. Again, thank you for your input. Nzingamina 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.230.128 (talk)


 * Nzingamina, you are mis-representing me, as a glance through the revision history will show. I have not tried to delete the mausoleum controversy, instead I have tried to make it read better and be more balanced as an example of post-war and post-colonial historiography. (In my experience, many articles read better if controversies are integrated into the article rather than in a separate 'Controversy' section.) My main issue has been with historical revisionism, which relies on a single poorly-sourced fringe allegation. Maybe you could try adding it to the French WP and see the reaction there? And now a reminder of Wikipedia etiquette: our editing experiences on WP will be more pleasant if we do not assert points of view, recognise that no-one owns a page, accept that pages will change over time without our permission, and respond to requests to co-operate before starting a revert war. Thanks, Ephebi (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest we move any further discussion off my talk page and to the article's. Thanks-- Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ephebi, you have attempted to re-write history by re-organizing the Mausoleum Controversy into a Death and Memorial section. There is nothing memorial about De Brazza to many Congolese. My main issue is that for over two years, this section was approved by Wikipedia based on the references and I fail to see your point in deleting that section and combining the controversy with your praise of De Brazza's death and memorial section. If you look at the French section of De Brazza, neither are the Africans pleased with the revision of history. Our experience with Wikipedia would be well served and is well served when references prove different point of views. As a Congolese, I refuse to have those that colonized us continue to write our history to the world. Thanks, Nzingamina —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC).

your edit summaries
Hi, would you mind please not adding I disagree with Rob, I have seen it about three times now - just make your comment and please don't make it so personal. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I follow your work here, and agree with you more often than otherwise. I did not intend any offense. I've been criticized for having edit summaries that are too vague, so still trying to get the hang of it.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just use - comment, or add, or reply - which is what it is, no need to explain everything in the summary - I disagree with off2riorob, there is no need to announce it to the world .. personally I like to be a bit vague in my summaries and if they are that interested then let them look go through my contributions themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NICENESS
Hi, your contributions at the BLP noticeboard are appreciated. You keep going on there and commenting about this redlink NICENESS - can I suggest you either start linking to an essay - there are I imagine a couple of essays that perhaps say something along those lines - also - please can you stop with the niceness stuff - we are required to edit the articles of living people in a respectful manner and to err on the side of caution - you have added your redlink multiple times, either please write it or stop going on about it - your stop being nice claims are a bit undue and are not what BLP is designed to protect living people from and I don't see anyone removing con=tent because they want to be nice to the living subjects of our BLP articles. thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Its a way of dramatizing a point I am trying to make. I am not accusing anyone in particular but saying that across the board, we often try to protect people when 1. they don't need protection and 2. Wikipedia policy doesn't require it. The red ink shows that the policy doesn't exist, which is my point. I was inspired by the Roman senator who ended every speech, no matter what it pertained to, with the statement Carthage must be destroyed until, sick of listening to him, the Romans destroyed Carthage. However, out of personal respect for you, I will defer for a while.Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK..interesting, thanks for the explanation - I have a personal ambition for wikipedia that it is an educational tool and not a mirror of smoking gun - if you think wiki should be that then we are never going to meet in the middle - the tabloid addition of such trivia and, ow he was caught shoplifting 12 years ago - is valueless in that position. Its not nice, its just not beneficially educational - I can show you many BLP articles of special people where the tabloid reported minor talking on the phone conviction has been added and dwarfs the actual notable things the person has done in their life - remember - people that hate a living person and people that have massive conflicts of interest come to wikipedia to add as much hateful additions as they can - for this reason - there is plenty of reason to consider  - erring on the side of caution - one of the main issues is do no harm - its cited and I want to add it - we have an ever increasing complaint list from the living subjects of our articles and the lawyers of living people - your article about me is detrimental to my online persona - why are you reporting a minor criminal conviction from 20 years ago, why are you reporting unsupported rumors about my sexuality..there have been discussions about allowing living people to opt out if they so desire - a possibility that is increased by low editing and addition standards to those articles  - this would result in a gap in our articles about living people that would be detrimental to the projects attempt towards broad coverage of all topics -  the reason to err on the side of caution is as much to protect the project as it is the subjects of our articles - the media sphere is riddled with attacking content that people can go and read and as such we can and should rise above that trivial tabloid path. As far as your wp:niceness goes - although there is no specific policy called that we are more requested through BLP take care of additions and show respect to the subjects of our BLP articles than we are here to be WP:NASTY either. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you and I agree on more things than otherwise. I also am not interested in having Wikipedia become thesmokinggun.com. I first started zeroing in on the BLP issue when people wanted to delete any reference from the bio of professor Charles Rackoff that he had sent a very public anti-feminist email which was covered extensively in Canadian media. There was another professor whose bio we maintained for a few months after he was arrested for raping a baby (no kidding), without any mention of the event, which was widely covered in reliable media. The solution in that case was to delete the article (I was fine with that). If you want to see an example of this protectiveness way out of control, see Marc Blitzstein who was murdered in the 1960's--until I re-added it our bio contained no account of how he died, though it is a well kown fact about a long dead person. All I am saying here is that there is a long standing, deeply rooted tendency not to include difficult or upsetting information, even when it is well sourced and key to an understanding of the person's career or life. In the baby rape case, would you want someone to make a decision about dating the guy or letting him babysit by looking at his Wikipedia bio? (except he wasn't out on bail). Or someone who wants to invite him to a seminar, or recruit him for a faculty position, or ask him to co-author a book....Imaginable, right? Don't you think its pertinent to his bio that he's in prison? If you had looked him up and tried to contact him and found out, wouldn't you be a little startled the info wasn't in his Wikipedia bio? This is not like an old talking-on-a-cellphone conviction. In these cases, its best to have no article at all than one that implies someone's life is business as usual when its not. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well imo - people should not be hiring people by reading the content in their BLP at wikipedia and the project s disclaimer is related to that. The alleged baby rape case - the way that worked was imo - a reflection of policy working at its best - he wasn't actually notable and the allegations were one event issue and we imo correctly got rid of it as fast as possible - don't forget - all the details are available via a simple google search - we are not hiding anything about anyone - it is all available via google, we are just our keeping editorial focus as high as possible in regards to living people. Yes, well done for replacing that content at Blitzstein - it was removed in August 2010 by User:ValenShephard  - his edit summary was that it was uncited and it was at that time but it really should have been moved to the talkpage or simply tagged as uncited and needing a cite. In reply to your comment, there is a long standing, deeply rooted tendency not to include difficult or upsetting information - Actually imo and from my experience - there has been a culture of attacking the subjects of our articles in the past at wikipedia, it was a pretty usual practice to add attacking content to the articles of people editors didn't agree with...this practice is on the decline and since BLP has been supported this is a much lesser situation, which is a very good thing indeed and good for the projects goals and ambitions -  Rackoff - an addition was replaced after discussion - the final addition satisfied both sides I think, discussion and policy usually gets us there in the end. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I respect your work and your goals. On those occasions when we do disagree, I'm almost as contented when you prevail (as in Vaughn Walker) because its not for the most part about individual bios but about maintaining a principle on the noticeboard and in the articles I can touch. As you say, its the process--I stand up for what I believe and then live with the consensus. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too, yours, I was looking at your userpage bio comments and external links yesterday, and well meaning intellectual input is always very beneficial to the project, even if they don't always agree with me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

David Berlinski

 * I reverted your well-written edits at David Berlinski because phrases like "incorrigible" and "inadequate" reflect your own views, constitute synthesis, and are not in accord with Wikipedia neutral point of view standards. Please also be aware of the three revert rule. Please discuss this issue on the David Berlinski talk page and seek consesnus before making further attempts to restore your edits to the article. Thanks, Jonathanwallace 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan, "Incorrigible" comes from the title of Berlinski's own hour-long video, "The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski," where he clearly presents those views. See these comments from 2007. You can also find a partial transcript here. —Montana Mouse (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More comments here. —Barry Kort 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we devise a satisfactory plan? —Moulton (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, the anon IP in question is banned User:Moulton. There may be problems with the Berlinski article. However, working with an extremely disruptive banned user to evade his ban is probably not a good idea. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Despite the invitation, I haven't been working with anyone. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Michael Cherney. Just a reminder for you to be mindful of the three-revert rule. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very mindful--I'm the one who reported the prior user who made 6 reverts,who was blocked 24 hours and of whom I am guessing this one is a sock. Jonathanwallace (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaveh Farrokh
Hi, thank you for participating in this discussion, regarding Kaveh Farrokh. I wonder what the result is ? redirect ?!!! why ? *** in fact ***   ( contact )  05:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just opened an RFC in here. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  06:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read my last comment in the Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  10:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I note you and I are the only people who have opposed the redirect in the RFC. You might want to remind some of the others who participated on the noticeboard to add their voices. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for supporting my idea. I have decided to quit the discussion. Best wishes, *** in fact  ***   ( contact )  11:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/UltraBrowser
Since I am already relisting 20+ AFDs today I decided to withdraw this nomination instead of relisting it. However, though you didn't bold the word delete, your comment did look like a weak delete argument based in the last sentence. Therefore I would be willing to reopen this AFD if you wish. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, let it ride for now. Thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Somalia Genocide
The admin who closed this as Delete might have been following a "letter of the law" approach, but, as I know from some recent experience, he sometimes makes the easier decision rather than the best one (see my comments on his Talk page). In this case, the best decision might have been to redirect the article to something like Isaaq Genocide, or Somalia genocide controversy. To do so now, however, with your userfied copy, might bring charges of WP:CONTENTFORK after the fact. I'd be happy to work with you on focusing what you wrote toward one or the other of those two alternative topics -- it wouldn't take much. I think Somalia genocide controversy is more likely to survive an AfD attempt, of the two, but I am open to arguments that Isaaq Genocide would be better, or perhaps some other title you can suggest. Yakushima (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added virtually all the information to Genocides in history. I then added a shorter version as a section in Somalia and kept getting reverted with an UNDUE comment (one two sentence section in an article of 33 sections). The editors finally let me keep a reference to genocide allegations as a short passage at the bottom of the History section, with a link to Genocides in history. And I redirected Somalian genocide to the latter.Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * All that horror and only one lousy sentence on wikipedia? Geo Bard  Rap 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cloward Piven Strategy
Hi, I noticed a couple edits where you reference a Cloward Piven Strategy article - the actual article still exists and is named Cloward–Piven strategy. Regards, Rostz (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. On the ANI noticeboard where they were discussing Frances Fox Piven, someone said, yeah, we should also delete Cloward Piven; it was redlinked and so I thought they already had. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

coat rack
Hi, I agreed with all your edits but disagreed with the coat rack. The information relating to the Dewsbury seat provides vital context – it was the worst affected seat that survived the Boundary Commission changes in West Yorkshire. On Wiki it states: “This coat rack is almost completely obscured by hats and coats” – there is no question that the article is obscures the piece as it is important context setting and there is lots more information which follows. The information provided is factual/neutral, verifiable (well sourced) and not from original research, which are the three core wiki policies, which jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. According to wiki: “Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three.”

In addition, wiki guidance states: “Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.” Hope this helps. thank you --Truesayer (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It has WP:WEIGHT problems, because you devote a long paragraph in a relatively short bio to it, and also synthesis problems as it is an expression of your own opinion of the relevance of the redistricting to his loss. If you cited a third party reliable source saying he lost the seat because of the redistricting, that might work. As it stands, the content does not belong in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input on this Jonathan. Others have already stated it is inappropriate including a Wikipedia admin and it clearly does not belong anywhere near the article in its present form. Hopefully the message is now getting through.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Jonathan - I didn't read your comments but I will re-work it tomorrow. As for shakehandsman I'm afraid he seem rather obsessed and has made numerous threats - his outburst here and elsewhere appear far from objective. --Truesayer (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Emile Haynie
I think I am doing this right, but I am requesting some help. I want to make my article final and finalize it so that it can come up in wikipedia searches. Could you instruct or elp me with this? I have given adequate info on a person of fame and have included the proper citation (with your help, you fixed it for me!). So.. could you help me make this published? Thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsfan524 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are an autoconfirmed user (account has existed four days and has ten edits), you can move your draft article to mainspace by following the instructions here. Let me know if that works for you or if you need more help. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I got it moved! Thanks for your help. I will work on it more in the next week once I am out of my classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardsfan524 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IP at Marit Bjørgen
Please check the history, (warning, NSFW); that ip did more than readd the contested para, thus my vandalism warning. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw, thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Parc_Jean-Jacques_Rousseau
Okay Jonathan that is all right. It is a sod of an article and I would appreciate your help.

In my view it is far too long for what is after all a park, compare for example the length of Cambridge Botanical Garden. It is way too long and I just translated a para about who inherited or was disinherited what from what and who gives a shit? We just want to know about the park.

So I was going to go CSD A7 thinking of this as an ill written article in French that needs cleanup in French before we attempt to get it into English. With your support, I will keep going, and help you out all I can. I was going to tackle the references next but that is always a big job that needs a kinda "man at work" sign out of it cos you have to do it in a lot of turns and if someone gets in the way it really gets hard.

My best wishes and sincere thanks to you. I will continue to edit but I hope I don't clash with you, if I do it is merely by accident, I assure you. This article is a total mess in the original so to make something useful from it in the English is a struggle. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work there Jonathan. I should probably have done this myself – started as a stub and expanded it – and I agree with you much of the detail is irrelevant (even for French people I would say). Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

support
Well done, here, I also thought the blanking was undue. Off2riorob (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymity
The section on your user page of the same title suggests that editing under your own name is discouraged. What are you referring to? Is this linked to an internal American legal consideration? I take the view, as a non-American, that anonymous contributions include those offered under an alias, and rightly attract suspicion about integrity, responsibility, accountability and credibility. It is a personal view, I know, but I'm curious why so many US contributors insist on pet names. Hence my question about the US legal dimension. Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   13:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Anonymity is highly protected under U.S. constitutional law (years ago I wrote a paper for Cato Institute on this topic). My observations on anonymity on Wikipedia were the result of threads on various noticeboards in which people commented that using your own name on Wikipedia is a way to get yourself electronically stalked off-wiki. I have seen a few angry debates about editing in which someone who had done this kind of "research" critiqued another editor for his real life affiliations and associations, in order to impugn his motives and assert a lack of neutrality. I have never had the least problem editing under my own name in the months I have been active, however. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply. Food for thought, though perhaps not yet in Australia.  Regards  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   14:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Religious toleration
Merged. --Deryck C. 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

'Genocide' Articles
Hello Jonathanwallace. I too took some interest in the articles created by. I was considering making a post about it when I saw you had sought help at Editor assistance/Requests. I'm not sure of the best venue but I think Neutral point of view/Noticeboard is the place, though that seems more slanted to particular questionable edits, rather than whole articles! The Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents is another possibility (Remember to notify the editor if you bring it up there!) Happy editing! ps. the articles in question are now proposed for deletion. - 220.101 User talk:220.101.28.25\ 18:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's so sad that you people are willing to deny and hide that mass genocide committed by the Muslim Arabs against indigenous Jews of the Middle East. I guess it just proves that antisemitism is alive even amongst wikipedia editors. I guess you guys don't consider it genocide because Jews were the victims! SAD! ChasteRoue — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChasteRoue (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am Jewish and proud to be. I also want Wikipedia to be a neutral and scholarly encyclopedia, and not become propaganda for one side or the other in endless political debates. All of the material you are trying to add would be fine if done neutrally and in the appropriate place. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Astronaut editing
I did not state buzz aldrin is a ancient astronaut theorist, i just said we was part of the cast list, which he is. He does appear and talk in the documentary, not a video extract, he was filmed and talked about it in the documentary.

In terms of the Google trends term, thats raw data my friend. Business change there whole business model in google data. In the link you can clearly see a graph of the trend increase over the last 3 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.148.12 (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

edits and additions
Hi Jon, as a comment, well my advice really, if some controversial disputed content is removed from a BLP imo unless you have a issue in the pie you should never replace it .. when you replace it you take all responsibility for it .. it is yours then - you are the one that added it - unless you have a wedge in the pie and it is disputed contentious content my advice is to allow whoever has a wedge in the pie to replace it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When this was posted recently at BLP I checked out the sources and they were reliable. Various accounts and socks are trying to remove all negative well sourced content from the article, as well as completely inappropriately blanking the Talk page. I think part of the mission of defending Wikipedia is defending well sourced critical content; otherwise we end up with a very bland encyclopedia no different than  a Who's Who or press release aggregator. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Knut Hamsun' obituary of Adolf Hitler
Hi Jonathan, Tnx for the message. As you'll see from my latest posting (cf. below), I already got there (cf. yr suggestions) - more or less. A relief to find sensible feedback after all the back-and-forth on this entry today. As a newcomer, it simply is a bit disorienting to be referred to "guidelines" etc. in general. The email-form did the trick. (Even using the four tildes was new to me this morning - I was told to use them, but not why, i.e. what it accomplished!) Still, it'll be awhile before I spend this much effort on something this small on Wikipedia again... Interesting learning-process, though, ha-ha ;-)

"Tnx, John - finally some useful practical info: the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. I'll get on it, Monday (as it's now after office hours) - i.e. ask the publishing house to fw that email filled in [to Wp]. In the meantime, over the week-end, I hope the obituary can remain on Wikipedia. Otherwise would seem unreasonable: delaying providing practical info until after hours, thus causing deletion. Take my word for this (yes, you can! - using yr own common sense): the obituary's been in the public domain (albeit not quite as formally) for nearly 60 years, and the copyright-holding publisher's only too happy (my impression, rather solid) to have it on Wikipedia under that entry. They even wanted an email back - and got it - confirming the efforts to have it posted there. Very pleased, they (she - no name!) were (was). Again, tnx for the constructive input. Happy week-end 2 U"

Factlover1 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Drollinger
The ministry section is filled with grammatical errors, and non cited controversial accusations. It seems like a bulk of negative information, written predominately by OCNative. Wikipedia editors have tried to keep the section neutral and short. However OCNative and people who appear to "work" for Ralph keep adding to the section. I wanted to clean it up to sound more credible and neutral, to avoid more disputes. - YLinda — Preceding unsigned comment added by YLinda (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed well-sourced assertions regarding his specific statement about the Catholic church and what his own church said about him, and you marked it a minor edit. I think the information is appropriate in the article, and it definitely was not a minor edit. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ph(x)
I deleted the court order from the talk page at PH(x) because as a primary legal document naming living people, I assume its a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation even on a talk page. Possibly should be rev-del'd as well? Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's a BLP violation. I don't understand why it is on a legal forms site. Good edit to remove it though. Discussion continues... User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources
Regarding your imply whether the "Herzl Foundation" can be considered RS or not, i would like to draw your attention to the following discussion on credibility of "Babylonian Jewry Heritage" journal here -. I think the status of "Herzl Foundation" and "Babylonian Jewry Heritage" is somewhat similar, since both publish a semi-professional journal, but lack a comprehensive editor review procedure. Wikipedians widely agree that the bottom line of credibility of "Babylonian Jewry Heritage" is its academic editor crew, even though they do are not reach a level of academic journal. Same in the situation of "Herzl Foundation" journal - it solely depends who is the author and editor of the publication.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very sure its not a reliable source. The magazine's submissions page also tells you to copy edit your own work as they don't have resources to do it. I feel certain nothing they publish is rigorously fact-checked. The other sources cited in the multiple references to the same sentence are more respectable, so you don't really need Herzl there for anything; it is probably just echoing one of the other secondary sources you quote.   I boldly deleted it,  but if you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and restore it; the article is in much better shape, and the one source isn't worth disputing. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Dent edit
Jonathan, You don't seem to have looked in detail into the history behind request that EATC made of you earlier (of which he provided you with a misleading description). This user started an edit war over a fairly brief section I added to Charlie Dent's political positions. EATC kept pushing for expansion of the section by overlaying what are demonstrably Republican talking points, which I responded to by adding further verifiable facts. Then EATC turns around in the end and complains that the discussion has gotten too lengthy and charges me with coatracking.

The reason the section is highly relevant is that Dent's public persona is of a moderate who bucks his party on extreme votes. His page highlights this supposed moderation, even giving space to such trivia as Dent's vote against the Terri Schiavo legislation.

So there is ample reason to give some weight to a highly consequential counter example, Dent's vote to terminate Medicare. It is not coatracking to add info about an important political position to the section of his page called "political positions".

What is needed is a brief section like what I originally created, before EATC barged on the scene. 72.86.146.31 (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you ended up with what I call a "POV quilt". Republican talking points don't belong there either. It smacks of original research to give a long disquisition on views with an eye to establishing he is not a moderate. The right way to handle these issues is to find a reliable third party source on the topic and quote it very carefully, with attribution, as it is likely to be an op ed and not straight reporting. See the Glenn Beck article, in which for example an assertion that he represents the "paranoid style' is carefully sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not realistic to hope to find credible 3rd party sources analyzing Dent's vote on this bill. As things stand, EATC is now pushing to have the entry whittled down to a bare mention that Dent voted for the bill, with a link. He wishes to delete any acknowledgment of Medicare or that its termination is controversial. I've demonstrated with a news citation on the talk page that EATC showed up brandishing GOP talking points; it's important to acknowledge, which no administrator has done so far, that his manipulation in this matter was done with partisan bias.

Anyway, what matters ultimately is Dent's page. It reads now as a press release; there is not a single critical comment on his entire career. It is rhetorical in toto, and much of the "political positions" section is devoted to showing by piling up examples that Dent is a "moderate". Several of these examples are inconsequential. His budget/Medicare vote would constitute a single counter-example and indeed merits on its face more weight than some of the inconsequential "moderate" positions already represented at length. That's not to say the Medicare vote needs a lengthy disquisition. But it ought to be presented forthrightly, rather than obscured as EATC has tried to achieve. It's not wikipedia's role to make it more difficult for readers to figure out the significance of the info it notes. EATC wants to force readers to follow links if they're to understand that Dent voted to terminate Medicare. I think that should be presented up front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.109.202 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan. Sorry about the above; obviously, your talk page is not the place for such a discussion, much less one riddled with personal attacks. I see from your user page that you are a very busy man, so I just wanted to let you know that I have opened this issue for discussion on the relevant article's talk page, where I already referenced your comments from yesterday. Naturally, all discussion on the issue can be kept there; hopefully IP users will realize. Please feel free to chime-in, if you feel it necessary. Sorry again. EATC (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rick Hill
Scribd is not the source; it is displaying scans of the Billings Gazette articles. This may be a copyright violation but the article content can be used as references. -- Neil N   talk to me  13:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have dealt with this in other situations at the reliable source noticeboard. We don't source controversial statements about living people to purported scans of newspaper articles on content aggregation sites, nor do we source anything to copyright violations. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the discussion? Content can be sourced to offline articles so using the standard newspaper cite format should be an adequate replacement. Note I'm not touching the article for now. -- Neil N   talk to me  14:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Todd-thanks. Neil: Here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

using Greek as a "revolutionary" step by Erasmus and Luther
Learning and using Greek was oppposed, not forbidden (!), by the Catholic Church at that time. The official bibletext of the new testament used by the catholic church was, and still is the Vulgate. The learning and use of Greek was meant to be for eminent scholars who were fully loyal to the church. The brethren of the common life have never been wholeheartedly loyal to the church, they were, as it was tolerated by the church. They have always sought for ways to bring belief close to the common people and to let them individualize/personalize belief. (the book Imitatio Christi written by Thomas a Kempis was the epitome of that). That also could mean that the interferrence of churchprofessional as intermediars to heaven was not necessary. Because of that there have always been tensions between the church and the Brethren. The Brethren have always supported the idea that translation of the bible in folklanguage would be the best way to teach the people christian ways. One way of getting there was getting around the Vulgate, and using the much older greek text of the new testament on which the Vulgate was based. Not using the Vulgate meant indirect criticism at it (and thus, also at the church). The consequence of all that was also that Greek had to be taught on a more regular and common base too, so that the knowledge and use of Greek would improve drastically. That's how Erasmus at young age came into contact with these ideas, in Deventer! Erasmus was strongly opposed by catholic scholars, especially those of the university of Leuven (Louvain), in the Low Countries and Germany (in those days both part of the Holy Roman Empire under Charles V) when he wanted to redraft and publish the Greek text of the new testament. Both Luther and Tyndale were influenced by Erasmus and took things further with there translations in German and English. Both men used the Erasmus editon of the Greek text of the new testament. Tyndale was burnt at the stake, Luther, who learned his first greek by the brethren in Magdeburg (!), survived because of his protector, the duke of Saxony. And that's why the small step of putting Greek in your curriculum is such a "revultionary" step. It may not be so in the english spoken world but most of this is common knowledge in the dutch professional historical world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vransiscus (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Vransiscus

PS my english may not be all to good, I'm a dutchman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.178.167.72 (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note, BLPPRIMARY and talk page observations

 * Article work:
 * It looks like some of the material stubbed at the United Assurance Company article is not a BLPPRIMARY vio. I left the excerpts on the talk page.


 * About some of your userpage comments:
 * Opinions in biographies map the network of ideological support and opposition. It's not so much what they say, or that sides cancel out, but who says what, how publicly, and how ferociously.
 * I agree that BLP is overused in some contexts, though it's good to make a distinction between notability and relevance; notability only applies to creating articles, after that WP:WEIGHT given by reliable sources determines relevance.
 * I agree that using ethnicity as a defining characteristic is pretty lame and very 20th century. Isn't it all just a social construction at this point?
 * On anonymity, there is a great legion of typo-fixers and content dabblers, who do constant termitic work; in comparison there are petty vandals thwarted by automation--they're little trouble and less and less so as the tools improve. Anonymous editing is the crack that hooks the long term editors who might have never gotten their noses wet otherwise (I think I just mixed metaphors).
 * My opinion on POV quilts is that they need better topic sentences.
 * I disagree that polls are irrelevant, for public perception is a key aspect of public figures and public events, just like movie reviews are key to movies. It is important to select polls which are representative, however, and that is always an issue which polls that are both temporally and geographically limited.
 * One response to persistent claims of UNDUE is to cite WP:V/WP:OR. If it's cited in an RS, then it must be relevant and it's original research for an editor to decide that it's not.  That's a tactic, however, and many misuse it.  But at least now you know the counter-tactic.

Cheers, Ocaasi c 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! A lkot to think about here. As far as the article is concerned, I responded at the Talk page--didn't notice I was removing a newspaper article, sorry about that. It can certainly go back in. I do feel pretty strongly that FBI and SEC press releases should not be cited, any more than we would cite a company's own press release to support a fact statement. We especially should avoid press releasdes where there are BLP implications, as here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

schools
Hi. The Wikipedia Schools Project has set up a dedicated  help and feedback page at WP:WPSCH/H. This is for elementary/primary, middle, and high schools (often called college in the UK). It is not for universities or other degree awarding institutions. If you regularly give advice to users, you might wish to send enquirers there - we are quick to respond. However, WT:WPSCH still remains the place for general discussion about the management and policy of school articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP
Thanks for your feedback regarding these articles proposed for deletion. In terms of Nick Mamatas, feel free to add your opinion to his book Move Under Ground. I could be mistaken, but there doesn't seem to be any third party sources that are reliable. You may have better luck Thanks. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, uh, didn't think this AFD would be so sticky, but it seems like we've got a tempest in a teapot here. Feel free to drop by. Still can't find enough third-party sources to claim notability, and I have no idea who this author is, but apparently he's got a lot of fans online and there seems to be a high degree of canvassing/meatputtetry/SP going on. Maybe I am missing something. I'm hoping someone can add some insight here, and I think I'll leave it alone and wait for other, more proficient (shouldn't be hard to find) editors out there to add some input as I obviously have upset some fans!Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, lot of overheated SPA's. Nastiest AFD I have voted in in a while. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tsk; I remember you from The Ethical Spectacle when you seemed to be a relatively rational dude. How is offering coherent arguments against deletion from quite a few people with longer Wikipedia histories than Jimsteele9999 "overheated SPA's" (whatever those are)? It was quite clear from the start that Jim was a bit clueless about the subject and let his ignorance guide him, which is at worst a minor sin, had he not doubled down when he was corrected to the point of now calling the debate nasty? Not quite cricket that. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The most outspoken commenter in the debate, who is making a lot of personal implications, is a new account who has only edited Mamatas-related articles--a "single purpose account" or SPA. I did a Google search before voting and went through the first few pages of results, finding only social media, blogs, and non-notable sources. I did not find the reviews and mentions in more mainstream media which have now been added, which were evidently deeper in the queue. When I vote to keep in a deletion debate where I believe the nominator may not have done their homework, I assume good faith and restrain myself to saying something like, "Remember WP:BEFORE"; I don't make a lot of allegations about ignorance and :well-poisoning" (whatever that is). Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance if this turns your talk page into a war zone, Mr. Wallace. I agree there are a lot of overheated SPAs on the page, and the more we point this out, the more we have, what looks to me, as meatpuppetry. Again, I could be wrong. I was claiming all the awards the guy was nominated for were regional. Well, how about that. Okay, they're are not regional. So as I pointed out there are authors on WP who are nominated for dozens of awards and discussions conclude the author is not notable. And there are some authors that have never been nominated for any awards--regional or national--that are notable. But you know this already.


 * Those on the board do not because the keepers bang the same drum, and are baiting, and I will wait until an administrator decides. Martin Wisse, you should be aware of what SPAs are, if you are going to claim another editor is inexperienced. Moreover, it does tell you something about how closely and carefully the people on the page are reading my posts when I admit I didn't know of the guy, and never have read a word of his work (although I did a Google search, standard practice) . I said that in response to "Jim Steele doesn't like this guy, it's personal." And if all of these "keepers" are so familiar with him, again, as I said, all the better. That is not a COI. As a matter of fact, it could--should--bolster their arguments because you'd think they would have better references to add seeing how strongly they feel about him. But nothing doing.


 * The only thing "nasty" going on Mr. Wisse, is these redundant, nonsensical allegations of "well-poisoning" and personal insults. When something like this (link to the AfD from your blog)I tend to think less of an editor's good faith. It makes me think of canvassing, to be honest. I assure you, I've been accused of and called much worse, and none will help the article nor make him notable.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Jose Turina
Hi, I noticed that you responded to Jose Turina's post on WP:BLPN. I removed the content he added to his biography. I don't want to confuse him by adding another post underneath yours with different information, but the reason for my revert wasn't WP:COI, it was that the material was copied and pasted verbatim from a google doc containing his CV. The text is actually fairly encyclopedic for a CV. Perhaps the best solution is to tell him he can add back the list of his compositions and to suggest that he summarize his CV. Perhaps he can also provide a secondary source. Given that the tone of his CV is fairly factual I'm not terribly worried about COI. Does this seem like a reasonable approach? GabrielF (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Court judgments and RS
Hi Jonathan. I think I recall that you are of the opinion that court judgments should be treated as secondary sources. This has just come up at RSN, and it seems like it would be useful to have your input. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your apt comments. TimidGuy (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One reason this interests me, beyond my continued participation at RSN, is because in Lancaster v Skolnick the parties reached an agreement, and the plaintiff requested that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The judge's order reads: "This cause of action is hereby dismissed without prejudice and with leave to reinstate if settlement is not effectuated. All pending motions are hereby moot." Skolnick and NY Times and LA Times say that the suit was dismissed. And, of course, in a sense it was, since any settlement entails dismissal of the action. But most people hearing that assume that there was a judgment. The WP article on Skolnick correctly says it was dismissed without prejudice, but I think that since most people are unfamiliar with that legal term, they will, again, assume that there was a judgment. So I added the text of the judge's order in a footnote, without comment. It was deleted by another editor who said it was inappropriate to cherry pick court documents. Curious to have your opinion on this, since you're both an experienced Wikipedian and knowledgeable in this area. Do you think it's appropriate to quote the text of the judge's order in a BLP or other article as a matter of clarification? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Marty Peretz
You might be right. Would comments by others be better? The Kristoff stuff goes on for too long-- I think you are right. I just wanted to make the point that Kristoff thought that Peretz was misrepresenting his position should be gotten in. Taking your advice, diretion, I will cut it back in length-- but leave some of it with your approval, if ok?

I won't be edit warring at Marty Peretz but I believe the current structure of "Peretz said....Kristof said about Peretz...Peretz replied....Kristof re-replied...." gives one critic of Peretz too much weight. Also, what Peretz thinks of Kristof is not that important in a bio of Peretz. This IMO is a common problem in WP bios and creates what I call a "POV quilt" where instead of giving an overview of disputes in Wikipedia's voice, we get mired in minutia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs)

Hi Jonathan: You were/are absolutely right that there was too much information about Stephen Glass in this profile And you did a great edit and shortening and reverting of it.

But the bigotry portion of the Peretz section does not go on too long in that it became a national ontroevery. James Fallow's omments are especially important I think. And the back and forth between Peretz and Kristoff should include Kristoff's reaction to Peretz's "apology" that many reasonable people found wanting, so thought that was important to inlcude. Hope you compromise with other people who contribute to the page and discuss with them instead of just reverting without discussion and consideraton of other views. Peace and thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathradgenations (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Spencer (author)
Thanks for your attempt to revamp the "criticism" and rebuttals sections on this page, Jonathan. I've just made a number of comments on the talk page. You've made a great start, but I do think that some very careful scrutiny, and perhaps the restoration of a few solid sources might be in order. Please discuss when you have time.Jemiljan (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to note that you haven't responded to my critique in some time. Another editor, 1detour has also responded, and so your 2¢ would be appreciated.  Also noting that it looks like Sleetman was blocked due to edit warring on other pages.21:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs)
 * I have some summer projects which have required me to take a Wikibreak...checking in but not doing more than casual editing right now. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. In light of the Breivik incident in Norway, things have heated up again.  Your input on the discussion would be appreciate, if you have a little time.22:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs)

David Halperin
--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Hi! just check these pages: Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle and Mohammed Rafi. These articles too claim they held guinness records without making a ref using http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com. -- Commander  (Ping Back)  07:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

French article translation
Can you help me translate fr:Prince Punuari'i Teri'itapunui Pomare and fr:Prince Teri'itua Tuavira Joinville Pomare?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look and get back to you. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Be happy to--they are short and the French is easy. Expect something within a week or so. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Feast of the Seven Fishes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whiting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

McKinsey & Company
Hi Jonathan,

Dbbrown762 from McKinsey mentioned you helped foster a great discussion related to the Anil Kumar article. It looks like your primary interest is in BLPs, where Wikipedia takes particular care to protect the reputation of the subject, but I did want to point you to this discussion on the McKinsey company article. We're working on a set of more detailed discussion points in hopes that neutral editors will evaluate our concerns and hopefully spark a discussion of similar quality.

User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Using court judgments as sources
Hi Jonathanwallace. I have been researching the topic of using court judgments as reliable sources in Wikipedia articles and in the course of my research have come across a few  of your posts on noticeboards. I personally agree with your view that judgments are reliable, and in a way, secondary sources because they are derived from the entire proceedings. I thought perhaps you might be interested commenting on my recent post here. I would very much appreciate any input or comment you might have. Thanks very much. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation Assistance
Greetings! It seems you have a rather coveted skill set with your translation abilities. Kudos! Would you have the time or the interest to collaborate on the AIG business page? The French version looks like it could use some help on content and formatting. Best Regards! MsGingerHoneycutt (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Religious views of Sigmund Freud
Kudos re the article, although, of course, not much is perfect from every angle. Elfelix (talk) 01:54, 10 October 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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)