User talk:LWG/Archive 1

Hey, no problem at all - always nice to hear from a fellow, civil Wikipedian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookish.blogger (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of notability...
I just saved the article you've been working on, Lake Aurora, from almost certain WP:AFD death. Don't be too mad at me... it was necessary. It would have been nominated eventually and would have been a certain delete, but as an article about a lake with a summer camp on it, it is safe from the Wikipedia deletion cabal. Sorry, this is about the best you can hope for. VictorianMutant (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not mad at all, I agree that that article was of questionable notability. When I took it on it was much worse, but I'm generally unwilling to delete articles, so I just cut it down to a more encyclopediac article about a still non-notable subject. Changing it to refer to the lake itself is a brilliant idea. LWG (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saw an edit on Race and intelligence of yours
Hi, LWG, I just saw a new edit of yours to Race and intelligence, an article that recently came out from under a long Arbitration Committee case. I was wondering if you would like to discuss further on the article talk page what the sources say about the relevance of the Flynn effect to the article topic. Meanwhile, I have reverted your edit, because I think there is a sourced basis for leaving in article text the passage you just removed, but let's talk and discuss how we both might improve the article, which definitely needs a lot of work after years of edit-warring. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I just stumbled across that while doing some research, and removed it because it seemed to be essentially saying "unknown factors could have effects", which is a meaningless statement. I posted a request on the talk to have it clarified. LWG (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Softpedia for deletion
The article Softpedia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * No problem, that's what Wikipedia is for! PBP (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reverting the very crude vandalism on the article on sausage. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noticing! LWG talk 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bible
Hi LWG, thanks for wanting to resolve this, but how long do you want me to talk about the same thing. We've been talking about the same thing over and over, and it's getting nowhere. This is clearly against WP policy what he's doing. I think I need an Admin to step in. This is really ridiculous. WalkerThrough (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As long as necessary for a peaceful resolution. Slrub is not violating any wikipedia policy by making good faith edits which in his opinion improve the article in accordance with wikipedia's principles. If he is mistaken in his opinions, it is our job to "make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification". By escalating the situation and expecting instant agreement to your wishes, you are only making things difficult for all concerned.


 * And speaking pragmatically, there is zero chance that you will succeed in an ANI dispute over this. Take my advice as a fellow brother and wikipedian and try to work with us, not against us. LWG talk 19:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wisdom
"With that said, let's talk this out here like civil wikipedians, rather than sling one-liners at each other in the edit history."

Thank you, LWG. It makes me feel so good to read words like this on a contentious talk page. :) It may seem small, but Wow! what a difference small things can make. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Always glad to help. LWG talk 23:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

government/copyright
It actually depends on the government, I know that most (almost all) US government publications are considered to be in the public doman, and there's no issue there as a result. That's not true for other governments, however. Sometimes you can look at the gov't site and see if it claims copyright, but if you have any doubts, it's not a problem to mark it with the copyvio template and have the folks who spend their days dealing with copyrights take a careful look. --joe deckertalk to me 15:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Tagged the link. Hopefully somebody who knows more than I do will look at it. LWG talk 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong
Hey LWG, it's great to see someone else hitting old NPOV backlog stuff with me (I did the balance of Aug 2007), but on this article the talk page had issues outstanding. - RoyBoy 03:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia or Anti-Islamism?
Hi LWG, there is a discussion you may be interested in going on at Talk:Islamophobia. MsBatfish (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Rabbitfang 16:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputes on a couple of pages-Please help if you can
Hi, I'm a relatively new user to Wikipedia and I ran across your username while investigating the talk page for Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. Since your user page states that you specialize in WP:NPOV disputes, and you seem to have little or no affiliation with the editors I am currently having an issue with, I thought it might be a good idea to ask for your help in a matter with a couple of pages that I have been having difficulty editing since I got here. I will advise you, in advance, that I might not have proceeded in the wisest pattern of edit practices, partly because as a new editor I didn't know the rules, and partly out of frustration of having to deal with editors who cannot seem to be objective themselves(they even falsely accused me of being a WP:Sock) when it comes to material related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The problem of greatest concern is a series of web pages related to Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses that are written in a very defamatory manner, filled with half truths, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and tend to misrepresent the source material to a great extent, by it seems, editors who have a WP:COI when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and also the utilization of source material that is the very definition of WP:fringe. The primary page of dispute at this point is the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs at which I have made more than a few attempts at "adjusting the page" to a less negative and defamatory article(remember what I said earlier about not always in the right manner, but I'm trying to learn the rules and follow them). I most recently made an edit that I think should be left intact, however one of the 3 disruptive editors who have continually fought against any objective change to this negatively written page reverted it, I filed a WP:ani complaint against him for disruptive editing and received a warning for Edit Waring, though I hadn't edited the page for 2 days. I had previously requested that the page be deleted, due to the pact that I felt that it would be a hopeless situation to try to convert the page into creditable material because I felt that I would never receive any real co-operation from the 3 editors in question( Jeffro77, BlackCab and Vyselink, two of which, if not all three, are members of Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. So if possible, please help.  Maybe you could invite several neutral editors to come to the page and help rectify the pages negative structure.  The second page is one on Bible Chronology, where I first encountered these editors and their WP:COI WP:NPOV with regards to material related to Jehovah's witnesses after correcting an incomplete and inaccurate chart on bible chronology, I would also like to possibly reach some type of compromise there with an editor who I believe just honestly wishes to have her material presented, she is  Lisa, however, I feel that Jeffro77 has made it clear he will continue to revert any edit that I make that contains any material presented that is sourced by material written by Jehovah's Witnesses, even to such an extent that he seems to have become an "online Stalker" by following me from site to site reverting whatever edits I make, regardless of content or accuracy. The page in question is  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible any help you provide would be appreciated as I know that this will take a bit of your time to sort out.Thanks.Willietell (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As an univolved administrator, I find it hard to believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. Beyond that, WP:Canvassing is not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Willietell. I'm afraid I am currently at a location with limited internet access, and thus cannot read up on the context of your complaints, but here are several tips that will help you with these kind of things:


 * Most editors are not out to get you. Although it is unfortunately true that pretty much every controversial subject has a few people pushing for their respective sides, it has been my experience so far that the majority of wikipedia editors are willing to listen to reason, if you present your concerns in the right way.
 * Most editors do not share your opinions. This is true for every single one of us, as wikipedians represent a vast number of different worldviews, but it is especially important to remember when editing religion articles. Since no one person owns wikipedia, no one person should expect everything on wikipedia to agree with what they believe is true.
 * Change on wikipedia is slow. Wikipedia operates on consensus. Any disputed issues must be talked out at length until they are settled. When you engage in a controversial subject you must be prepared to spend weeks or even months discussing the issue, whithout growing impatient or losing your cool. Trying to push things through before everyone is on board does not work.
 * No canvassing. While it is generally a good thing to bring additional editors into a dispute, you should not do so in a way designed to favor one side of the dispute. Most experienced editors won't give much credence to a "complaint list" posted on their talk anyway. Had you left off everything starting with "I will advise you" it would have been perfect.
 * And lastly Don't go to ANI! They are for stopping vandalism, not settling content disputes. Going there with a POV dispute is the fastest track to a ban on the wiki, short of replacing whole pages with profanity.

When I get back to a stable internet connection I may be able to look at the situation more closely, but until then, remember to keep your cool and be civil. Hopefully you'll be able to contribute constructively in the future. -- LWG talk 19:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, any help you can provide will be appreciated, because frankly, I really haven't "caught on" just yet and don't really know how to properly go about things yet, contrary to the beliefs and assertions of Toddst1  stated above, I AM new to Wikipedia, and am just learning how to go about things properly, unfortunately, some have not seemed willing to help, but have met my inexperience with hostility and suspicion, as unfortunate as that is, maybe we can get past it and I can become a useful editor.Willietell (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably the safest thing, in a situation where you are being accused of edit warring, would be to restrain yourself to the talk page and if there is agreement on the talk page to do something, let someone else make the actual mainspace edit. -- LWG talk 14:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see I've been disingenuously mentioned here by User:Willietell. Rather than attempt any defense of my actions, I would suggest you read the Talk pages of the articles already mentioned and make up your own mind. If you have comments or concerns about any of my edits, please let me know. Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles
This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Anaphora (linguistics), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Shriram (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, this was an issue where ClueBot had falsely flagged a previous edit, and then flagged me when I restored it. -- LWG talk 04:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Assessment
Hello LWG, I noticed that you put the assessment on the page Talk:Morse code up to A-class. In case you didn't know, there is a formal review needed to get an article to A-class. Please do not add A class to articles unless they have successfully undergone an A-class review. Thanks. JZCL 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, I did not realize that was the case. It should probably be made clear on the relevant policy page. -- LWG talk 21:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [] -- Nczempin (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I had looked for a page like that before, but only found the main assessment page. I hadn't noticed the "show more detailed criteria" link. -- LWG talk 14:48, 26 July 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 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please come back
Please come back to this discussion about the POV-check template. Debresser (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

 * To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

'''This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!'''

Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way.
 * Background

Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process.

An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here.


 * Progress so far

Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created.

As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May)

Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes.

Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement:
 * Proposed changes

1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Dispute resolution.
 * Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN.
 * Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum.
 * Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum.
 * Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee.
 * Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise.
 * Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired?
 * This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute.
 * It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent.
 * If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors).
 * The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?".
 * Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired.
 * Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline.
 * Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time.

3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of other users comments on talk pages?
Why did you remove the comments by 174.3.66.128 on Talk:Islamophobia? PerDaniel (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Those comments included unsourced contentious information about a living person (a reference to "CBS" without a link does not constitute a source), and appeared to be expressing an opinion rather than suggesting an improvement to the article. Putting unsourced and potentially defamatory content about a living person on a talk page does not excuse a person from our policy to immediately axe potentially defamatory and unsourced content. If the person mentioned really does have a history of Islamophobic statements, and someone has discussed this in a reputable source, then it may be considered for inclusion in the article, but unsourced opinion pieces have no place on wikipedia. -- LWG talk 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you had been interested in improving wikipedia you should have sought the sources yourself before censoring the comment. It took me a few seconds to find the source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/09/06/harper-911-terrorism-islamic-interview.html PerDaniel (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That article does not describe Harper's statements as "Islamophobic", and particularly does not say that he "demonized an entire religion and promoted hatred and fear of those who follow that religion". That is an unsourced, highly contentious, and potentially defamatory statement about a living person and per WP:BLP should be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion. The anonymous editor appears to have a strong opinion that Harper's comments were Islamophobic, and indeed, that is something many people would infer from reading about them. However, it is not the goal of wikipedia to make such judgements, not is it an appropriate place for people to express their personal opinions. If some reputable source has identified Harper as a source of Islamophobic rhetoric, then that may be a noteworthy fact that should be included in the article, but if no such source has it is not our job to decide that those comments were indeed Islamophobic. I understand that you are just trying to stop censorship, but to avoid these sorts of arguments it would probably be a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with wikipedia's content guidelines, especially if you will be involved in controversial articles like Islamophobia. If you have any questions I will be glad to help: we can always use more manpower in watchdogging these issues. -- LWG talk 16:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was clear that the anonymous editors accusations were just accusations and had no encyclopedic value. What I found interesting was the link to the interview, where the prime minister came with some strange statements. He claims that "Islamicism" is the biggest security threat in Canada. After searching I can't find any islamist terrorist attacks carried out in Canada, just one planned in 2006. There have been terrorist attacks by other groups which have claimed lives in Canada after 2006. This might be what caused some people (including the anonymous editor) to characterize the statements as islamophobic. That the anonymous editor is not a reputable source should be abundantly clear, but I haven't had the time to search for reputable sources among the ones that made this claim. Another statement in that interview that surprised me as a politically interested norwegian was that the attacks by Anders B. Breivik came out of the blue. Just days before the attacks I argued with some "counterjihadists" on the comment pages of the second largest newspaper in Norway, who claimed that the country was beeing overrun by muslims and that the politicians, especially the labour party, were traitors who not just let this happen, but that this was part of a plan to eradicate the norwegian people. PerDaniel (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so then you and me appear to be in complete agreement as to the allegations being the unsourced product of the IP editor's mind. I guess you just weren't aware of the "eradicate with extreme prejudice" stance wikipedia takes towards that kind of thing. I suggest you read WP:BLP, especially WP:BLPREMOVE which includes a full discussion of why potential libel must be immediately deleted. -- LWG talk 12:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, my talk page is not an appropriate place for you to list the things you found sketchy about Harper's statements, either. Wikipedia is not a place for general discussion of the things it covers, especially controversial topics. If you want to have a discussion you should go to another web site. -- LWG talk 12:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have read WP:BLP, but I couldn't find anything there about the need for removing non-contentious material just because it was added at the same time as possibly contentiuos material. Would it not be possible to just remove the parts of the edit that you deemed contentious? I am not using your talk page as a forum, I am just trying to explain why I found the interview to be interesting as background material for improvement of articles, and I don't appreciate that you accuse me of using it as a forum. PerDaniel (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in that comment was sourced, virtually all of it was contentious, and even the article you linked to is not relevant to the subject of Islamophobia, because it does not describe Harper as Islamophobic or even mention that others might do so. That article might be relevant to Islamicism or Stephen Harper if someone felt they were especially important statements, but it certainly shouldn't be posted in the accusatory way it was. You should probably also take a look at WP:OR: your personal experiences on a newspaper comment thread aren't really useful to us. Hopefully this isn't coming across as too harsh, but after 10 years wikipedia has a pretty solidly established culture to it, and if you aren't familiar with it you'll just end up wasting your time and ours rather than helping improve things. Trust me, I know: I was new once as well and it takes some experience to navigate controversies successfully. -- LWG talk 20:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

npov removing: a suggestion
On your user page, you write that you remove inappropriately placed npov tags, a very admirable goal and a benefit to the appearance of Wikipedia and new editor retention (you have a lot of patience with them, judging by your talk page).

However, I would like to point out that inexperienced editors (including myself, sometimes) often mis-tag an article as "npov" when they mean that there is a different slant problem with the article: say COI or spam. In this case, removing an npov tag will give the appearance to other editors that you judged the page's content to be reliable.

I am refering specifically to this edit; you will notice that the wording of the article is obviously problematic.

I suggest that, in the future, you check articles with wrongly-placed tags whether the tagger may have meant a similar problematic-content tag.

Thank you!

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello הסרפד, thanks for sharing your concerns. I do try to notice if there are glaringly obvious issues with an article, however because such an overwhelming majority of tags are inappropriate and because the backlog is so staggeringly large, it's worth the small risk of sometimes removing a tag from an article with real issues. If the article's problem is not an NPOV dispute, throwing it in the giant heap of outstanding disputes won't do much to get that issue resolved anyway. -- LWG talk 05:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you're very welcome, and good luck!
 * הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 15:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

2007 A.S. Roma–Manchester United F.C. conflict
Now that you mention it, I may have been a little hasty in restoring the POV tag. I will remove it again. Thanks for the notification. – PeeJay 02:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
thanks for informing Khangul and helping me in pashto wikipedia. now i created my acount in pashto wikipedia and i will try my best to write and translate some Articles over there. If I have any problem in the future i will surely contact you here.

than you once again

(Mirwice Haqmal (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC))
 * No problem! Glad to help! -- LWG talk 14:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
Hello! Concerning your comment here, nobody has suggested a full block for Humanpublic, just a topic ban from articles about religion given his behavior on such articles since last year and throughout this year. It was I who suggested the topic ban, and I explicitly avoided asking for a full block.Jeppiz (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * TParis's response had suggested they were favorable to a full block. Good to know we are on the same page. -- LWG talk 20:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment on AN ... by the way, note that there's a huge difference between "a ban" and "a block" :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, learn something new every day. See you around the wiki! -- LWG talk 16:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

talk:Homosexuals Anonymous
Hi LWG... Thanks for stopping by at talk:Homosexuals Anonymous, I appreciate the outside view. I posted an explanation that included the verbatim quote from the source just after you commented, so I'm wondering if you'd be willing to have a look and see what you think. Obviously, feel free not to if you don't want to. :) Regards, EdChem (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No sweat LWG! Since I don't have the time or hate reading Wikipedia's long tutorials on how to get in touch with other users, I decided to make an effort and drop you a note to say that it is always a pleasure to help. Sometimes I get discouraged because some users get defensive on subjects that they assume they know much about, and that's why I avoid discussing anything. So I just edit what I am completely sure about. :) By the way, it's so long since editing about Leon Viejo that I don't even remember what I wrote. So I'll check it out again. Alright, take care and hopefully we'll talk again! MP.


 * Yes, dispute resolution continues to one of wikipedia's biggest issues. If you do run into trouble in the future, feel free to let me know: I'm pretty well-versed in policy and I can help translate your ideas into terms veteran wikipedians can understand. If you're interested in doing more work on Nicaragua-related articles, there's a [|list of them, many of which could use a lot of improvement or translation from the español wiki. -- [[User:LWG|LWG]] talk 14:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your Welcome
If you don't remember, you welcomed me several months ago, back in December, I have gone a long way from there and I see that, you have gone inactive for some time, I hope we can talk sometime, I owe it to you! Prabash. Akmeemana   02:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Strangesad
You were involved in a past discussion about this user, so you may be interested in this: WP:ANI.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

congratulations
Congratulations on your successful stroke for emotive or violent editing tactics and glib sloganeering against reasonable process. I trust it gives you a feeling of moral satisfaction.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This comment of Chjoaygame's is a response to this comment of mine, which was a response to this comment of Chjoaygame's, which was itself a response to this suggestion for the article. I leave it to the reader to make their own judgement. Struck as unnecessarily combative following a reread: I am not calling for judgement on Chjoaygame, only for understanding of the context of my concerns in one particular situation -- LWG talk 03:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I judge LWG to be morally superior. Moral superiority is always beneficial for the Wikipedia. Enough said.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:AOTE and WP:AOHA, it's advisable to include diffs of instances of "habitual violence" and "unresponsiveness to reason" when making such a potentially-combative allegation. As a word of advice, I would also try to avoid slipping into lines of reasoning like "Many people spend time in futile debate on what they think is thermodynamics, on the basis of slipshod half-understandings, often quoting Wikipedia" because, whether your specific concerns are reasonable or not, statements of this sort cause you to appear as someone who is on wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs, especially to someone who only interacts with you on one article. Someone should not have to read through pages of your edit history to determine whether you are editing in good faith. The above comment was in response to a comment which has been removed by the user. -- LWG talk 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

joke
I now see that you are the one who removed the warning about the joke. At the time I thought your cover reason was not nearly adequate, but there was no reply on the talk page to my objection and I felt it would be a waste of time to argue. I don't see jokes about other physics subjects. The imputation "The following simple expression of the four laws" is of course nonsense. The joke is not a simple expression of the four laws. It is a hint at them for someone who already knows them. The joke is grossly misleading to a someone who doesn't already know the laws and their limitations. The warning was valid.Chjoaygame (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I altered the wording to make it clearer that it is a whimsical metaphor, not a scientific description (though I think few people would have mistaken it for one). -- LWG talk 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's still misleading for someone who doesn't know the limitations of the laws. I think it was lazy editing not to track the source down better. A serious editor who wanted it to stand would have tracked it down better. I couldn't find Snow having written it and it doesn't strike me as the kind of thing he would write. So, though I don't know, I am unconvinced by the "has been attributed to".Chjoaygame (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, there is no proof that Snow is the author, however it is certainly a common saying attributed to him in many different sources (see for example this page, which seems to be expressing similar concerns to yours but nonetheless accepts the gambling metaphor as common and attributes it to Snow). Specifically in what way do you think that readers will be confused by this? It's clearly stated to be non-serious, and an in-depth discussion of the laws is right there directly above it.

Also, as this discussion pertains to the article and not just to you and me I have copied it to the article's talk page -- LWG talk 02:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Castilleja School tag
Howdy! We're on the same page about this article and my tag. I placed the tag prophylactically as a signal to the (presumed) COI editor who added non-NPOV schoolcrufty content that she should go to the talk page to justify any restoration of the content; since the editor involved appeared to be an SPA, I felt this was more likely to evoke a response/discussion than leaving a request on the talk page (since SPA editors don't, in my experience, realize that talk pages exist). I did another once-over of the article and it appears that there are no lingering issues, so I removed the tag. Thanks for your helpful comment! Take care -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  18:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your deletion of my contribution to Christianity
In Article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Restorationism You deleted an edit you made to an article on the basis it had no evident support and you gave no EVIDENCE for this save ONE example. In your comment you headed it with " Most of the claims in this passage are either dubious or demonstrably false (even the citied source gives totally different demoninational statistics)."

You commented not on most but on ONE which was the claim about 5 denomination representing 95% of Christian population. I should have put 85%

the denominationsl stats are from the 1990s but the point I made was " . These five denominations represent over 95% of those that identify as Christian. "

It should read 85% not 95% but rather than change 9 to 8 you just deleted the entire article citing this one claim as "lack of evidence" ! Let's ADD UP the actual numbers. "Global Catholic population exceeds 1.28 billion – CatholicHerald.co.uk". 6 April 2017. Lutheran = 70-90 million Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 2011 Religions of the World: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and. Books.google.it. 2010-09-21. ISBN 9781598842043

Calvinism (Reformed churches) – 55–100 million Global Christianity – A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World's Christian Population, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, December 2011 "About The World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC)". World Communion of Reformed Churches (WCRC). Archived from the original on 27 October 2014. "Old First Reformed Church in Park Slope : : The Reformed Church". Oldfirstbrooklyn.org. Retrieved 26 October 2014. http://wcrc.ch/about-us

Methodism – 60–80 million "Member Churches". Worldmethodistcouncil.org. "Membership". www.methodist.org.uk.

Total Christian	2240000001 90.00%	2016000000.9 other cath 	18000000 Catholic	1285000000 Anglican 	85000000 Orthodox 	356000000 Lutheran	90000000 Methodist 	80000000 Sum Catholic anglican Orthodos Lutheran Methodist ( the 5 I mentioned) 	1914000000 Percentage ( of 2.34 billion) 	85.4464285333 =85.5% is not "Demonstrably false" in relation to 85% rather than 95% .Sorry I put 9 instead of 8 by mistake. Do you accept 85% is supported by reliable sources?

Thanks for your input. I will find more sources and re insert this content later. Please tell me if it should be under a separate heading in the article in your opinion. the sources came from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members Please also note that after your comment on my talk page wher they say "While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s)." Please acknowledge that the reason the attribution to the original contribution was removed was because your removed it as far as I am aware! Did you not? Isaw (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello Isaw, thanks for getting back to me! I am not the person who objected to using wikipedia as a source, that was Editor2020. You should talk to that editor about those concerns. My concerns, and what I feel needs to be done to address them, are as follows:


 * As mentioned, the statistics were incorrect according to the source. The numbers that you cite are also very different from those on Adherents.org, and come from different sources that may count differently (for example, some counts are based on listed membership, others based on surveys of church attendance, others on professed belief). Fix: correct stated statistics. Make sure all our numbers come from the same source or at least are counting the same way. -- LWG talk 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why we list "Catholics of the Latin Church, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists" specifically. Why not mention Reformed, Pentecostal, African Indigenous, or Baptist, all of which are larger groups than Lutherans according to the cited source? Fix: either list the largest groupings, or make it clear what is significant about the groupings mentioned.
 * It's unclear who "these groups" refers to. Since it is in the section for Restorationism, it appears to mean "Restorationist groups" but if so some of the following statements are incorrect or dubious. Fix: make it clear what groups are being referred to, and if Restorationist groups are not what is meant, either correct the information below or move the text to a more appropriate section of the article.
 * The statement "There are tens of thousands of these groups representing 1% of people calling themselves Christian" is dubious. A commonly cited number is that there are 33,000 Christian denominations worldwide. This claim originates in the World Chris­t­ian Ency­clo­pe­dia, which uses a different definition of denomination than the one being used in this article (for example, they divide Roman Catholicism into 242 different "denominations"!) . Even allowing this definition of denomination, there are not tens of thousands of Restorationist denominations. Fix: remove this incorrect statement.
 * The statement "none of them would be accepted by the Three core Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant denominations as falling under their agreed common baptism" is also dubious. The Roman Catholic, Methodist and Lutheran churches, for example, all recognize baptisms performed by most other Christian groups (including restorationist groups), even those not part of the "common baptism" agreement. Fix: remove this incorrect statment.
 * The statement "Nor would they accept the core denominations or indeed each other as Christian." is a broad sweeping statement that is demonstrably untrue in many cases. Many if not most smaller Christian groups recognize members of other groups as Christian. Fix: remove this incorrect statement.
 * The statement "Catholics of the Latin Church, Anglicans, Orthodox, Lutherans and Methodists agree to a common Baptism and regard any Baptised in those denominations as valid Christians." is unclear. While it is true that all of those denominations recognize each other's baptisms as valid, they are not the only groups which do so, and they do not recognize each other as fully "valid Christians" as, for example, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists are all excluded from communion in Catholic churches, unless that has changed recently. Fix: clarify the extent to which these and other groups recognize each other.
 * The section discussing the "common baptism" is out of place in the Restorationism section as it is not primarily about Restorationism. Fix: refactor it and move relevant information on "common baptism" to the Baptism section.

I hope that clarifies what my concerns are. I think there is room in the article for a clearer explanation of the recognition and lack thereof between different Christian groups, but I think these concerns need to be addressed before it is reinserted. Cheers, and thanks for your efforts! -- LWG talk 16:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)