User talk:Len Raymond

Auto Welcome
Welcome!

Hey,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions. I hope you like the site and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful (some of them may sound stupid, but I recommend you check them out):
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * The Sandbox — A great place to experiment
 * WP:Village pump — A good place for help

While editing, please remember:
 * Be Bold, but not reckless in updating pages
 * No personal attacks: be upset with the contributions, not the contributor

You should introduce yourself here at the new user log. I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name, the date, and the time.

For your first edits, I suggest searching for articles that you think might interest you. You could also be audacious and try a random page.

For the record
I note, for the record, all edits to date, on the Divine Responsibility section, have been done by myself—from different households/computers, as 68.63.166.188 and 68.9.207.108. Earlier edits were done before I understood the wisdom of using a sign-in name for Wikipedia edits.

Bond, James Bond
If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and happy editing! Cbrown1023 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also have responded to your post, or am currently responding, on Talk:James Bond. Cbrown1023 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help... WikiLen 01:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Secret (2006 film)
I find people tend to react to The Secret on one of two extremes — love the film or hate it. I like the middle. I think it produces real and meaningful value for the viewer—it did for me. I also think it is less than honest in its methods. Furthermore, I firmly believe there is no justification for the weakness in honesty. I don't see evil intent in the methods, just creative people getting carried away with what they are doing. WikiLen 08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am reminded of old radios with analog tuning knobs. In tuning to my favorite station, I would turn the knob to the left and then to the right, seeking the center point where the static becomes silent. I submit this:
 * Watchrapid finds I only let stuff stay in if it is negative:
 * ''Let's continue finding other valuable resources and not ban them just because they don't have a negative connotation. What about the "Celebrations" or "Positives" section you were talking about?


 * Neutrality is being killed by this article's "police."
 * but then Herbanreleaf finds my POV is too positive:
 * It is so evident that you're trying to have this article be a cheerleader for the film, even in the section marked criticism.


 * I'm done with contributing to Wikipedia and battling with its control freak editors.

The joys (static?) of tuning for NPOV... —WikiLen 12:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead with adding details as trivia/historical context.

The Secret (2007 film)
It's not a remake of The Secret (2006 film), it's a remake of Himitsu. Check here for what links to it, which is currently just one of the cast (which given it stars David Duchovny is just slack IMNSHO—no, I fixed that, someone did something really stupid on his page—and I had pointed Laurence Leboeuf at the wrong one), and check IMDb for more information. If you would like to make up the stub for it, be my guest; otherwise I might get to it when I have a moment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I should have thought of checking IMDb.

RE: Responsibility Assumption
Thanks for your note. The sum of No Original Research policy is that all content must be derived from some other place -- in other words, whatever is in an article should be citable to a published or documented source. The material in Responsibility assumption does not provide the specific sources of its assertions. It's particularly important in philosophical-type articles, as anyone can write up a claim of what they believe to be true. Regards, -- LeflymanTalk 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Bob Proctor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 04:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More content has been added. —WikiLen 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Herbanreleaf & I

 * ''[see: Talk:The Secret (2006 film)]

Hi Herbanreleaf,

There is a list somewhere of the edits I have made where I have not been a "cheerleader for the film" as you say. Give me some time to find it. I will post it here. —WikiLen 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Go to this talk page section, JoshuaZ:Spin is still spin, for a list of edits of mine that are negative on the film.

Note my section above, The Secret (2006 film) for a picture of my bias. —WikiLen 21:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikilen, I apologize for my incivility, but I am frustrated by what seemed like an agenda for your edits and now seems, equally frustratingly, arbitrary. You deleted my sentence, which was at least arguably appropriate, while you allow whole sections to exist that are way out of place. The rebirthing/new age section just doesn't belong. Neither does your other comments section. Tons of people weighed in on this but you ignored it. It is still out of place and detracts from the article, no matter what name you give it. This is not "criticism" it is fluff. Herbanreleaf 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. —WikiLen 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the rebirthing/new age section should be deleted and I think it was clear from what I put on the talk page, that I would not object to anyone doing so. I warned the editor of impending deletion. User talk:Aum108. Go ahead and delete it — with reason in edit summary! I have not deleted it myself because each time I think to do so I wonder off into trying to find similar material that can be supported with sources. I will delete it shortly if you don't. —WikiLen 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the Other remarks section: Your comment it is "fluff" needs serious consideration. A few others have had similar concerns although it seems it has only been a concern by those who hate the film. I think there must be a way to improve this rather than delete it. As for moving it out of the "Criticism" section, this would be to suggest that all critical analysis of anything must, by definition, be negative — obviously not so. I've got an idea for a modest re-write that may address your concerns, but first I want to check: is your concern (a) that any positive light shown on the film is not the truth about the film or (b) showing positive light on the film is not supported by reliable sources or (c) this section fails altogether at saying anything. —WikiLen 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My answer is C. Herbanreleaf 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments that lacked civility were about the SNL piece that someone wanted to include. You first insisted that it was about Rhonda Byrne and not The Secret. Then when other users objected you said it was about the book, not the film. It looks like a yogic bend over backwards to censor another's contribution. Unless something specifically mentions the book and omits the film, it is applicable to both. Herbanreleaf 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in this case it is something specifically mentioning the book and not mentioning the film. The whole skit, to paraphase, was "here we have Rhonda Byrne to talk about her new book."
 * Your right about my seeming jumping around — my mistake. I see both being about Byrne and about the book as valid reasons for not having it in this article. In hindsight I would have argued both at once. Just seemed simpler to skip the book issue at first because I was not sure about how to treat the book. I have researched this since then and have found that other films, with an associated book, have seperate articles for the book and the film. Seems we should do so here also. Alternately, we could change the title of this article to indicate it is about both the film and the book — seems like a bad idea though. —WikiLen 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think it would be a good idea to merge the book and the film, be cause they are one phenomenon and that way people can post things that don't specifically refer to one or the other, but are obviously applicable to both. Herbanreleaf 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The annoying thing about Wikipedia and even its policy of civility is that it stifles other people and promotes censorhip by the editors who are like the thought police. I don't understand why you get to edit out my sentence, but if I removed your silly section with the closing remarks, as someone once tried to do, I would get barked at by the WikiHounds. Not only do you arbitrarily pick and choose which quotes to delete, but you hypocritically post quotes such as the one that you sent me on responsibility (which, by the way, I found unintelligible) which are purely and admittedly your original research. Herbanreleaf 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the wild west out here in Wikipedia. Look, my stuff got deleted all the time when I first started. Just roll with it and get better at doing this. And it is not really a competition between editors, such as you and I. I is more like a competition between the self and the beast. Or put differently, normally the growth of knowledge is about being fair and truthful and I find in Wikipedia it is more about being wild and beautiful — "wild" in that anyone can add or delete and "beautiful" in that we are all part of a process that produces such an amazing result. Or in Wikipedian tems, successful editors are bold and elegant. Wikipedia accomplishes this by means of an environment of artful constraints. It is an encylopedia after all — "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is ... not whether we think it is true." Yes it does stifle people — shouldn't it. How else to maintain quallity. Otherwise every physics crank and UFO freak, etc., would run amok across Wikipedia. —WikiLen 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, we'll see what happens when I delete the things that I object to. Somehow, I got the idea that there are preferred editors, like yourself, whose edits are allowed to stand while others are over-ruled. Is that the way it works? Herbanreleaf 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why I think Wikipedia attracts control freaks who love to be editors due to a need to exert their arbitrary form of control, possibly related to a feeling of inadequacy in another area of their life, [graphic sexual comment deleted]. This is a classic example of Wikipedia censorship gone amok. I didn't realize that we must also be Puritanical. If you think that G-rated remark was a graphic sexual comment, I'd hate to see your reaction if I said something rated PG. Herbanreleaf 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Herbanreleaf 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? Jimbo Wales, the head "control freak" wrote this very enlightening message that has been cited in many places in Wikipedia.
 * ...it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. - Jumbo Wales on "original research" —WikiLen 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here is a great article on The Secret. I'll add the closing remark from this one to your section. http://www.slate.com/id/2165746/ Herbanreleaf 18:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done. I will put the reference in for you. —WikiLen 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiLen, If you are responsible for the latest sections in The Secret (Film), which I assume you are, I think you did a good job. It's much better than before. Herbanreleaf 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes I am responsible for the sections you refer to. —WikiLen 18:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
There is currently discussion aimed at developing policy on "relevance" at Wikipedia talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles. --Coppertwig 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you... —WikiLen 17:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Law of Attraction
Could you please re-visit your issues with the criticism of the Law of Attraction article? Specific examples would be really helpful. Tmtoulouse 18:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will do — WikiLen 21:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: What next? - peer review not archived
As the article in question deals with a motion picture, you may wish to try using the Films WikiProject peer review. Topic-specific peer reviews often generate greater responses that general requests due to reviewer's ability to focus on areas matching their interests. --[[User: Allen3|Allen3 talk 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, —WikiLen 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
Thank you. Both drafts are rather lengthy, I'll have to take some time later to read through them. However, could you state, briefly, what you are trying to accomplish here that isn't covered by existing guidelines?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleep
Thanks for your most excellent comments on the Bleep OR dispute! Really good observations! In case you aren't watching the bleep sandbox, there was a new reference presented from what looks to be a good source for referencing some of the criticisms of the movie: Australian Broadcasting Corp. article on Bleep. Check it out and let me know what you think. Dreadstar †  19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very welcome and thanks for the link to the Australian article.

Re: Don't understand one of your points
Edgarde, I am missing something on your critique of this below in my REL3 version for Relevancy. (WikiLen)

"The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standard of the notability guidelines. A fact may be relevant but not notable. The circumference of the Moon is not notable but, although a minor detail, it is relevant for the article on the Moon."

This has nothing to do with the Wikipedia standard for notability. However, it is the sort of example often made (mistakenly) in discussions defining "trivia" &mdash; no one (other than in straw man arguments) thinks the moon's circumference is "trivia" and therefore should be excluded from Moon. Someone so confused they believe it may ... still hasn't learned anything by reading this far. (Edgarde)


 * My intent here is to provide an example that demonstrates how "relevant" and "notable" have different standards. Therefore, one cannot use standards of notability to determine if something is relevant for an article. If you are saying 'no one is going to think the circumference of the Moon is notable', well then so am I. That is my whole point; relevancy and notability are different things. Perhaps, I am just not getting what you are saying. By the way, I am not familiar with the consensus struggles over Trivia. And thanks for all the work you put into the reviews! —WikiLen 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm the one who misunderstood &mdash; my response is very tangential to the point you are trying to make, which could be better labeled Relevance is not the same as notability, and could use its own paragraph.
 * Reviewing the original context, that paragraph changes direction a lot. Must've thrown me. / edg ☺ ★ 02:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleep OR straw poll
There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar †  16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar †  17:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:Films Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to the Films WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for June has been published.  July's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Film Tasks template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!
 * Want to collaborate on articles? The Cinema Collaboration of the Week picks an article every week to work on together.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Personal attack not acceptable
Edgarde, I find you in violation of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL for this edit.

"No idea what motivates this, but it seems highly counter-productive. I recall Father Goose calling this tendency 'self-immolation'."

I will be deleting the above from the talk page and I wanted to give you a heads up first. You may chose to delete it yourself — I encourage that. Nothing in your above statements serve to improve the article. You are expressing unflattering personal opinions about my editing behavior and sharing those with other editors from a position of respected, excellent editor. This is not the first incident — see also this "guru" comment. I have no idea what motivates this personal attack. It seems to abuse the position of respect you have garnered. I look forward to clearing this up and having your continued presence at the project page. I will take replies at your talk page. —WikiLen 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not delete it, since I meant it. I'm really trying to describe a problem with the general sway of your guideline proposals. This is all over the Review I did for you as well.
 * It seemed to me entirely possible you didn't know you were doing this. I really don't see this as a personal attack. / edg ☺ ★ 06:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor assistance
Thanks for seeking an outside opinion on this &mdash; I really dislike defending myself. I certainly am familiar with WP:NPA; I referred to comment on content, not on the contributor in Review A..

For what it's worth, I recognize that I have a problem with communicating politically, especially in a heterogenous environment with conflicting viewpoints. I actually feel like I've been holding my tongue, but I recognize that a lot of what I say probably hurts some people's feelings. It's something I have to work on, and Wikipedia is as good a place as any for me to practice.

Question: is there a way I could have communicated my concern about the tendencies in your proposals better? Could you recommend something?

I'll try to go lighter on matters of WP:RELEVANCE. I've already had my say (and then some) so at least in this case it should be much easier from here on out. / edg ☺ ★ 03:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Edgarde, thanks for your patience in this and my apologies for accusing you. My feelings are not hurt. I too do not like to defend myself. Explaining myself if fine. It is explaining what I am not that is annoying. I will address "could you recommend something?" in a bit... —WikiLen 04:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "My feelings are not hurt."Great. Maybe we're done here. / edg ☺ ★ 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: A favor to ask
Edgarde, I would be very grateful if you would take a shot at writing the lead paragraph for the WikiLen fork. Father Goose, with my agreement, edited it out. Maybe a lead paragraph is not needed but I doubt it and I feel incomplete without one. I ask for this favor both because you are the best at this and because collaboration can only help. Thanks for your participation in this project. —WikiLen 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. I've pulled a few items from my version that seem consistent with your proposal. Then looked at what Father Goose has removed &mdash; my lead isn't very similar to what you had, but may be considered a less confrontation-inducing approach within the same general intent.


 * Please remove whatever doesn't work for you.


 * Suggestion: while Relevancy may be the correct term to use when treating relevance as a subject, the distinction between "relevancy" and "relevance" will confuse some readers, and is generally distracting. Might be better to swap in -vance for -vancy throughout the article. / edg ☺ ★ 07:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work. No, actually brilliant. Warrants a new version number REL4.2. Thanks... and I have made the change from "relevancy" to "relevance" as you suggested. —WikiLen 11:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow thanks. I'm glad to find out it works for you. / edg ☺ ★ 11:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Publicizing WP:REL
I'd like to ask you to hold off on bringing wider attention to WP:REL for a few days more, while I try to address the problems still inherent in the "three questions" section. Certain editors are eager to interpret lack of comments by the broad community as rejection. Let's do what we can to resolve our differences first. Let's have one proposal that meets with approval, not two that do not.--Father Goose 20:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Plan accepted. I am comfortable holding off a few days for a different reason. I have already invited the 8 additional editors to participate. I think it makes sense to receive their impact first and then move to a wider set of editors. Three days seems right. I am not for blocking any efforts they may make to edit or revert the project namespace — more likely to support it. However, the forks in our user spaces could still be used for generating a single version and I remain intently interested in having that happen. —WikiLen 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Grammar, not grammer. Please excuse my pedantry.--Father Goose 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Woops, wish I could say it was a typo, but actually I am a laozee speller :) —WikiLen 20:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Secret
I did not realize it was a qoute. It was a long day. Sorry about that!

Are improvements needed on RfC request?
Will you take a look please, at the wording for the RfC request. I encourage you to make any changes you deem appropriate. Also, is there any point in doing this with Father Goose being unwilling to abide by it? Off to vacation... Thanks —WikiLen 12:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By now I've pretty much added what I can &mdash; enough to recuse myself from any voting on the proposal, which should be a relief to both you and Father Goose. I'm not confident with either version, but hope you guys accomplish something for all your efforts.


 * No opinion on Father Goose's (or anyone's) abidance to anything. Cooperation would be to your advantage since there really isn't much outside support for project. / edg ☺ ★ 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Good point: "cooperation would be to your advantage." I will look for how to bring that forth. —WikiLen 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind cooperating as well, but I cannot help but feel that the current state of affairs is simply obstructive, whether or not it is specifically intended to be.--Father Goose 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance
Well, I was away for a few days but the matter appears to be resolved now? Or is my participation still (wait for it) relevant (har har)?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hummm... not resolved; waiting for an RfC to give us relevant guidance on the current "umbrella" Relevance guideline — is it so wrong it needs to be fixed? —WikiLen 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?
Would you agree to informal mediation (Mediation Cabal) in order to try to resolve our disputes over Relevance of content?--Father Goose 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It can only help. —WikiLen 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

An appeal
Hey, WikiLen. I've been contemplating what lies ahead of us: we're probably going to glower at each other for a bit more, then move on to arbitration. The more I ponder arbitration, though, the sadder I feel.

I like you, on a personal level, but what you've been pursuing, or rather, the way you've been pursuing it, is wrong. I have many reasons to believe that arbitration will result in a bad outcome for you, and I want to make an effort to explain why before we have to take that step.

In your focus on having "no relevance guideline", you've resorted to elbowing aside or ignoring any users who didn't share your viewpoints and relied on procedural objections to justify those actions. Neither of these will be viewed favorably by the Arbitration Committee.

The Arbitration Committee doesn't evaluate the "rightness" of people's views, nor the "rightness" of content: they limit themselves to evaluating editor behavior. They're going to see that you and Kevin opposed the proposal for your own reasons, and initiated an edit war to cease discussion of it (which you succeeded at). You won't be able to claim that you were merely enforcing the "rules"; they'll be able to see that you used them as procedural obstacles to enforce your personal views over the interests of others. They are not going to take seriously any claims that you embody "the wisdom of the community".

In the entire time I've known you, you've been studiously civil with your words, but unfortunately not with your deeds. Disrupting other peoples' projects because you disagree with the project is not good conduct. You can voice your disagreement, and try to convince others of your views, but your personal objection to something does not allow you to "bury it" -- even when it's a policy matter. In fact, especially not when it's a policy matter -- policies are decided upon by the participation of as many people as possible, and your actions have been aimed at stopping everybody from participating in the Relevance project.

The legal objections you've made hold no water. The applicable parts of WP:POL are meant to keep individuals from flogging a firmly-rejected proposal that has no chance of improving. How firmly has WP:ROC been rejected? Not very. If you and Kevin weren't disrupting it, several people would be working on it and discussing it right now. I'm not saying that it has consensus yet, but I would say that the response to it has been improving all throughout the process. I also can't say for sure if it'll ever attain complete consensus -- but you can't say that it'll never have consensus either. If you were certain that it had no chance of gaining consensus, would you have worked as hard as you have to try to derail it?

Should this reach arbitration, all of the above is going to reflect poorly on you. If you're not convinced of that, ask Editor assistance about any of the points I brought up. You've shown yourself willing to take a "reality check" in the past; I strongly urge you to take stock of your actions right now. Have you played fair, or have you gotten lost in your passions and behaved like a bully?

I hope our conflict doesn't have to proceed to an even more bitter stage.

Be well, --Father Goose 07:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am well.
 * First, my mission is to server Wikipedia. How things "reflect" on me is not my concern.
 * Second, I don't find it credible that you would seek arbitration.
 * Third, I have no interest in other avenues while mediation is in effect.
 * Fourth, should mediation fail I would choose Third opinion over Editor assistance.
 * Have you lost interest in mediation? —WikiLen 14:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is very unfortunate. I posted here instead of on the mediation page because I wanted to address you personally.  I don't have the same things to say to you and Kevin; I don't feel that he would be as willing to re-evaluate his position.  But apparently you also are not at this time willing to re-evaluate.  I haen't insisted that you change your position, but I have urged you to re-evaluate it.


 * Third opinion is limited to cases involving two editors only. RFC is the recommended venue for multi-party disputes.  If RFC might allow that re-evaluation to occur, then I am all for it.


 * The above posting was an attempt at conflict resolution on my part, even though it might seem like an ultimatum. I worded it with as little confrontation as possible, and my desire to not see you hurt is heartfelt.  But you are wrong on this issue -- or at the very least, your methods have been wrong -- and I will be seeking arbitration if we cannot resolve our conflict at a more peaceful stage.


 * Mediation is not arbitration; the point of it is that we talk to each other, with the mediator inserting comments as necessary to try to keep things moving in a positive direction. He will not issue a "ruling" on our dispute.  He will not side with either of us.  My appeal to you here is my best attempt to resolve our dispute prior to arbitration.  If all we can do is say "I'm right" "No, I'm right" during mediation, then it has indeed failed.  I wanted to urge you to double-check if you were right -- or, indeed, if I were wrong -- before we must proceed to arbitration.


 * I'll be copying our conversation here to the mediation page to see if anyone else would like to comment on it. But I did want a chance to speak directly to you first, instead of opening my personal appeal to you to comments from other parties, which I do not feel would have been constructive.


 * With much regret,--Father Goose 16:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me personally. —WikiLen 07:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed your now-overwritten acknowledgement that "your deeds are brutal". Please blink.  Please take stock of things.  Please.  You might even find in due time that having a "relevance" guideline is not such an objectionable thing.  Your attitude about it changed once before; it could very well change once again, if you could let the passion drain from your eyes.  (...Or maybe not.  That sounds kind of icky.) --Father Goose 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A request
Would you be willing to request unlocking Relevance of content? Newbyguesses and I agree to leave it without a template, but we'd like the freedom to try out some of the suggestions coming up in mediation.--Father Goose 23:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that before posting to here, you posted at the mediation page with a new suggestion for compromise — "style guideline." I responded to that suggestion at, Style guideline as suggestion for compromise. I am prepared to request "unprotect" in the context I enumerate there. —WikiLen 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring comments by others
I don't wish to get involved in the current dispute, but I'm hoping you'll consider some general advice. Try to find alternatives to refactoring other users' comments, as was done on Talk:Relevance a few times, and today when you moved Father Goose's mediation comments to his talk page.

In most cases, refactoring comments by others (especially without their consent) is considered to be a bad thing &mdash; unlike Article pages, Talk pages do not need to be formally "correct". Non-trivial refactoring often disrupts other editors' intended communication (or from their perspective, at least seems to), and tends to really tiff people off. It is usually unnecessary, and should not be attempted without the consent of the editors being edited. / edg ☺ ★ 22:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Advice appreciated. I do see this is a controversial issue and think you are correct that I should avoid refactoring. Is the following any defense of my actions?
 * I did do some minor refactoring at the Relevance project to avoid thread chaos and I did sort of ask permission to do so. Unfortunately, I wrote it shortly after I did the refactoring — bad form on my part.
 * "Suggest placing all comments in sub-topics below — any where you want. The sub-topics are just containers for discussions. They are also a heads up on how I propose to refractor discussion should it become necessary or useful. I recognize the best time for refactoring is usually right when a discussion begins or well after it is done."


 * FG's personal attack on me is charged issue. In hindsight, I am certain it would have been better to ask the mediator to move the attack to a User talk page rather than unilaterally do the move myself. Asking FG to do so would also have been a sensible option. I will ask in the future. In fairness to me we have an editing guideline that states:
 * "Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL before removing anything."
 * And a Civility policy that states (as one of many "General suggestions"):
 * "Remove offensive comments on talk pages..."
 * Nevertheless, I feel you are correct in suggesting I over-stepped my bounds and thanks for pointing out that refactoring "tends to really tiff people off." —WikiLen 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FG, you have my permission to move the discussion to my talk page, or if you prefer, feel free to paste your criticism back to the mediation page. Just keep my defense, etc., on either of our talk pages — thanks, WikiLen 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbyguesses' refactoring concerns
Newbyguesses's comment, quoted below, is copied to here from the mediation page for "Relevance of content." I am replying to this here to keep the mediation about finding a compromise. - (WikiLen) "WP:FIVE (no link needed, here thanks, WikiLen, WP:FIVE is familiar to us all, some have read it and understood it.) Your constant refactoring, WikiLen, is simetimes helpfu, but very confusing mostly, and I wish you would not refactor, or cut in on, my occasional posts. Newbyguesses - Talk 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)"

Newbyguesses, thanks for your kind words (not being facetious) regarding refactoring. You did not need to say that. My other replies (quotes in italics are Newbyguesses'): End of my replies. —WikiLen 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "WP:FIVE is familiar to us all" — I didn't know the shortcut until I made it into a wikilink WP:FIVE.
 * "very confusing mostly" — no confusing refactoring has happened at the mediation page, the refactoring that Edgarde referred to — see above — is probably what you are thinking of. It happened at the old Relevance talk page. Sorry about that, guilty as charged.
 * "cut in on, my occasional posts" — I am sure you wouldn't mention this unless I had actually done so and on face value it seems like something I should not be doing. My apologies. Would you please point out where I did this. I really have no idea of what you are talking about.
 * "Your constant refactoring" — you shameless exaggerate, unless you are counting minor things such as inserting a sub-heading — then only a modest exaggaration. Ah... this must be the "cut in" you are referring to. Did I once insert a subheading between paragraphs of your post? Bad form if I did. If so, tell me where. We can fix that.


 * You should also avoid things like this: . Refer or link to other people's comments if need be, but don't "frame the debate" by placing other people's words under your own set of headers.  People left their comments where they intended to.--Father Goose 18:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of content
I think that FG and NG have not shown good faith in the mediation. They have pretended to cooperate while just blowing smoke. I don't see that the status has changed one bit through their delays, and and I don't beleive that such deception should be rewarded. The page was unprotected today and I posted the rejected tag again. --Kevin Murray 14:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. Here is FG's request for unlock:


 * "I request unprotection of Relevance of content; the parties have been in mediation and would like to attempt work on a compromise solution.--Father Goose 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"


 * Sounds plausable, but in fact,
 * "The parties" are already attempting a compromise at the mediation page.
 * "the parties ... would like" — not true since neither you nor I wanted "unprotect" to happen before a compromise was reached at the mediation page.
 * "would like to attempt work" — as if the protected status was stopping Father Goose. Work on "Relevance of content" can be moved to a user subpage. Here is an excellent example — a user subpage for discussions on "a proposed policy guideline on lists." Of note: FG has contributed several times to that page.
 * Hard to see this as anything other than "deception." No real harm done, however. Discussions on finding a compromise can continue with "rejected" on the page. —WikiLen 18:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter
The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 14:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Content policy analysis
Relevance of content/Content policy analysis: let's try to synchronize our views on this subject so that our continuing work on it can be more effective.--Father Goose 23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully decline. I have no experience with deletion issues and am not qualified to help. Also, I am dubious that this makes sense given the 2 month deadline we agreed to. Good luck. —WikiLen 01:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem.--Father Goose 01:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call
Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add   to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing! An automatic notification by BrownBot 01:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2007 Newsletter
The September 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Please note that special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Genie of the Lantern.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Genie of the Lantern.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox
You should know by now that we do not doodle in the (Main) namespace. I have moved Relvance-Historical to User:WikiLen/sandbox. (And although you are allowed any title you like for test pages, I would mention that the word is "relevance" and that I see no justification for a capital letter on "historical".) -- RHaworth 05:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing my error. I did not mean to put it in the mainspace. It was essentially a typo on my part when creating the user subpage--forgot the "/". My intent is to be able to see the history of "Relevance" as it moved from one project space to another. —WikiLen 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films October 2007 Newsletter
The October 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing my user name

 * For those who have me on their watchlist...

I am changing my user name to my real name. I prefer to not be anonymous. I am aware of the risks regarding my public reputation -- such as impact on employment. In the future, "Len Raymond" will be my user name. —WikiLen 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2007 Newsletter
The November 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter
The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter
The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2008 Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections
The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2008 Newsletter
The April 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind
...the idea of adding essays as See-also links to style guidelines, but that one ("Relevance of content") has very little activity on the page or talk page, and not much consensus at all apparent from the talk page. If you want to get some people together to work on it and try to gather some consensus for the ideas, I'd be fine with it becoming a link from style guidelines pages, after a while. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding consensus: True, the essay did not achieve a consensus when it was being proposed in the "Policy" context. Consensus is a much smaller issue in this "Style guideline" context since most of it repeats policy and style guidelines already existing elsewhere, as I noted when I objected to it as policy (as WikiLen). —Len Raymond (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How to proceed? I don't find any centeralized treatment on "Relevance" in the style guidelines and I think such a treatment would be very useful to new editors, that is, a 'style' place on all things of "Relevancy". The "Relevance of content" essay is a good start, I submit. However, I have no editing experience in style guidelines, am not inclined to be the organizing force, and yield to your judgement, Dank55, on how to proceed. —Len Raymond (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the point on policy vs style. We don't even have to stop at an essay; we can move some of this material into guidelines.  What you might do is, take one or two paragraphs that you really like, and propose them in WT:MOS as either part of a guideline, or an essay to link to.  We'll see what the response is, and go from there. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter
The May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevance
Len, a lot of time and frustration went into the processes of the prior proposal and determining that it was rejected. There should be some real meaningful dicussion before reopening this can of worms. The current format is less objectionable than the wirst of the prior proposals, but a signpost concept was among the options rejected. I've tagged this as an essay for now. Maybe we could talk a bit about why this needs to be revisited so soon after the last resolution was established. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Len, I just realized that you are Wikilen. Yes let's talk a bit.  Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Kevin, I have great respect for your wisdom... so yes let's talk this through. I have posted a follow-up on the talk page. Could you site the resolution that was established. I looked through the final topic of Archive 4. The discussion seemed to just be floating around finding no version content-for-the-page to anchor on. -- Len Raymond (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films June 2008 Newsletter
The June 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2008 Newsletter
The July 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2008 Newsletter
The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!