User talk:Littleolive oil/Archive 2

Jesus
The problem isn't with most/all/some biblical scholars, but any claim about historians. As far as our best sources go, historians are largely apathetic about this and do not share in the interst of biblical scholars. Would you please remove the part about historians? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty
We have been having a lot of problems with Dylan Flaherty, and I noticed he was causing you trouble earlier. We are trying to compose a case against him because his misbehavior is pretty widespread. Feel free to come over to Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring and leave your two cents on him.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Olive, you're free to do as you wish, but I'd like to point out that the link is to a closed report. RomanHistorian is beating a dead horse. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This report is, not the next one.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys not interested in getting into a fight. No one was causing me trouble though. If an editor needs help editing fine, and remember Wikipedia is not punitive. Composing a case against someone has a nasty ring to it, and not something I'm interested in. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC))
 * You are absolutely right not to get sucked into this. Thank you for your honest comment on the edit-warring page: I appreciate your integrity. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is how "Transcendental Meditation" is used
There is an article "Transcendental Meditation Technique". However, you want that "Transcendental Meditation" is redirected (renamed) to "Transcendental Meditation Technique". This is because you care about how "Transcendental Meditation" is used. I think your point that there has been a long discussion after which it was decided that there will be one article on the technique and another one on the movement is very important. I was not aware of that. However, it should have been used to reinforce that "Transcendental Meditation" was intended to mean the technique, which fits perfectly within the main issue: how "Transcendental Meditation" should be used. I was completely at the lost when it was suggested that the meaning of "Transcendental Meditation" was a different issue. To the contrary, these are all points about the main issue: how "Transcendental Meditation" should be used. See my comment in BwB talk page. 67.230.154.189 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What I want is for the articles to fairly reflect the sources, and for those articles to do so in a fair and neutral manner. I am not suggesting renaming the present TM article, TM technique. That discussion is in reference to the old pre split pre RfC TM article. I am suggesting that the split was wrong on many counts because of how it was done and because it leaves us with two articles that partially describe technique and which both may be incomplete. Combining those two articles and then cleaning them up would bring us back to the Pre RfC TM article. I'm sorry you feel you have to leave. The main TM articles (TM and recently TM movement) will always be contentious and I don't see that changing. Lots of editors with lots of different views will best keep those articles neutral.(olive (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC))
 * I am not leaving because there are different viewpoints, though it will have been easier if there were not so many of them even amongst pro-TM. I am leaving because of attacks from administrators. With regard to viewpoints, for me, the important term is "Transcendental Meditation" because this is the term that has the highest visibility and I care about the content of the corresponding article. Whether, the term "Transcendental Meditation" is redirected (renamed) to "Transcendental Meditation Technique" or not is secondary. Similarly, whether there is an additional (third) article named "Transcendental Meditation Technique" is also not so important, as long as the main article contains the essential. For example, this essential could be a shorter version of all sections (research, etc.) of the original TM article (the one before the split). The problem is not the creation of a third article, but what was taken out of the main article. 67.230.154.189 (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the admin who singled you out. But admins are not gods just (hopefully) experienced editors with tools, so they make mistakes like everybody else. You are talking about the problem as you see it. I'm talking about a remedy. I don't like to categorize editors as pro TM or non pro TM and no one really knows what I for example really think of TM. They just think they do.... We're all just editors, and multiple views are good since it ensures multiple angles are investigated in terms of sources. There are sources I 'd never seen until someone else found them and possibly that's true of everyone. Anyway, I wouldn't let one admin put you off. Wikipedia is a big place after all. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

So strange
I do not have access to my account anymore, but wanted to share how hard it is to communicate with Will Beback some times. Look at this exchange:


 * I think these articles should be returned to the pre split state. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You think we should merge the "TM movement" article into this article? ... Will Beback talk  20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So strange. I think the meaning of "pre split state" is not ambiguous and it is not a merging of TMM with TM. Next, he makes an issue of the edits that were done after the split. Well, we can simply move blocks of text without deleting any edit. He has no problem seeing this in one direction (the split), but somehow it does not come to him naturally in the other direction (the merge). 67.230.154.220 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well communication and subsequent collaboration is about working these kind of differences out. I'm sure he has trouble understanding me at times. :o)(olive (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, and he might just have been trying to see whether Luke would go along with this perspective. 67.230.154.56 (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable discussing other editors like this, so I'll sign off this discussion and just assume the best of everybody here. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Very sincerely, I had no wrong judgment about Will when I wrote that. To the contrary, I was trying to go along with your previous point, and thought it was fair enough from him to check whether Luke had a clear understanding of what he suggested - I was seeing it as a part of "communication and subsequent collaboration", as you pointed out. But, since I began by saying it was hard to communicate with him, I can see why you felt that way. 67.230.154.115 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. :o)

MMY undoing
Thanks for reverting my deletion. I acted then thought later. Always not a good idea. Then again, it's late and I have drunk Shiraz. :-) Rumiton (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries. Not familair with Shiraz but sounds potent. :o)(olive (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Oh, it's good. One of the best pieces of advice I ever received, which I will henceforth follow strictly, was, "Never edit Wikipedia after drinking Shiraz. Rumiton (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk pages
I didn't see your note at first on the other users talk page as it was wiped off rather quickly. I was not mistaken that the Knapsack article contained a large chunk of copyrighted material. Whether that material was necessary for meeting the DYK threshold is another matter, and I concede was mistaken about that. You're right that anyone can make a mistake. However this editor made many mistakes, mistakes that should not have been made by someone who should have been intimately familiar with WP's policies and guidelines. That doesn't mean he's a bad person, or that he acted in bad faith. I see no evidence of that. But even good faith actions can be harmful to the project, and need to be repaired.  Will Beback   talk    23:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death. My point was not in wanting you to concede to some point that I was making, but to point out that deciding what editors should and should not know is completely subjective and is in many cases random. Why it it Ok for you to make the mistake you did but nor for Rlevse to make the mistakes he did. You uncovered more concerns with R's editing but are you or any of us sure that detailed searches of our editing patterns wouldn't uncover problems. I edit in the best way I know how at the time and with the knowledge and experience I have, but who knows. I've been watching Rlevse since I first came on Wikipedia and what I know is that he has integrity, the kind of integrity that would not have allowed him to make edits he thought would in any way harm the project he worked so hard to help build. Further unlike some editors he was humble about the roles he played so power wasn't motivating him. Problematic edits must be cleaned up for the sake of the accuracy of the encyclopedia. The tendency for witch hunts and drama on Wikipedia doesn't clean up anything and is actually sickening. If an editor makes mistakes notify him and he'll clean it up. Notify doesn't equal accuse. If someone accuses an editor who has high levels of integrity, that editor may very likely feel concern. If that editor has taken  five years of his life spending countless hours on thankless tasks and then is not given the benefit of the doubt on edits he made he might walk away, too. Why work within a group that sees only the mistakes not the years of good. Cleaning up edits in this case would have been easy if that's the motivation of those who are condemning. Contact the editor and tell him the concern and suggest he fix it. If he won't then you have a different situation on your hands. I teach a kind of performance that demands students make so-called mistakes. It is in making mistakes and using them for knowledge about themselves and about what they are doing that I get brilliant performers. There are no jails on Wikipedia, no whips, or chains. Collaboration doesn't work that way anywhere if its going to be successful. Collaboration works by recognizing that human beings are always learning. Rightly arbitration the highest level of dispute resolution we have doesn't focus on the edits but the editors. Its the quality of the editors that a collaborative project depends on, not their edits. While the encyclopedia must be accurate, its accuracy can only come out of the quality of the editor  and their abilities and opportunities to learn and for learning, and the quality of the editor is based in the kind of human being that editor is not only on his knowledge. As editors become more and more knowledgeable the encyclopedia will improve. Arbitration focuses on the editor  because it is the editor who will ruin this encyclopedia not because they make honest mistakes but because they cannot work in a collaborative environment. This discussion could go on endlessly in part because  Wikipedia is one of the first of the online collaborative communities and how those communities work is being discovered in the moment. We are ground breaking. There is no trail. Falling back on the old paradigm of action punishment won't work in any collaborative community and will eventually destroy them. I've taught "collaboration" for fifteen years. What makes collaboration work is heart and understanding. We lost an accomplished experienced editor because the focus was not on what he'd done  but because we assumed his motivation- a stupid mistake for a community that must  move forward in terms of collaborative skills and knowledge and a loss to all of us whether we know it or not.(olive (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC))
 * There's a big difference between my mistake and the other editor's. I made a single, partially mistaken assertion in a discussion about a procedure where I'm not active, DYK. The other editor violated core content policies throughout his career, and earned trophies and honors as a result. Folks who are ignorant of the project's core policies shouldn't be in charge of enforcing them. I presume the editor came to realize this for himself, and that's why he resigned unasked. No one else is to blame for his actions or the repercussions.   Will Beback    talk    20:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Overstated. Oversimplified. And misleading.(olive (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC))
 * The problem I have with many of the statements offered about this and any situation like it, is the presupposition that everyone sees the same way, understands the same way, and that just isn't the case, that alone demands an attempt to understand, and to correct, but not to condemn (olive (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation
A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc regarding a renaming of Transcendental Meditation movement to Transcendental Meditation
See Talk:Transcendental_Meditation Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

TM mediation
I will add myself once I see the request. Thanks for letting me know of your intentions. --BwB (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to participate in the mediation. Thank you. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. But, a notice which doesn't include even a clue as to the subject of the mediation is no notice at all. Do not include me. Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will also participate in the mediation, but to please Fladrif we could discuss with all interested what are the points that should be included in the mediation before we go into it. Some times, people can agree that they disagree on specific points. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Fladrif has never agreed to a single mediation I've suggested. He can add his name to this one if he finds he's interested, and I for one would be happy to have his participation.(olive (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
 * We never know how mediation requests will go, however, the chaos on the TM discussion page could use an outside eye to help sort things out.(olive (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, of course, we want his participation. I am just reacting to the fact that some people want to see the request before they accept to participate. This seems to suggest that they are concerned about specific aspects of this request and I wanted to know what this was about. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can participate.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Have seen nothing further on the subject. Is this mediation request progressing? --BwB (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Drive – Final push
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

AE appeals process
Olive, a couple of months ago, I noticed you were trying to appeal against an AE decision, and I remember thinking at the time that our AE appeals process seemed to be confusing and poorly defined. I discussed this with Coren a while back, and Coren suggested writing a "Guide to appealing sanctions" as a subpage of AE. If you would like to help, and/or contribute observations and ideas, the discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration. Best, -- JN 466  11:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, also see related discussion at Courcelles's talk page: User_talk:Courcelles. -- JN 466  09:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom Enforcement
Have filled an arbcom enforcement here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will post a statement later today.(olive (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC))

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Talking to yourself? ;) I'm sure you must know that Fladrif never agrees to mediation. Perhaps his involvement isn't necessary, but if it is then mediation probably won't be possible.   Will Beback    talk    21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Talking to myself isn't a problem. Be alarmed if you see me answer. ;O) I will only include those editors who say they want to be included. The notification is a courtesy and also tells me who I can add to the list of those interested, in the actual mediation request. I don't think its fair to second guess any editor. Thanks for your comment. (olive (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
 * The rules are a little more relaxed with the MedCab, but the MedCom won't accept a mediation request unless all involved editors agree (just leaving them off the list wouldn't mean they aren't involved). For that reason, I'd suggest using the MedCab.   Will Beback    talk    21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked about this before and was told it was acceptable to ask editors if they wanted to be involved, then to list only those that did. Thanks for your advice.(olive (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm going to be quite busy the next couple weeks, and I'm generally only available between 5:30 and 6:30 am, but I would indeed like to be involved in mediation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I can participate.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I too am very busy these days, but I would love to participate. --BwB (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Transcendental meditation topic ban
Courcelles and I have independently reviewed your contributions to the Transcendental Meditation articles, and have agreed here that you have been engaging in tendentious editing. Therefore, pursuant to the discretionary sanctions remedy of the Transcendental Meditation movement ArbCom case, you are banned from all articles that relate to Transcendental Meditation, broadly construed, for a period of 3 months. NW ( Talk ) 21:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the diffs for /evidence/proof of my "tendentious" editing, please.(olive (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC))
 * The "Bone of contention" sections on the TM talk page is a decent enough example. If you can't see what was wrong with your behavior there, take a few days and then take another look. It is very much a "I know it because I saw it" situation. NW ( Talk ) 00:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for responding, and for your time. Would you point me to what you see as tendentious in that thread. I don't see, given both the long history of both the contentious content we are talking about, and my attempts to resolve the discussion by beginning to put together a request for formal mediation rather than continue further discussion as Will Beback suggests, that anything in that thread can be considered tendentious.(olive (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Olive, the previous discussion about the Ospina material, which was already tendentious, had been dormant for at least three weeks. At the close of it you said you were happy to "move on". Then, in January, you edited the material without any further discussion. When asked about that change you requested that I defend the existing text. When I did that you declined to respond, despite starting a new thread and writing, "...for the rest we can discuss below. I'm offline in a few minutes but will be happy take this up again tomorrow." Anyway, that's just one aspect, but I saw this thread so I thought I'd point it out. I didn't want to get into a debate about this. There's a process to appeal AE decisions if that's your desire.   Will Beback    talk    22:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A tendentious editor doesn't repeatedly ask for mediations as I did in those threads and then actually begin the process rather than continue the circular discussion as you wanted to. I have nothing to hide in my editing or discussion and would welcome mediation to cut through contention and smooth the way for easier editing, discussion, and  better articles. That you and Doc both call on  a RfC asserting consensus where there was no true consensus since consensus was declared by Doc himself before the RfC was closed, and in favour of his version of content is a less than appropriate. That you imply, I simply came back and edited against a consensus is also a misrepresentation. The edit was part of a move of content from one article to another per discussion, and  which contained the same sentence we had been discussing, and which had I left it as is, would have been a repeat of exactly the same sentence in that article. That exact  same sentence possibly inaccurate and certainly contentious shows up four times in three TM articles.   And yes, the sentence was inaccurate in a fundamental way but also in terms of its language. I changed it  by actually quoting the source thinking such a change  would be completely accurate and  a compromise, and would satisfy everyone. But of course it was reverted. While James makes unilateral edits, sometimes massive, that's called Bold. I  make an edit that I hope will satisfy everyone, and then try to work out the concerns in the content with repeated requests for mediation, I am tendentious. That's wrong in every way.(olive (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

Removing other editors' comments
= It appears here your edit removed comments from other editors. Please be more mindful when posting comments to WP:AE not to do this, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I caught the error.(olive (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Female editors
Hey I fully agree! Ideally we 'd have equal male and female editors. In fact most of the female editors I know are wonderful editors and I love the way they are neatly organized and rational in difficult situations. I know your comment about women being more intelligent than men was light hearted but I get very frustrated with Jimbo at times because he doesn't see arguments from a neutral perspective, ignores people who have good ideas for developing the project, and just expects things to happen naturally without doing a thing about it. He passed judgements on people who commented in the discussion labelling us "embarrasing" without really understanding their viewpoints. He labelled me "sexist" which is an absolute joke, I was being light-hearted too and would love to increase our proportion of female editors. In reality the embarrassing thing is that he and Sue naively think they can manipulate what gender edits wikipedia with doing absolutely nothing about it. I would strongly support a dramatic increase in female editors but in reality there is no way you can do this without offering incentives specifically to women to edit wikipedia. I know that there are millions of stay at home mums and housewives who could potentially edit wikipedia during the daytime not to mention older and retired women who may edit as a hobby. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was surprised by Jimbo's comment. While I don' think the conversation was going anywhere, I did feel the light tone was not unacceptable . In my experience both men and women when they first hear about brain differences, misunderstand this to be about intelligence, and second, seem to find some long established and maybe cherished paradigm has been shattered so they get upset. I made light of my comment to preempt any bad feeling. Frankly my experience in many places on Wikipedia is so toxic, the lightness of tone didn't bother me and it was kind of a relief, but I do realize nothing was going to be solved that way. I don't care actually one way or the other the percentage of men to women editing. Why people edit is complex. What I would like to see is that an understanding that the ways different people edit/think/ accumulate information and so edit can be very different and that is understood and tolerated. I care that Wikipedia sets the stage for comfort for all editors who are editing seriously. This is really what civility is about; creating an environment that supports editors so they can do their best work. Anyway . Not sure what the solution is  but discussion may clear the way for change. Thanks for your comment. :o)(olive (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

arbcom appeal
Olive, just an FYI: I may reopen your appeal in arbcom. I was not satisfied with the closure of the last one and my (what I thought were very good) observations remain unanswered. I assume you won't mind. I'll leave a note here when I do so. -- Ludwigs 2 22:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ludwigs for your thoughts on this. I agree that the whole thing ended abruptly with many unanswered questions and concerns I had left hanging. I've been taking a bit of a break but will be happy to deal with the issues as they come up.(olive (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

Very nice comments on bullying
Thanks and well done for bringing it up --Ronz (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh thanks. Its a complex issue and I've overly simplified it, but maybe we can as a group can begin to understand it better. A few editors have a good if not excellent intellectual understanding of its dynamics.(olive (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC))

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for amendment: AE ban appeal
Your request has been archived. The Arbitration Committee have indicated that they will not review your topic ban. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Olive
You wrote "a dictionary that relies on RS" in your comment, but I think you meant "an encyclopedia that relies on RS." Gacurr (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes I did, thanks for catching that.(olive (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Pseudoscience info box
Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see talk page for your reversion of an info box against consensus and a NB. Please read the discussion. Please note your first source is not reliable, its a student journal and your second source does not mention pseudoscience. (olive (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Talk pages of articles are not the place to make personal accusation. Please just address the subject matter. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Personal accusation? James your comments are untrue and are disruptive. Please move on to something more productive.(olive (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC))
 * The talk page of the article is not the place to have this discussion. Bring it to ANI if you have concerns. Seeing that I have one article at WP:GAN and one at WP:FAN I do not think I am the one that need to move onto something more productive :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Do you really believe that what you are doing is more important than what other editors are doing.Wow.(olive (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

Some of us are here to write an encyclopedia. I will not comment on the desire of others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * James, sadly your comments are of the school yard variety. Your behaviour is disruptive, your  comment uncivil and frankly ignorant. You don't know what others are here for, pretending you do so you can insult them, as well as denigrating another editor's work and motives is  not something I need or want on my user page. Thanks. Please let yourself out.(olive (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

Ownership and COI
I'd be happy to discuss our ownership and conflict of interest issues in an appropriate location. We could do so here, or at one of the official noticeboards like AE. Maybe mediation? Article talk pages probably aren't the best place though - Keithbob just chewed me out for raising COI on another talk page.  Will Beback   talk    09:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Notification
Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by regarding long standing in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs opened
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk ) 23:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer
Wikipedia guidelines do not suggest that bringing up a possible COI on the discussion page is a form of Poisoning the Well &mdash; as you suggest. At COI How to handle conflicts of interest, the guidelines say "the first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline." WP:COI also says editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. In other words, the discussion page is exactly the place for... discussion. Which is probably why you used the strike-through on your post.842U (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe this,"should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor," refers to a user talk page which is one place you posted you concern. An article talk page is my mind is not a place to deal with an individual editor in an initial comment, but is generally a place where a group of editors is working, but that's my opinion and you  most certainly are welcome to yours. Thanks for your comment here.(olive (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC))

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 16:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you help me with this Q?
Hi Olive,

Since you've been active on the TM Research article, perhaps you could help me find some info about the history of the article? In my current discussion on the NPOV NB, I have received a question from an editor on the history of the TM r article, and how it came into being. He wants to know at what point it was decided to make it a separate article, and who decided, that kind of thing. I'm just not very good with these archives, and thought you just might remember more clearly than I and also know where to look. Here's what I said to him, based on what I have gathered, "Re: POV fork—The article was split off with the consensus of the many editors involved, because of the extent of the research. It was not a POV fork." ... and his question in reply: "I checked the archives and could find nothing about the fork. Could you provide a link to the appropriate archive please?" --aprock (yesterday)

Thanks for any help you can give. If you have time to actually report your findings directly to this editor at the NPOV NB, that would be wonderful, but I realize you may be busy with other things. Early morning person (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Golden Domes
While there's no rush, it'd be good to resolve any significant issues promptly. You mentioned potential problems with the Golden Domes article. If you could at least sketch out your concerns then we could get started on addressing them. Or, if they don't seem serious enough to mention in retrospect then that's cool too. If there's anything you'd like to discuss about the article, please post to its talk page.  Will Beback   talk    10:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I understand that RL takes precedence. But when you do have time for Wikipedia it'd be great if you could take a few moments to tell me which parts of the article you think are problematic.   Will Beback    talk    11:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Concern about your comment on peremptory deletions of MEDRS
Thanks for your note. However I try to steer clear of the medical issues when I can. I suggest taking your question to WT:MEDRS.  Will Beback   talk    21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Request regarding possible conflicts of interest
Olive, my apologies if you have received a message like this in the past. I see that Will Beback, for one, has asked you something similar, but I just wanted to get the following on the record. My intent isn't to use following isn't to be used for sanctioning purposes; I just want to make sure I'm looking at the discussions in an appropriate manner.


 * 1) Do you now, or have you ever, worked in a paid position for an organization associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement?
 * 2) Do you now, or have you ever, worked in a volunteer position for an organization associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement?
 * 3) Do you now, or have you ever, worked as a teacher of the Transcendental Meditation technique?

Additionally, could you point me towards any previous discussions you may have had on this topic? Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 05:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nuclear Warfare: I will not now or ever again reveal personal information to anyone connected to Wikipedia nor am I required to. Further you should look at WP:COI, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest," the TM arbitration, "an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.", and the recent AE clarification, arbitrator views and discussion  for a more complete understanding of COI, and since you seem to think that looking at a discussion in an appropriate manner includes interrogation and outing. Finally, no one and no entity dictates ever what I do on Wikipedia, and  I edit with the policies and guidelines as my guides. Your behaviour, and Will Beback's behaviour have served to  reinforce my instinct to protect my privacy. (olive (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Olive, you need to report what happened here immediately to ArbCom. If, as you say, NW and Will Beback were discussing private information about you that was supposed to have been admin deleted, ArbCom needs to know about this right away. Cla68 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cla68.(olive (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC))


 * FWIW, NW and I have not discussed Littolive oil.   Will Beback    talk    02:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * 1) Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
 * 2) Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
 * 3) To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
 * 4) If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

lol
Olive, I know what you meant, but this line:


 * I don't need to go to Wikipedia to see someone pregnant wearing clothes, I just have to step out the front door.

is plain hilarious. It simultaneously implies that you have a bunch of pregnant women hanging around outside your house and that you primarily come to W to see pregnant women not wearing clothes, which is oh so wrooooong. I'd suggest you rephrase, but I'm having too much fun with the imagery to really want that. {{=)}

I'm just sayin'… -- Ludwigs 2  22:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL.... good point...(olive (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC))


 * And just removed it altogether...not a brilliant moment.(olive (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC))

Removing others comments from talk pages
This removal of my comments had no personal identifying information. Please do not edit my comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's untrue.(olive (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Discussion at Arb Talk
Courtesy notice: There is a discussion at the Arbitration Committee talk page concerning evidence pages created by participants in the TM ArbCom. The outcome of the discussion may impact your user page content (sandboxes) from that case. -- — Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 01:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Astrology
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: []. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving your talk page
Hello Littleolive oil, I've noticed that your talk page is quite long and I was wondering if you would permit me to setup archiving for it? ...unless you would like to give it a go yourself (instructions)...:) <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  20:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh you wonderful person... believe it or not I have never figured out how to archive, and have never found the time ... always seems to be something more interesting to do than deal with my own pages. Thank you. I'd love it. If you set it up I think I can figure out faster by seeing what you did than doing myself. olive (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC))


 * The bot should visit your page within 24 hours and create the archive pages. If you want to change any of the parameters, I can assist ==> I've set it to always leave 10 threads and archive anything older than 7 days. Maximum size for the archive pages is at 175K. If you have several pages, I can, at your discretion, also leave a setup for an index which would work after the archives are created. Cheers, <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  21:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Several-pages-index sounds fine if needed which I suspect I will. I'll see how it all goes, but suspect it will fine as 10 threads/7days. Many thanks.(olive (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC))
 * I've just added the indexing setup which should fill out within 24 hours after the archives. I'll keep check to make sure that all goes well. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Terrific!( olive (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC))

Thanks
Lovely. thanks, Kbob.(olive (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC))

Hostility
Besides here, has anyone accused you of having COI or a particular POV anywhere else in Wikipedia? I'm asking because of this. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have serious concerns with another editor but will wait to see if posting diffs on this editor is within the scope of this case. Thanks for your post here.(olive (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

GOCE newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 10:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE 2011 Year-End Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops
Eh, sorry about that. I must have hit the rollback button by accident. I didn't even notice doing it until I saw your restoration. Dragons flight (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great. Seemed very strange. No worries!(olive (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC))

A discussion of interest to you may be occurring at WP:AN/I

 * A discussion of interest to you may be occurring at WP:AN/I at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI archived
Hi olive, the WP:RS closure was brought before ANI for review. Now it has been archived. Do you know why almost nothing happened? Granateple (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry. I don't . That was a very strange experience from beginning to end, having the NB closed based on things which didn't happen, accusations of tag teaming with someone I've never edited with before, battleground behaviour, then attacks on AN/I. It was a very nasty situation. I assume Fifelfoo is a reputable editor so I don't know how he could have made those kinds of mistakes. I guess my thought on AN/I is that it was easier to ignore it, and let it archive than to deal with it. I'm sorry you got dragged into this. I thought you made some good and thoughtful points on the RS/NB. I hope this eperience won't sour your involvement on other NBs . They can use editors who look deeply and thoughtfully into the issues, in my opinion.(olive (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I have now restored the thread from the archive. User:Fifelfoo asked ANI to review his RS/N closure, and I will wait for the assessment. Don't think about me, in my country we fight polar bears (almost). The way you were treated is unacceptable, and I am impressed by your guts. Granateple (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Granateple Arb
First, you might want to sign your comment there. Second, I didn't say he was an SPA, I said it appeared he SEEMED to be and then gave him some advice as to the problems I saw. I also offered to answer any questions he had about the process and the warning. He chose not to take that route, he chose to make his proclamation on AN/I. The effort was made to reach out to him, it was turned down. He chose to make accusations about machines and cabals. Some people just aren't cut out for collaborative environments, it's disappointing that he left but, again, efforts were made and he chose not to pursue them. The funny thing is, I agree with him, that RSN was probably closed early. It's too bad his overreaction obscured that from view. --WGFinley (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think his user contributions clearly indicate he is not an SPA. He isn't speaking in his first language and he is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Thanks for trying to help him out.(olive (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC))

maybe it's time to organize
Please have a look at this and let me know (there) what you think. -- Ludwigs 2 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for adding a heading, I hope you'll continue on with the discussion.(olive (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, my post had nothing to do with the current RfAr. I am hoping for a broader discussion.
 * By adding a separate header, I allow for both discussions to potentially continue, and hopefully reduce confusion. = jc37 03:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for a broader discussion too, and yes they are separate issues so the header is welcome.(olive (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Greetings
Hi, Olive. Please note, I did a little tidying at WP:V, which I don't mind doing at all. If you have a personal reason *not* to sign such a post, I will of course desist; if it is just forgot to sign, happens to all of us, I am happy to do the tidies. Cheers, let me know if there is any problem. NewbyG ( talk) 19:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Thank you very much, and always welcome. I didn't realize I hadn't signed...(olive (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC))


 * You're welcome! (smileyface) NewbyG  ( talk) 19:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! One or more of the drafts you posted at WT:VER have been transferred to Verifiability/Workshop, and you can see or edit there, if you are interested. Cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability at WP:DR/N
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "At WP:Verifiability". Thank you. -- NewbyG  ( talk) 23:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks.(olive (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation
Dear Littleolive oil: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted your edit on pregnancy
And I'm a little confused as to why you thought the edit was per the talk the page, as you indicated in your edit summary. I've explained my confusion on the talk page. Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My edit was per the talk page discussion. I didn't say that some one suggested it, I tried it out based on comments on the talk page attempting to come to some compromised version. I don't see this as a contentious issue, and assumed it could be settled easily by trying out a very few versions and a few comments No problem though if others prefer more discussion. Thanks for the notice here.(olive (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

WP:V mediation compromise drafts
Hello Olive, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 17:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five
Hello Olive, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 17:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC))


 * Hello Mr S. Thank you..(olive (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * Thanks for your spices, cardamon and vanilla, I would say! I dared to link your "Awesome Wikipedian" award, same page as Precious Support, that's where I got the idea, feel free to spread it! Thanks for supporting the photographer of the sapphire ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On this day his Easter egg tree and my Bach cantata mentioning an approach for peace are featured together on the Main page, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda. Lovely.(olive (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

humor ...
"Can't keep a good pumpkin down"? ... laughed my butt off at that one. :-) — Ched : ?  01:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)



Thank you
Thank you for expressing your support for me in the User_talk:PumpkinSky thread and/or participating in the User_talk:PumpkinSky thread. Peace to everyone. Pumpkin Sky  talk  01:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your welcome. Any time.(olive (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC))

Odd Nerdrum
Please do not remove references without checking their content the content of the relevant references. The NRK article does not give the date of the trial. On the contrary, it says clearly that the date has not yet been set (Dato for første rettsmøte er ennå ikke satt.).

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please note that the reference you've added is not the ref I removed. I removed a repetition of a reference [!18] which had been used twice one sentence after another. Since I don't speak Norwegian I had no way of knowing that reference was wronlgy used and had to trust whoever had added that reference. We should if at all possible add an English translation of the Norwegian source since this is an English Wikipedia. Thanks for adding the correct reference.(olive (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC))


 * It looks to me as if when I reformatted the refs I inadvertently reformatted the wrong ref thus the repetition. Thanks for assuming good faith. (olive (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC))


 * No problem! Added by me here. Removed, it seems, by you here. True, translations into English are of course preferable. Would that hours were less scarce...
 * Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes
You heard that right. This whole disputer at OWS is over material whose accuracy no one contests! Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 23:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion seems to be over whether you can disqualify a RS if someone decides an author isn't competent. I don't see anything in the policy that says that. And I think there is confusion over WP:OR and research . Editors can research anything and its  not original or otherwise, its just research. WP:OR is a policy that helps govern the kind of content that can be used in an article... it has to be  R sourced... and can't be compiled of researched material that is tacked together to create new content for an article that has never been published elsewhere...(olive (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC))

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts
Hello Olive. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you! — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 04:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the earlier post. I'll comment tonight. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC))
 * I see its the discussion I've already commented on :O).(olive (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC))

A bowl of strawberries for you!
Thank you Pesky. This is very sweet and kind and much needed today. And yum!(olive (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC))

I'd like to give you a very special gift
I hope you will take good care and remember that this one doesn't like fast food or sugary treats. In fact I think it's more an "animal and mineral" and less of a "vegetable" kind of critter, but not too fussy never the less. Penyulap  ☏  16:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * sweet dreams. Penyulap  ☏  17:29, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope she likes choco chip cookies and burgers.f.(olive (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure
Hello Olive! You are cordially invited to a discussion at the verifiability mediation in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - to protect, or not to protect
Hello again Olive. Do you think the upcoming verifiability RfC should use a system of protection and transclusion, as was found in the recent pending changes RfC, or should we just keep the entire RfC unprotected? There are good arguments both for and against, and at the moment we are at a stalemate. Could you give your opinion on the matter? The discussion thread is here. Best — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinion
Would you mind taking a look at this from the perspective of an uninvolved editor? I know you've been working a lot with sources, so I'd value and appreciate your opinion. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥   19:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to look and to add a comment. No probelmo.(olive (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

Hagelin
Will have a look at Hagelin article as you requested. Best. --BwB (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations
Hello again Olive. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Today
Happy like you about today's good story (hidden message: "open mind"), awesome Wikipedian of 18 March 2009 and 11 April 2012 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I worked with Pumpkin Sky on an article and this tone of fun and collaboration was what I remembered most. The storm that followed was beyond my comprehension, when a simple notice in a helpful voice would have saved much time and hurt. It is a great credit to him and to those who worked with him that once again Wikipedia sees a picture of what is could and should be, and a picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks Gerda for your kindness and hard work, and you desire and great efforts to push Wikipedia to its best.(olive (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Comments
Hello, it seems you (accidentally?) listed a statement both under the full "support" and the "support with revisions" section of Option B. My understanding is these were meant as mutually exclusive, for !vote-counting purposes – either you support fully or you support only under a condition. Would you mind clarifying? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll check and see what I did. I'm traveling so on Wikipedia for short periods at odd times.(olive (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC))


 * I see what happened. I meant to add something to my comment and added the whole thing to the wrong section when I made a cut and paste change. Thanks very much for notifying me. I doubt I would have seen it.(olive (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC))

ANI regarding Erin Burnett BLP issues
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  23:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hats off?
Hi Olive, Thank for your help on the TM articles. I've hatted some portions of your posts (and mine) on the TM technique talk page. If you don't like what I've done, please let me know and I'll undue it. Cheers, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with hatting as long as the heading is correct and points accurately to the discussion. I reverted some of the removal when there was no agreement, so the heading should indicate a removal and an revert of that removal. Thanks for hatting that long inclusion of stuff:O) (olive (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

My RfA
Thank you for your somewhat belated participation in my RfA. I appreciate that you took the time to comment, even if it was after the deadline. =)

I guess I ought to get around to removing it from the RfA listing, shouldn't I? =/

Take care.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 22:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being so understanding... I missed the close at the top, d'ah. I hope you'll try again in 6 months.(olive (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Hey, I recognize your signature! I didn't know who you were at first (with your username being related in "olive" alone), but I've definitely seen you around and you do good work. I think I will reapply in several months time, and I may stand a better chance then &mdash; I've just recently discovered that I have a passion for article writing. It's fun and addictive, I must say.


 * By the way, if ever you see me around again, it'll almost certainly be under a different username. To be more specific, this redlink (as of this posting) will appear blue in subsequent revisitings.


 * Take care.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 22:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks :O)... and good luck.(olive (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Template talk:Citation needed
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation needed. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks very muc. That was fast.(olive (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented.(olive (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

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)

Prem Rawat
Are you aware that you are effectively encouraging a tag-team of followers of Prem Rawat albeit lead by Momento to whitewash the Prem Rawat article that has a long-history of edit wars and POV pushing by followers? As you may recall this even attracted media attention. I don't suppose you have anything like enough knowledge of the subject to detect the subversion and ridiculous bias they are (and always will) attempt to assert. Will Beback was the only admin with the good-sense and willingness to try to mediate in a fully engaged and informed manner, and he concluded that the long-fought edits that Momento and his gang are now eagerly revisiting, should NOT be edited without full consensus from ex-follower editors and neutral admins with good knowledge of the prior arguments and indeed, armed with the reference material. Most of us have left in disgust and the team with the highest degree of vested interest are winning hands down. All you can see is my superficial apparent rudery and bluntness. You can have no idea of how I started on this article years ago with considerable tact, politeness, good faith and in-depth knowledge of the subject. You also have no idea how many have fled in utter frustration at seeing their considerable work wiped out in favour of the Prem Rawat party line. I shall certainly be wasting no more time arguing these edits for the umpteenth time when ages ago (as you will see if you can be bothered to look - as you certainly should before commenting) they were exhaustively discussed. PatW (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PatW, with the constant personal attacks you have engaged in, how can you be sure you have any moral high ground to criticize the behavior of any other editor on that talk page? Do you think you have any high ground over Mr. Rawat himself?  Seriously. Cla68 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My intent on that article as an uninvolved editor was to discourage incivility and to rewrite the lead to include the more pejorative content that it obviously does not include. However, I will not continue to work on an article where the mode of operation of some editors is to attack other editors. Momento made a good point in that thread and that is, that a single source  cannot in any way serve to summarize enough of the article to be NPOV. However the logical next step was to to add content that does. Uninvolved editors who are willing to do that will be few and far between with the attack mode PatW and a few others are employing. Cla68 you are wise to stay away.(olive (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC))
 * OK Olive I promise no more attacks. How's that? Please get stuck in with your inclusions. Cla68 - Jossi Fresco (a follower of PR) once said here that he felt he was 'playing on the winning team' and that as such he was entitled to break the rules (or words to that effect). In context, I took this to mean that as a follower of 'The Lord', the normal morals of society inc. those of the Wikipedia community can be bent in the service of the higher cause. This is the mindset of the follower IMO. A bit like any cult where they feel beyond the petty morals of society. After all they have the answer. As a former devout follower of Rawat I witnessed huge hypocrisy and goings on which I eventually found ethically unconscionable and so I revised my opinions of the whole thing and embraced my deeper ethical convictions again. I feel some moral high ground as I have not played a deceptive game here to try to EXCLUDE information. All I have done is to try to INCLUDE MORE information (obviously through well-referenced argument). All I see the followers doing here is trying to tone down wording, cut stuff out, add Rawat's latest so-called achievements backed up by flimsy infomercials etc. As for moral high ground over Rawat. I have never not practiced what I preached, or encouraged people to bow down and worship me as 'greater than God' and dedicate their lives to me and I have certainly not attempted to whitewash my past. He has, so I question his ethics, yes. Look...don't stay away because of me. I'll stay away. I've always said that my contributions as a non-neutral party (a critic) are not as important as more neutral editors. I only stayed because several neutral editors asked me to remain as I have relatively in-depth knowledge of the subject which they valued. Will Beback in particular. I should point out that I have, as a demonstration of integrity, refrained from editing the article itself apart from on a very few occasions where there was universal consensus. My belief is that 'premie' editors should also recognise their obvious biased POV and similarly refrain and just comment on the Talk page. What the Rawat article needs is to be remade by completely impartial people not people who have an agenda to present Rawat in the best possible light. Trouble is the premies have actually relentlessly attacked and repulsed all opposition - the secret of their success is dogged persistence in my view. Nobody can match that - so there at least should be a rule banning obvious SPA's. (as Blade also seemed to feel was a need). Put simply, I have reached a point of desperation where I've resorted to the kind of blunt attacks many judge inappropriate. All I have tried to do is draw attention quickly to the situation rather than waste hours of my life arguing with people who frankly never agree and are determined by hook or by crook to win - it matters so much to them. I have absolute faith that totally neutral editors, with the will to do the research, could make a much better job of this article than the premies or ex-premies. The information, references are all there. So I am more than willing to bow out. Frankly it would be a relief. So go ahead - get involved but please, do it properly and inform yourself about Rawat or you will be easily hoodwinked by Rawta's admirers.PatW (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh and Olive...I re-read my initial comment above and I hereby apologise for accusing you of 'having no idea' about certain things. That was..I confess... far too accusatory. I should have asked you what you actually know of these things. I was a bit annoyed with you for being from the get-go so completely dismissive of me and my points, based apparently just on my ill-chosen language. Mea Culpa...PatW (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How noble


I was just going to post a picture of brownies, but I see Nikki beat me to it. Guess I should find the same pic with a couple bites missing. (yea .. I'd have to have a little of that chocolate too. :)) —  Ched  ZILLA  06:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks Occassi.(olive (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.(olive (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Thanks, yes received the email, and I'd like a copy of the article re:WPEC graphic.(olive (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Prem Rawat
Hi again. PatW is back again, doing what he does best after ignoring all recent discussions. Everything I could think of to say to him, I have already said, in public and private. Would you care to drop by? No offence at all if you prefer not to. Rumiton (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take a look.(olive (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Removal of tag
I did check the talk page, but for some reason didn't see the discussion. Sorry. Op47 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I, of course, never make mistakes. ;O) (olive (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of John Hagelin
The article John Hagelin you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 10 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:John Hagelin for things which need to be addressed. Tomcat (7) 10:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the review, I'll start working on this today.(olive (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Help talk:Archiving a talk page
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Help talk:Archiving a talk page. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

My diff
I hope my showing the diff did not upset you. I was doing it to save you both time but if I had known that the material was already duplicated elsewhere I would not have bothered with the diff. As I said, I did it with best intentions and hope you were not too annoyed over it. << — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonty Monty (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Not upset at all, no worries at all, and thanks.(olive (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recruitment policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know
I'm following your example in having nothing further to do with the Prem Rawat article. However you might be interested to know that, just like I said, Momento is now having a field day removing a ton of well-sourced material - all critical. Is this really acceptable? PatW (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I just can't get into a fighting match with you as has been the case in the past. If Momento is making edits you don't agree with engage him, but if you do engage in a way that is an attack nothing productive will happen. I don't have the desire in anyway to get into a contentious article. In reading the article It seems to have a pretty balanced feel to it, but I did not look at sources. Some of the details which I noticed Momento had removed really add nothing to a neutral article. Clearly to me, someone who has no involvement with this topic, I get a sense of both the positive and negative aspects of Prem Rawat in a balanced way,  but again I have neither the time nor desire to check all of the sources to get a sense of the mainstream view. What must come into it, seems to me, once a source has been vetted is to look at weight. Some of these little details have very little weight and don't add anything to an article. What a clever editor can do is add in a lot of these tiny seemingly neutral details which will in the end add pejorative colour and tone to an article subtly shifting balance. I see some of that in the PR article. Content must be more than sourced to remain in an article especially a BLP; it must reflect the mainstream. Once again, if you don't like content removal engage the editors in a civil way. I won't take sides and I won't become involved again. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC))


 * I'm afraid you're wrong. I don't believe anyone can 'engage' Momento - as Guy correctly evaluated - he is 'uneducable' as are all highly religious people when it comes to challenging their irrational beliefs. You assumed that those "tiny seemingly neutral details" that "subtly shift" an article's balance are done mainly by people who want to 'perjure' Prem Rawat. I put it to you that, had you studied the sources and subject as much as I (and many others), you would see that the opposite is historically more the case. Not that some have indeed tried to twist the article against Rawat in an inappropriate manner. That's true too. But I was not one of them! and they were simply challenging the followers who attempted to dominate the article by foul means :-) I tried only to retain ALL the facts not twist the meaning of sources. However the sources speak for themselves and I would humbly suggest you are not familiar enough with them to make a clear judgement on this very complex topic. Anyway I'm very pleased that Blade has banned those people who I consider ethically unconscionable religious revisionists. The fact I have been banned is an acceptable price. I have a clear conscience and am delighted. PatW (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * None of my comments were directed at your edits. Cherry picking is something I've seen lots of and the method I've described even more so. As for those banned, as always they are people and editors. It is always dangerous to pigeonhole people. (olive (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

Prem Rawat
Hope my response answers your concern. The main point is that Th Blade of the Northern Lights has in fact topic banned these users today. DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've replied on the PR talk page.(olive (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC))


 * Your original unnecessarily aggressive challenge of my assertion that they were topic banned without checking, the lack of recognition or apology that you badly got that wrong when the actual position was made clear, your continued snide insinuation (in your 2nd TP post) that I have some sort of POV and your strange misunderstanding of BRD is deeply unimpressive. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I asserted they were not topic banned in reference to the edits you were reverting which is correct. You suggested in your edit summary that a reason to revert was that these were banned editors, did you not? I am not snide nor was I. I actually don't have any evidence that you have POVs on the topic although in looking over the content you reverted not all content was pejorative to Prem Rwat. I don't like what you did plain and simple and I don't like the edit summary which did not in my mind describe the situation accurately. If I have offended you, I  apologize. My intent was to comment on the situation as I saw it. I did as well assume you were acting in good faith. And I admit to being somewhat ticked off which may have rubbed off on you. I'm sorry about that, if that's the case.(olive (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Just to be absolutely crystal clear: it is quite legitimate and quite normal to revert an edit on the ground that the edit was made by a subsequently topic banned editor and the edit was part of the reason for the topic ban. My edit summary was correct and precisely accurate. I have nothing more to say to you. DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with what you did. But we can agree to disagree.(olive (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC))

Barnstar
Thank you Rainer. I wasn't topic banned if you were thinking that. My concern is for editors who were. I very much respect Blade of the Northern Lights but I think he made a mistake. I monitored that PR page closely off and on for battle ground behaviours. What I saw was three editors doing their best to create neutral content, with a few times reacting in a somewhat frustrated way when provoked. This doesn't mean the editors themselves were necessarily neutral, but no one is. I always felt the effort was there. They didn't always agree with each other, or with editors coming into the situation but I felt the arguments were valid per Wikipedia and had a right to be aired. I do feel from what I saw that the improvement in editing made on that page was missed for which I am very sorry, nor do I have any idea what can be done about it. All best wishes and thank you for the thought. (olive (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi Olive! Do you have an idea if it's o.k. for me to communicate over the Prem Rawat article on editors' User pages, like this one? BTW have you observed if battleground behaviour has ceased since the culprits have been identified and banned? One should expect so, shouldn't one... ;-D Please don't get frustrated too easily. I know that to encounter such unexpected belligerence and hostility can make one feel sick. But then remember, it is not just a BLP, but a biography of a person whose emergence has a strong direct impact on the lives of millions of people, so the standards are extraordinarily high. Standards of patience, understanding and persistence. And BTW, that sentence you added and DeCausa has reverted was a bit awkward and can certainly be worked over; that's how I read DeCausa's objection.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. I wouldn't have an objection to e.g. "but he is also often referred to as":... "a charismatic leader" or "Ambassador for Peace" or "a an insightful guide" etc etc if that is so, and is reliably sourced. I don't know if he is or isn't - but that type of thing. Saying what he wants or likes or something about him that indicates he's a nice person isn't a counterbalance or has any relevance to the reference to him being referred to as a "cult leader". That's why I said it was peacocky and a non-sequitur. By the way, I'd never heard of him till this blew up a couple of weeks ago and I have zero interest in him or the topic of "new religions" generally. My interest is a strong aversion to WP articles being used as a promotion tool. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in either direction. I guess, that's what NPOV is about. Ignorance is not really a requirement for neutrality.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an argument that Wikipedia editors do their best work when they edit articles on subjects "they don't care about". Someone said that to me when I started on WP, and there might be something in it. DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. But don't care is not equal to don't know. And, @Olive, one more thing: There has been a sensible agreement after extensive discussion, carried by both opposing fractions of editors, that Cagan’s book may be only used for uncontentious issues. It is not a scientific work. There are indications that Cagan has received travel expenses from a Rawat-related organisation for doing on-site research in India, so it can not be counted as a completely independent RS, albeit not self-published.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC) We are actually really being nit-picky here, but I believe it is necessary. I am also sure that if you really hounded scientific authors in medical, chemical or whatever publications for receiving expense, not much would survive of science as we know it...--Rainer P. (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll comment more here later, but the standards for sources unless we are talking about research do not need to be "scientific". As well, there is nothing in Cagan's book(the forward) that indicates she was paid, nor did I see that in an interview I saw and can't seem to locate now. However, I am willing to discard the source based on consensus. And yes it could very well be a weak source. I don't have an issue with that. The quality of the source was not cited as reason for removing content on the PR article; that came later on the BLP/ NB.(olive (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC))


 * I also knew nothing about Rawat or the article editors (with one major exception) when I came into the discussion on PR. What drew me in was a post on Jimbo's page that led me to the talk page where I saw an attack on an editor. I had no idea who was on which so-called side, but I could see that some editors where being dealt with in a personal, very negative way, and that whatever they said was considered POV pushing. In fact the points being made, if on most other articles would have been considered legitimate discussion points. I realize there is a long history on this article and frankly I don't care about it. I do have enough Wikipedia experience to look at sources and to be aware of the state of NRM articles on Wikipedia. I have to deal with the present and what is going on, and if things get too heated or frustrating I have no desire to work there. Life is way too short to spend in such environments . So I do tend to move on when things are ugly, and if I can help settle them or they become settled I 'm happy to stay around. I'll see how that goes. Thank you  both for your comments. (olive (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC))


 * By the way, no one said Rawat is a nice person. However, for a spiritual leader to focus on world peace is informative. Nice = spiritual leader's focus is not an accurate equation. That said, I agree completely that a more extensive summary could be used. That was most certainly not the impression I got when I introduced this topic on the talk and so I used a very simple few words to add context thinking it would be more palatable to those opposing the addition of contextual material.(olive (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

Olive, I've read what is said about topic bans on WP. It does not explicitely mention our personal User pages, but I guess they are covered, too, for discussing the topic. So, to avoid trouble, I will retreat and wish you the best.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rainer. You may be right. You're always welcome here.(olive (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Hi Olive, There is a discussion regarding a NPOV tag that you had placed on the main TM article some time ago. There is a proposal to remove it. Could you please comment here when you have time? Thanks. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Hagelin
The article John Hagelin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Hagelin for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2012 Annual Report
i'm waiting, what's contentious about stating that she was in touch with cuban interests section personnel and citing one of foremost authorities on internet connectivity in cuba?--Huysmanii (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

i agree entirely with your assessments olive, though i would just like point out i was not edit warring, the content i added was new or radically modified. I will of course not be reverting those reversions yesterday undertaken by you and the other editor. Just keep in mind that anyone can edit wikipedia, i'm gradually learning how the process of editing works and i'm getting better as i think are my contributions, which are of course grounded in indisputable fact, Yoani Sanchez met on several occasions with US officials, the leaked diplomatic cables demonstrate this quite clearly, and, relatedly, Sanchez's reporting and ability to report have also been critically analyzed by published experts in relevant fields, including the director of New Mexico University's Cuban news research center; it's ok for an article on dissenting and controversial personages to include authoritative viewpoints that may be critical of said personage; also it's ok to mention the fact that Sanchez was mentioned in leaked US diplomatic cables; and it's ok to cite an expert who queries and wonders what funding sources Sanchez has access to and who points out just how incredibly difficult it is for someone to logistically and financially operate a blog, such as Sanchez's, in Cuba. It's ok to mention all these things, indeed, they add greater depth, dimension, and impartiality to the article.--Huysmanii (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This content discussion belongs on the article talk page. Thanks Huysmanii.(olive (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hagelin GA
Thanks, Olive, for your note. I'm now proudly displaying the GA emblem, along with two other recent awards. TimidGuy (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And thanks for all your work on the bibliography. I just made one small change. I think it's done! TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I learned a lot from you on this TG, watching how you worked with the new system. Thanks for all of your work as well. I'm actually quite proud of the new ref/ bibliography section we created. Its quite elegant in how it looks and operates.(olive (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC))

TM ref cleanup
Thanks for your note. Happy to give some attention to this, though my time is a bit limited. Should be able to start tomorrow. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Got your note. Thanks for submitting it for GA. I had only gotten through about half the refs, but I see that you did a lot of work on it too. I'll continue to give it some attention, since I suppose it will take a while before it will be reviewed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Height and weight on Olga Korbut
Hi, I noticed that you undid Mjeromee's change which added the height and weight to the infobox. You said it was "not stable information/ non encyclopedic". I agree that it's not stable, however that is why it says (2002) afterwards. Why do you consider it to be non-encyclopedic? I would think height/weight for a gymnast is important information. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that question. Weight for a gymnast can change with day, week and year. It can be dependent on the scales, on who is doing the weighing. It can be manipulated to suit a story or a coaches agendas. As well, within a certain range it has no bearing on the quality of the gymnast, on her strength or flexibility,  or ability to perform. Korbut is notable as a gymnast so height after the end of her career is  not  significant. If we had reliable sources that indicated Korbut's height and weight were factors in her performance level, and if those sources were  mainstream content on her career as a gymnast, we could add something to the article about the effects those aspects of her physiology had on  her. Bald statistics without this kind of context are not encyclopedic. Sorry.:O((olive (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC))


 * I can now cite this info during her career Mjeromee (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, actually. You need to find WP:Reliable Sources that say these statistic impacted her career. For example her height after 2002 is not significant in terms of her gymnastic career.(olive (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC))
 * I don't think that's the current standard though. Take a look at Justin Spring which I randomly found. The article doesn't discuss his height at all, yet it's included. I do agree that it should be current, and if Mjeromee has a stat which was during her career, it should be included. Legoktm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Another article with the same mistake is not a standard, its an error. Since you don't agree with me I'd suggest you get community input and take this to a Notice Board. Ask there if content on height and weight is reliable content and make sure to give them your source.(olive (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC))

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "User talk:Littleolive_oil#Height_and_weight_on_Olga_Korbut". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 23:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)