User talk:Littleolive oil/Archive 3

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 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) 07:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback. 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) 08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in
Hi Olive, Just to let you know, there's a topic now being discussed at Transcendental Meditation here that you commented upon a couple of weeks ago. Thought you might be interested and possibly have further comment. EMP (talk 00:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Good article criteria. 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) 08:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

T.S. Eliot quote
Hi Olive! I replied to the topic of the recent addition to the Eliot article at Talk:T. S. Eliot. I think it was a good idea to open the addition up to conversation on the Talk page. Best.Jpcohen (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Good, yes very good to get input on this issue. Thanks for responding.(olive (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia:Op Privilege Policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Op Privilege 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) 09:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New User Template
Hi, I am notifying all editors who are listed as participants at the Transcendental Meditation project page to let them know they may add this newly created project user template (see image at left) to their user page by adding the following code: User WPTranscendental Meditation to their page, if they so desire. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:06, 15 March 2013 (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) 10:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks so much, Kbob. Yes, many editors worked on that article, definitely a group effort.(olive (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC))

AE Appeal
Hi Olive. I have now lodged my appeal against my banning. Apparently it could not be heard by Arbcom. Cheers. Rumiton (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rumiton. I 'd like to comment, so thanks for the notice.(olive (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

GAR
Per WP:GAR I am notifying you of a discussion about a re-assement of the article John Hagelin. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a small note, it's generally seen to be in bad taste to drop, in the middle of a civil discussion, that a topic is covered under discretionary sanctions. It just leads to the question of why you felt the need to do it (especially for an article where there the need was felt to add the DS template). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie, I think you're really pushing the boundaries of good judgement here. This is quickly beginning to look like harassment, and I will not hesitate to block you if it continues.  I assume you've read Silk Torks comment at the "request", yes? Olive's "needs", just like her personal life, should not be your concern. — Ched :  ?  22:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * IRWolfie, In fact an editor mentioned deleting 75% of the content on the JH article. Unless discussed and per the discretionary sanctions this would be a violation. I thought it was fair to mention it. (olive (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

COI
Can you please confirm or deny whether you work or have a connection to (Redacted). This question is in connection primarily with your edits to John Hagelin. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but where I work or don't is no one 's business. I suggest you review the TG arbitration for further information on the implications of pursuing editors based on making COI connections. (olive (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC))
 * Since your statements have a chilling effect on my ability to ask you any further questions, I have no other option but to see clarification from ArbCom directly. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do. You are pursuing questions that have no bearing on anything except an apparent desire to implicate me in some wrong doing. You should pursue this until you you are satisfied, if that's what you want. (olive (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC))
 * I have posted a request for clarification at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wolfie, you are trying to OUT another user. This is inappropriate behavior.  You are making inappropriate threats without justification.  Olive is one of the most good faith users on wikipedia and doesn't need your harassment.   Montanabw (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. 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) 11:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

John Gray/MERU
Hi Olive and thanks again for all your contributions to the TM topic. This is a note to let you know that today I merged content from the coatrack MERU, Holland article into the Transcendental Meditation movement Organizations/Maharishi Foundation section. So the John sentence that you were working on is now in that location. I also carried forward to the TM movement talk page the ongoing discussion about John Gray and his MERU/MUM degrees. I hope this is not too confusing. Let me know if I need to explain further :-) Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Precious again
  support

Thank you for spicing the project with the ingredients "civility, kindness, a sense of humour", for writing about love as cure, for supporting editors who are silenced, and for the line "This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means that all editors should be treated fairly". This is not yet the encyclopedia anyone can edit, let's work on it, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (18 March 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 92nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, - let's work on it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2013 (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) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

L. M. Montgomery autobiography
With regards to "The Alpine Path," the sources I found -- including an online scan of the book -- say it was published in 1974.

Internet Archive: The Alpine Path

Google Books: Reference page in book about Canadian fiction

Digitalmaven (talk) 01:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 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) 18:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My talk page
Hey Littleolive. I would request that you not post on my talk page. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as you, Doc James, post information on editors that is inaccurate you can expect me to comment.(olive (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC))
 * Next time you post on my talk page I someone will block you. I do not appreciate the harassment. Thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are uninvolved, is that correct? And don't ever threaten me. (olive (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC))


 * And let me make something perfectly clear. You will not falsely represent any other editor here because if you do and if I see it, I will post on it. You can remove content from your user pages but you can't remove what you have done. (olive (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC))


 * I've kindly asked James to remove his abusive threat, if not, I'll begin the process to have him desysopped. Dreadstar  ☥   02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dreadstar. I posted a single comment on Doc's page after Doc removed a comment I'd made about his misrepresentation of three editors, which is hardly harassment. I will, however, respect Doc's wish and not post on his user page. I will not stand by, though, and watch him or any other editor create false narratives that damage and sometime destroy other editors. I'd add that a threat to block me based on one statement when he is highly involved whether he actually blocked me or not is an attempt to bully and intimidate which I don't like much, and am noting. (olive (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2013 (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) 19:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). 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) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Geoffrey Ling
The DYK project (nominate) 08:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :O)(olive (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest. 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) 20:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to Large Scale Removal on Deepak Chopra page
Dear Littleolive oil, This is a copy of the response that I just put up on the Deepak Chopra talk page to you and Alexbrn regarding the issue way back in February. Dear Olive and Alexbrn,

I just discovered this conversation/response today to my edits back in February. I apologize both for the long space of time as I have been preoccupied with pressing matters, and for my lack of expertise in navigating my way through the wiki avenues of correspondence.

Regarding the removal of Duerr's quote on Chopra's understanding of quantum physics, I can accept that decision if book jacket material cannot be used in wiki articles.

What I was hoping to address was the misperception that physicists don't agree with Chopra's interpretation of quantum field theory, when in fact a number of eminent quantum physicists not only agree, but have been stating these views long before Chopra did. The role of the observer in quantum measurement has been debated by evenly divided groups for nearly a century, it does a disservice to the wiki reader to suggest that Chopra's position(which is also Heisenberg's Wigner and Bohr's) is somehow discreditable because he's not a physicist.

At the time this material was under a topic called Academic Scholars, and I felt that many of the authors referenced there were weak and it needed quotes from who had actually read some Chopra material and spoke to his ideas. Alexbrn removed my quotes quickly after I posted them and I couldn't understand why. I repeatedly reposted because I thought it was mischief-making. When he responded that Duerr's view of quantum physics in agreement with Chopra was a self-promoting puff quote, I felt that was incorrect and unfair, especially given the weak material there already. So to make that point I removed the biased material with brief explanations. The material was instantly put up again. And that's where I left off. Then later I saw Olive's message to me warning me not to unilaterally remove content or be sanctioned.I was urged to seek consensus first,which seems like a good idea, although I notice I have never been asked for clarification or a response before any of my reliably sourced content was removed.

But in the spirit of friendly cooperation I would like to get feedback from you about changing or removing these entries. It's not that they aren't referenced properly, but they lack informative content, they push a point of view instead of give substantive information about Chopra's ideas, actions or material.

1 Reception- In Academic Journals

Reviewing Susan Jacoby's book, The Age of American Unreason, Wendy Kaminer sees Chopra's popular reception in America as being symptomatic of many Americans' historical inability (as Jacoby puts it) "to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled theories in the guise of science". Chopra's "nonsensical references to quantum physics" are placed in a lineage of American religious pseudoscience, extending back through Scientology to Christian Science.[49]

Kaminer is reviewing Jacoby's book and the implication is that the scholar Jacoby has something to say about Chopra. I read Kaminer's entire review as well as searched Jacoby's book and it's index. Jacoby never mentions Chopra. Here's the actual passage from Jacoby's book.

"Many Americans possessed just enough education to be fascinated by late nineteenth-century advances in both science and technology, but they had too little education to distinguish between real scientists and those who peddled social theories in the guise of science."

Jacoby is speaking of the false science of the social Darwinist of the capitalists of the Gilded Age. Given that Chopra’s name nor the words 'quantum physics' ever appears anywhere in the book, it's disingenuous to quote the book as if she was commenting on Chopra. Kaminer inserts her opinion about Chopra and his "nonsensical references to quantum physics" out of the blue without any foundation from the book, and with no further elaboration.

How is such a characterization not misleading to the casual reader searching for background information on Chopra?

2. Reception- In Academic Journals George O'Har, a professor of English at Boston College, saw Chopra as an exemplification of the fact that human beings need "magic" in their lives, and places "the sophistries of Chopra" alongside the emotivism of Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek, and the magic of Harry Potter.[45]

This entry misleads the reader into believing that needing magic is a criticism, when in fact O’Har is pointing out the limitations of a solely technological approach to human existence and suggesting we explore magic more fully to uncover a deeper meaningfulness to our lives. O'Har doesn't put the word magic in quotes. Here are O'Har's last three concluding sentences from his paper:

“We crave meaning and spirit in our lives, and we find them in the oddest places: the sophistries of a Deepak Chopra, the emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey, the special effects and logic of Star Trek and The Matrix. Now it's Harry Potter's turn. And while this is not an altogether good development, certainly it could be worse. One does hold out hope, though, that this disguised search for meaning—and it is precisely that—will someday result in an exploration that takes us beyond what is provided by an alternative world found only in the pages of children's books.

I doubt if most readers would realize from this wiki entry that O'Har is not ridiculing magic and that he's actually encouraging Chopra, Oprah, Star Wars, The Matrix and the Harry Potter books to keep going more deeply into the meaning of life.

If the reason this entry is included is for the phrase “sophistries of Deepak Chopra,”, then one would expect the article to support that in some way. It doesn’t. This opinion about Chopra's presentation is the only mention of Chopra in the entire piece. If this were an unbiased wiki entry, one would then find the identical entry of O'Har under Oprah Winfrey’s wikipage: Reception – in Academic journals. The “emotivism of an Oprah Winfrey” exemplifies our human need for "magic." I fail to see how the wiki reader will understand from this entry that O'Har thinks magic and not technology is the right direction to find meaning. And even if he sees limitations in Chopra's style of teaching, he still includes him in that camp.

3. Reception- In Academic Journals John Gamel (2008) also acknowledges Chopra's business success, thinking him "perhaps the wealthiest" of America's alternative medicine practitioners.[4]

Why state an opinion on Chopra’s wealth without supporting facts? Speculation on his wealth or lack of wealth has no relevance to how his ideas are received. If he was well known but financially unsuccessful, would that merit inclusion under Reception? The rest of the Gamel entry seems fine.

4. Reception- In Academic Journals According to medical anthropologist Hans Baer (2003), Chopra – as a wealthy individual – is an example of the American success story,[46]

Again, what is the connection between wealth and how academia receives Chopra's message?The rest of the Baer reference is fine with me.

5. All of Robert Todd Carroll's references.

Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”.[30]

These quotes suggest that Chopra said this somewhere to someone. That is not the case. Here is the actual sentence along with the previous sentence.

Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left.

Carroll speculated on the reason for Chopra's departure. He gives no source at all.

Another Carroll reference: According to the book Skeptics Dictionary, Chopra's "mind-body claims get even murkier as he tries to connect Ayurveda with quantum physics.”[30]

This is a value statement on Chopra’s writing style, not a substantive critique of ideas. Calling Chopra's writing "murkier" only reflects Carroll's cognitive capacity. It offers the reader only Carroll’s point of view, no useful information.

The third Carroll reference: Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30]

This text no longer exists in the Skeptics Dictionary. There is another reference for the same entry, so it can remain, only the reference number needs to be removed.

Carroll’s work is full of biased and invented positions as well as demonstrably incorrect information. Including his citations is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and even to self-respecting skeptics. His lack of credibility is shown where he says. “Chopra has no license to practice medicine in California.” Chopra has always retained his medical license in CA and in MA. Carroll just made that up. Regarding the Sapolsky lawsuit, he claims that Deepak Chopra plagiarized Sapolsky by “lifting large chunks of his work” when in fact it was one stress endocrine chart from a textbook that was mistakenly included in a Chopra book without proper attribution. On his wikiquote page, Robert Todd Carroll says: “ The reader is forewarned that The Skeptics Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects.” Why would editors use this material if the author himself admits to bias, and has no respect for the facts?

That's it. Tell me what you think.Vivekachudamani (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Littleolive oil, I haven't received a response from either you or Alexbrn yet, regarding getting a consensus about removing the material I referenced above. However, on Alexbrn's talk page under my comment there appeared this:

Quackwatch[edit]

Do not undo the revision I made. You're being biased, and not promoting fair use.

--Here is what I just wrote underneath---

Alex, Who are you talking to? This isn't addressed to anyone. There is no reference to any specific material. What revision? What bias? What is quackwatch? Your comment is altogether unclear. Since it was posted after my message I want to know if this is addressed to me. If not, I would like to know if you have any reason to keep in any of the material I outlined earlier. Thanks. Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Vivekachudamani (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Littleolive oil,

After waiting 5 days for a consensus building dialogue regarding the above entries, I assumed there was no objection, so I began by removing the Carroll entries along with a full explanation under "Robert Todd Carroll" I opened on the talk page. Alexbrn immediately undid the changes without explanation, only asserting Carroll was an "authoritative skeptic." Here is his response to me on his talk page along with my response:

My position has not changed, and I have just reverted a bunch of edits you made to the article backed with inaccurate claims that material is not backed by the source used (I of course checked). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC) We differ on what a reliable source is, so let's discuss this. Littleolive oil said we need to reach a consensus. That is why I explained my position last week. You both had all that time to make a considered response but you didn't. I assumed if either of you had objections you would raise them. Once I made changes this morning you changed the material back without explaining why only claiming the material is good without showing how.

Regarding your point about checking the source: Did you check this?

Chopra acknowledges that his thought has been inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and others. [30] Please tell me where this exists in the Skeptic's Dictionary?

or the source for this quote:

Author Todd Carroll said Chopra left the TM organization when it “became too stressful” and was a “hindrance to his success”. How does one determine who said these words from these sentences in his book?

Soon he was an international purveyor of herbs and tablets through MAPI. When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left. Today I noticed Carroll has removed the sentence. "When association with TM itself became too stressful and a hindrance to his success, he left." A separate search for the word "hinderance" can bring us an alternate version with a dead link to hindunet.org that was not there last week. Previously it didn't even show a source of any kind.

I honestly do not understand why you want to stake your reputation as a fair editor on this material. Please explain, don't just assert.

I feel confident that a review panel of editors will recognize that this material does not meet wikipedia standards. Vivekachudamani (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you feel is the appropriate step to take on these edits? I have tried to reach consensus before making changes, but that has not worked. As the history page shows, back on 31 Jan 12 when I put up the physicists quotes with cogent explanations for their inclusion, it was Alexbrn who was the one who "repeatedly and unilaterally" removed my content because he thought they were puff quotes from scientists. When removed the  Gamel, O'Har and Kaminer references as unreliable sources (I gave essentially the same reasons as stated above) he undid them instantly, without supporting his position. I took them out again, he put them back again. Then you told me to stop or else be sanctioned. Now in July here we are again. I am sincerely trying to make this a better article, and I am open to a reasonable dialogue, but people are playing by a different set of rules, where you get to insist on one's changes until the other person gives up or is sanctioned by Wikipedia.

Do you agree with Alexbrn that these sources should remain? None of them? Some of them? If so, which ones and why, given that I have taken the time to explain why they don't meet Wikipedia standards? Vivekachudamani (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion you are making some legitimate points. You may be as well misunderstanding Wikipedia. I will start today to look through the content and sources. This will take me several days to do but I'd like to take the time to look carefully at the content that has become contentious. Apologies for taking so long to respond. My internet access has been poor and unstable because I'm traveling(olive (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

Thanks for looking at this Littleolive oil. I hope it didn't take up too much of your time while you are traveling.Vivekachudamani (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:PD-signature
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:PD-signature. 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) 21:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Contraindications section
While I appreciate your tireless work in improving the TM articles, your deleting my Talk page entry for "advertising" is remarkable. Didn't you read this? Advertising had nothing to do with this. Reading the Contraindications section and recalling recent successes with clients did. Please give me some more of the thinking behind your action. David Spector (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no reply as yet. I don't know how often you check your Talk page. I'm on my computer constantly myself. I notice you have more important objections to some of your recent editing posted above. They seem like very well-researched objections. I know you understand NPOV and COI, just as I understand AGF. You must have very good reasons for such dramatic recent edits, and I look forward to learning more about all this when you reply. You and I have been in contact by email before, so we can easily take this discussion offline if that would be more comfortable. Also, I'm fine to talk on the phone. The interactivity of the phone or Skype is truly best for fostering understanding between people. Print communication doesn't carry emotional cues, so it's easy to imagine that you're being hostile when you're not. David Spector (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry David., but I stand by my revert. I have some very pressing personal situations to deal with so don't have the time to pursue this further. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC))


 * I'm sorry to hear that you are having a personal situation right now. I wish you the best of luck. I'll be patient until you are able to be present again. Your friend, David Spector (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Indic). 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) 22:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages
 * -- 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Default State RFC. 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) 23:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. 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) 23:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note that I have moved the venue as directed by the arbitrators to WP:AE. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been withdrawn and archived. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward or the AE request filed upon the advice of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

Arbitration enforcement request closed
A request for arbitration enforcement to which you were a party has been closed. The result of this request is that Littleolive oil is topic banned for six months from the subject of transcendental meditation, broadly construed. IRWolfie is indefinitely banned from speculating in any way upon the real-life identity of any editor in the transcendental meditation area, broadly construed, except that concerns about such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you.(olive (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Once again, Wolfie's bullying goes unchallenged. What a poor decision.   Montanabw (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite Monty Pythonish!(olive (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC))
 * I don't quite understand your reply to my comment on Sandstein's page ... were you suggesting that I am not an admin, and therefore my wise words to you don't count/don't matter/should be unheeded? ES  &#38;L  10:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. I thank you for your opinion. I also need the opinion of a long time AE administrator who has extensive experience in the area of AE. One of those people is Sandstein.(olive (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC))

Remarkable patience
Interesting barnstar you gave to Moxy. What cruel comment did you mean, the one about being an asshole and needing to grow balls? Oh, no, sorry, I see that comment was from Moxy. Was it an example of the remarkable patience? Bishonen &#124; talk 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC).

I'm sorry you don't like the way I saw that discussion but please don't come and attack me on my user page because you disagree with me. Thank you(olive (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Attack? Good grief. Don't worry, I won't come to your userpage again. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC).


 * I don't care who comes to my userpage. I care about what they have to say and how they say it. I don't see that what you said was anything but sarcastic and an attack on me and the comment I made on Moxy's user page. If I misunderstood your tone and comment, I apologize. (olive (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

Please comment on Category talk:Wikipedians
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Wikipedians. 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.'' — Legobot (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:MOS-TW
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:MOS-TW. 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.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus. 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.'' — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

IJS
re: ... you're wasting your time there. Arbcom is a freaking joke. Total waste of time to even try to talk to them; they are are a laughingstock of the Internet. Some good individuals, but a neutered group of fools. Just go write the articles and ignore them. You do good work - don't concern yourself with the arse that is Arbcom. Last Lone Wolf (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess my position is to use the processes Wikipedia lays out. Whatever the outcome, I can then say I did my best to deal with what is, in this case, a wrongful sanction. Thanks for your concern Lone Wolf.(olive (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC))


 * "Court of Last Resort" is officially Jimbo still.  He does not appear to be rapid, but at least you will not have arbs simply digging their heels in  defending their decisions. Collect (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Collect.(olive (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC))

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Clarification request
The request for clarification involving you has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=579357267#Clarification_request:_Arbitration_Enforcement_Appeal_Littleolive_oil declined]. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 23:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Transcendental Meditation research for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Transcendental Meditation research 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/Transcendental Meditation research 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 notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. (olive (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC))

AE
There is a discussion at WP:AE which concerns you. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Wolfie, your wikistalking and harassment of Olive is becoming troublesome. She responded to an automated post. Please re-read WP:BOOMERANG.   Montanabw (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Per this request at WP:AE, the scope of your topic ban is hereby clarified to include user talk pages including your own, in accordance with the usual scope of AE topic bans. As long as your topic ban is in force, you should not make any edits pertaining to the topic area in question with the exception of requests or queries regarding your ban at an appropriate venue. In cases of doubt, you should seek permission from an administrator before posting. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks Kbob for the thought. It means a lot to me. I think active editors can be concerned about involving themselves in this kind of arbitration clarification which I can understand completely. (olive (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC))

'tis the season''
 * Did you know ...
 * ... that the song "Ermutigung" by Wolf Biermann, encouraging people not to become hardened in hard times, was written for Peter Huchel, then under house arrest?
 * that Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. I think I missed responding to this earlier. I appreciate the pumpkins - happy orange globes. Not hardened, but taking a little break and back in a while.(olive (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC))

== Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals ==

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Best practice guidelines for Public Relations professionals. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice SJones. I have some strong opinions on bullying having had the experience on Wikipedia myself but at the moment don't feel I can add anything to this discussion that would help. As in real life bullying is something that is insidious and pervasive and it has to be corrected. Not sure how yet.(olive (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC))
 * Indeed. Just as a heads up, Fladrif returned as an IP,, to edit his talk page and continue his personal attacks and was blocked back in June because of his actions. I'm no longer taking Fladrif's nonsense and unhelpful comments anymore. He was just being disruptive and uncivil towards the community in general. I took a two month semi retirement for partially this kind of abuse. I've been here since 2006, Fladrif for much shorter than that (he was here since 2008). I completely understand your feelings, abuse and bullying should never happen to anyone. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was over there, but given the arrival of a certain editor who has bullied me in the past (ironic), I think I'm stepping out The bullies always win around here and no one stands up for the victims, who often find themselves at the receiving end of sanctions.  Anyone attempting to organize against bullying becomes suspect or part of a cabal.  What nonsense.   Montanabw (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Having dealt with users like and, I have stood up to disruptive editors on occasions if they ever appear. In any case though, Fladrif's condescending comments to me back in March (including accusations of personal behavior against me without evidence, which is a violation of our personal attack policy) and attacks on other users (especially to an arbitrator in the WT:BASC debacle) was a disgrace and I resented those comments. I still find his conduct profoundly detrimental. But at least we don't have to put up with him and his nonsense anymore. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Graphs and charts. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * done..O) (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Drafts. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved your comment
Hi. Sorry, I moved your last sentence in this comment because it interrupted the numbering. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this
by 28bytes
 * Blueduck.pngMove Like This

I liked your, - one link goes to "awesomely weird", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I like the duck.... and, quack quack quack, ohhhh, quack quack.... sigh... quack quack.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC))


 * Did you know that a blue duck attacks the German Main page right now? - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And now please the sounds of breathing fire and laying plutonium eggs, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2014 (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. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

RS Notice Board, Youth Peace Fest 2014
Hi Olive! I'm glad you are around as a neutral editor in this matter. May I ask you a favour? I feel a little overcharged with an inquiry at the RS:NB, worming my way through dictionaries and WP:rules. I would be very happy if YOU could help me with that, believing you are perhaps more experienced... ??--Rainer P. (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to post asking for input. I can do it later today or tomorrow.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC))

Friendly note
Thanks for your kindness and support even through troubled times!

 — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Stallion
For me your edits are fine and very contructive, thanx. Unfortunately somebody disagree with us. Please help Wikipedia to be a POV free zone and counteract against people who damage the correctness of it.--Agnello inferocito (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Canadian articles
Hey Olive, if you are interested in a Canadian-themed article, Evans cherry needs some expansion. It's a really cool tree - literally - developed in Saskatchewan to survive cooooold winters. I have two growing in my yard. They make GREAT pie cherries! (Yum!) The research articles are already in the external links section (or were, last I checked). The article needs sourcing, footnoting, expansion, etc. I don't really have the time to work on it, but I think it would do well to expand a bit. Probably not enough for GAN, but should be able to get up to B-class, anyway. Montanabw (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting. I'll start working on it in the next few days. And I love cherry pie or cherry anything, after chocolate of course. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC))

Belated thanks
I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#085;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping!
hey, I'm looking for people to do an informal peer review of Mucho Macho Man before I send it to FAC. Interested in taking a peek and commenting at the talk page? Montanabw (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So sorry that I'm getting to this late but will look in tomorrow.... teaching tonight. If there's anything specific I can do; I just saw the comment about the eye problem, (darn) let me know.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC))

Please comment on User talk:Bgwhite
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:Bgwhite. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the copyedits on Friesian horse - much needed and glad you can help! Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no problem. I'm enjoying it. Glad the edits are a help. The article is definitely short on sources, though. Any thought on adding some.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Essay on 'POV Railroading'.
Dear 'Littleolive oil',

I just wanted to report back to you, out of courtesy, about the updates I applied to the subject essay earlier today, with the goal of augmenting on your own effort of yesterday. I started afresh from the point where you had left off and noticed a few outstanding, minor issues (typos, rogue spaces, punctuation) which I fixed on the spot. I then also tried to improve the prose a little more, for consistency and in an attempt to make it read more fluently, in line with your own effort.

Then, when I'd finished, I went back to look at some of your diffs for the first time and realized that some of my updates inadvertently reverted some of your own in a few places. I am therefore leaving the present message to assure you that it was never my intent deliberately to revert your own changes in any way; as I said above: I started where you'd left off and tried to add further value to the level of prose quality that was achieved thanks to your own improvements. However, I now realize that some of my actions may have hurt your feelings; if so, then please accept my most sincere apologies, as it would never be my intent to be thoughtless with regards to the efforts of a fellow editor.

Therefore, please feel free to modify the current prose if you decide that some of my changes caused the quality of the article to have regressed in some way, compared with the edits you applied yesterday.

In future, I will first look at the previous editor's diffs in more detail before applying further changes.

Thank you for your understanding and, perhaps, for your forgiveness.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Patrick. No worries. I think the essay had lost clarity so I tried to copy edit it without changing or losing meaning. I am seldom attached to my edits. The only thing I would be concerned about with you edits is the hr/she makes for awkward reading and is generally dispensed with on Wikipedia in my experience, but that can be adjusted or changed anytime. I think the base .line meaning of the essay is there should anything need to be added..Anyway, no problems and nice edits.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC))


 * Dear Olive;
 * Many thanks for your prompt and re-assuring reply. I know what you mean about 'he/she', 'him/her', 'his/hers', etc. I left them in (or, to be more precise: made them consistent throughout the article) mainly because many of them were always there from the start (if memory serves me right). In any case, they can be changed another time, as you say, especially if it's the norm on Wikipedia to use the second form of the pronouns 'they' or 'them' when the gender of a single subject is not specified.
 * Thank you once again, Olive, and please keep well and joyful.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A final update, Olive, just to let you know I have now applied the changes discussed above. Keep well.
 * With kind regards;
 * Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!
Whoooohooooo. Anytime you are giving out brownies let me know. And thank you for the treat. I had to leave the page unfinished as far as copyedits go - family obligations - but looks as if it was all cleaned up.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC))

Prem Rawat: Photo
Hi Olive! I would like to make an addition to the Prem-Rawat-article, as announced on the Rawat-Talkpage ("Media"), and support it with a photo, that shows Rawat speaking from a lectern showing the TIMES corporation logo. Copyright issues are being cleared. I think that is a relevant and well sourced edit, but empirically it will not find assent by detractors. So I am considering to dismiss the status-quo agreement, that seeks complete consensus, as it seems to turn out adversely to the article's quality. Other, "neutral" editors, like Francis Schonken or Revera, have snubbed it anyway, and nobody sounded alarm. And I am getting a little weary about the way things are going. What do you think?--Rainer P. (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm traveling right now I'll look later today when family things slow down. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC))


 * If you don't have consensus, don't add it. I 'd take it to third part DR and ask for input. Honestly Rainer its not worth the stress. The article won't live or die on this picture. Protect yourself not the article first. I found  that even a sensible, common-sense edit can be used against you. Ask for input,  see what they say, and then use that advice.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC))


 * I don't see where you discuss adding a picture. I must be missing it, sorry.:O| Could you point it out. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC))

It really seems I'm getting neurotic over all this. I put it only now into the discussion of the Media-section. Would you take part in a DR?--Rainer P. (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes i'd take part, but for a DR you will first have to show you discussed extensively on the article talk page. I'd reopen the discussion and ask for a definitive comment on each issue. You are asking for both a short comment about adding the India gathering content, and then also about adding a picture. The discussion is a bit confusing right now. These are separate issues so I'd ask for input on these two additions separately and see what the response is. This a first step. Does this make sense? :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC))
 * Absolutely, thank you. I'm waiting for the picture clearing, and then proceed.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;"> support

Thank you for spicing the project with the ingredients "civility, kindness, a sense of humour", for writing about love as cure, for supporting editors who are silenced, and for the line. This is not yet the encyclopedia anyone can edit, let's work on it, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (18 March 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 92nd recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, It seems like yesterday that you sent the first Precious. Wishing Pumpkin Sky were around WP too, although I understand, I think, why he's not. Collaborative editing with him was what Wikipedia really should be about! The blue is beautiful.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

Chopra talk
Hello! I just finished reading Chopra Talk - are you leaving? Your voice was more than helpful. I could really use your presence/advice there. nothing but sad faces if your gone. SAS81 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite Mastcell's hyperbolic comment, my so called flounce was actually laughter, much on that page is so predictable, and my so-described combative comment was a sincere intent to leave that page to those who seem to be so heavily invested in it that they are reluctant to deal with the issues straight on. I am sincerely sorry  that your efforts which have been polite  and respectful with honest attempts to understand policy have been met as they have. I do think there are a few editors there, Jps for example who is making a sincere effort to communicate and work through with you the issues you have. For me, I'd have to think for awhile about whether its worth going back. Life is short, its worth spending in a pleasant environment. :O) If I thought I could really help come to some kind of conclusion that satisfied all parties, I would be happy to help. Something to think about. I'm happy to help from my user page if that's any help. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Thank you. Clearly i need all the help I can get so any form it comes in I shall not complain. SAS81 (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Atama is an admin I respect tremendously for his fairness, and he is expert in COI, so if you have questions he might be able to point you to answers. You can always ask.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC))


 * I just saw your question on the Fringe Notice Board talk page. Since the Chopra article is a BLP, you might want to post a question on the BLP Notice Board. You don't have to to post on the talk page of the Notice Board but can post on the NB itself. The policy guideline NBs are in place to help with questions which pertain to those particular policies. If you want other assistance you can ask any editor or admin/editor. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC))

Sounds good I do have a question or two for him. A question for you if you do not mind. Regarding WP:Fringe - so the community itself is active in writing (and re writing) that guideline correct? Specifically It appears to have been introduced by Barney the barney barney and rather recently (apparently during the Sheldrake drama). Is that the only guideline we have to align BLP with Fringe? BLP seems incredibly thorough, and the WP fringe add on to it seems broad and open to interpretation. With no clear path to align the two, I'm worried about an inherent contradiction between BLP and Fringe that the community does not seem to acknowledge. Does my question make sense? SAS81 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Now we get onto the crux of the issue, which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT with regards to WP:POLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * All policies and guidelines were written or are in the process of being written by the community. Generally, major changes to a policy or guideline should be open to wide community input. Barney's addition seems acceptable and that may be why it was not challenged. However our Biographies of Living Persons is a policy while the Fringe theories is a  guideline and policies must be adhered to more stringently than guidelines. So the standards of the BLP policy must be met and must not be overlooked to meet the demands of fringe-theory content. This is not to say that fringe content should be left out or ignored simply that the below must be considered  and adhered to:

(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC))

@Olive - I didn't see your sig attached but I assume the last two paragraphs are from you. What you wrote to me is how it appears to me too, I'm just double checking to see if I am missing anything. I'm trying to find the resolution between BLP and Fringe and thought it must be flushed out somewhere but I guess Barney's addition to WP is the only guideline we have. Since there is no framework to adjust weight to either or - the only thing relevant I can see that if BLP x says something fringe - then we have to make sure the mainstream scientific view point is also on the page. That seems like maybe a paragraph or two. It looks like a number of editors are using WP Fringe to frame the entire voice of the BLP. That doesnt seem right. Right? SAS81 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that would depend on what the person is notable for. If the person is notable for something that is fringe to the mainstream then probably the article would or should be framed in terms of that notability. Chopra's notability does not come out of the criticism of his work. Those sources are sign posts or indicators that he is notable. Nor do I see his notability coming out of his mind body work alone.  One only has to look at phone directories to see physicians advertising the use of alternatives to  more traditional medicine in both human and animal medicine. For example, I know of a big mainstream veterinary college that offers its students optional, homeopathy training. I think Chopra's notability comes out of the fact that he either pioneered mind-body health in the mainstream or that he did in such a big way For example, he didn't write a few books he wrote over 60. He isn't just a physician, but a specialist with multiple  credentials. So the lead would have to list what he is, and how that is notable, and that is separate from what he has been called, named or described as. The article should also describe his theories and philosophies and where they came from, how he arrived at them, was influenced. For example, the academic Huston Smith  may mention Chopra. Chopra didn't come to where he is full blown; he developed his thought and ideas and like anyone, was affected by what he experienced/ read in his own life. This article should in part be an examination of the sources that give this kind of background and information. Then, it makes sense to add criticism of those ideas. I've seen articles where criticism of fringe thought and ideas is heavily criticized while there is  very little content on what those so-called fringe ideas are. They are not allowed or are removed, because they are... wait for it.... fringe....:O). Anyway, These are my opinions of course. You seem to be working through the article in a relatively agreeable way. Good luck to you and all on that page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC))

@ Barney the barney barney - I would not jump to assume things too quickly. I'm being pretty clear in my communication and I think you will have an easier time understanding my point of view if you can quit it with the caricatures your running. I'm asking specific guideline and policy questions, for the purposes of understanding and contributing to WP properly. If you can't address nuanced questions about a policy that you yourself wrote without wikilawyering me to death on broad policy strokes that you keep claiming I dont like or understand - perhaps you could address the questions I'm asking with brevity and clarity and help clear up the issue instead. SAS81 (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough case clarified
The arbitration clarification request, either involving you, or in which you participated (Rich Farmbrough) has resulted in a clarification motion by the Arbitration Committee

The Clarification can be found at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough and the complete discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough For the Arbitration Committee,-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This seems a reasonable outcome.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC))

Please clarify Civility Policy?
Hi Littleolive oil - Could you please help clarify WP:NICE in this AN/I discussion? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry the discussion is closed. I also have no idea what this discussion is about and know nothing of its background so I would be better left out of the discussion, anyway. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

BLPTALK
I agree with your concerns. BLPTALK's "not related to making content choices" is easily overlooked and imo needs some further explanation within the policy itself.

As far as the Chopra talk page goes, I think editors are frustrated. I certainly am. SAS81 has a job to do, and it directly violates our policies. The only good we're getting from all this is that more eyes are looking closer at the article.

You're excellent with people - not my forte at all despite all the work I've put into it. Yes, you've identified a comment that only escalates the situation. It's at minimum a civility problem. I'd certainly like to see the frustration and resultant snippiness gone. --Ronz (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see that SAS81has violated any policies. I'm wondering where you see policy violations. I do think he or she has done an excellent job for a new editor of maintaing calm and reason and of trying to understand both the WP policies and its culture and to work within those constraints He faces self-proclaimed skeptics alone, after all. Editors do have a right to disagree and I think he has some legitimate points worth discussing. I expect there's frustration all the way around.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC))


 * Add: I don't know that I'm better or worse than most editors in dealing with people but thank you, and you seem to be doing fine yourself from what I've read so far.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
 * So we're moving on from the BLP concerns? That's all I really wanted to address. Thanks then.
 * "I don't see that SAS81has violated any policies." SAS81's job is to violate the policies - to whitewash and promote Chopra. So far, SAS81 has just pushed to see in what manner s/he can. I don't see it as following the letter of WP:COI very well, certainly not the spirit.
 * As I look over the latest from SAS81, I see plenty of food for a ban. Will this have to go to Arbcom, or will the community lose patience before the need? --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, "So we're moving on from the BLP concerns? That's all I really wanted to address. " I understood that you are saying there is a BLP/incivility problem on the talk page. I agree.

You also discussed SAS81 violation of policy. I addressed that by saying I didn't see violations. He has said multiple times that he is trying to be neutral, that he and Chopra both understand neutrality is key, and he's asked for discussion on what that neutrality is. Unless an editor already had a POV and stands by that view as the "truth " of the article, these are legitimate questions, are they not? He's a new editor, he's never edited into the article, but is asking for discussion. I understand that is how one deals with a declared COI?

And the "latest" from SAS81. How is that sanctionable. Jps is asking for specific, perhaps personal information, SAS81 responds that AMA has sufficient information. Sanctionable?

I'm very aware that SAS81 is being set up for a ban. I have no comment on that. Best wishes(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
 * I don't think there are any BLP violations, only civility and behavioral problems. I don't think there are sanctionable problems yet. --Ronz (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

BLP...help here?
Hello Olive, i just posted to the BLP noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra_representative._Biographical_bias.2C_overtly_critical.2C_UNDUE_BLP_concerns

Not sure if this is what you meant by offering help but I hope to have some productive discussion there. SAS81 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

and TRPOD just put me on one of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Deepak_Chopra

...help?...

SAS81 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers!
Your son has excellent taste since I am a person who spends every summer I can, by the ocean, looking for whales. I can't imagine seeing a Narwhale and how amazing that would be. Thank you for the Narwhale on my talk page.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

Just disregard my comment
I'm having a hard time understanding your comments regarding sources. I've struck out my attempt to respond, as it only took the discussion further off my point. I shouldn't have responded at all. Sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. I wasn't clear. I've tried to explain further and will also push off.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC))

AE Notification
There is an AE request that may concern you. Thanks, The Cap&#39;n (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. As I mentioned above I am very busy in RL for the next 10 days or so and don't have the time to put together anything thoughtful with diffs for AE. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC))

BLPTALK once again
Once again, you are pointing out what you see as a BLP violation on an article talk page, going so far this time as to bring up the possible need for administrator involvement.

Granted, the discussion is straying rather far from being "related to making content choices", but it is a discussion of verified information in a source being discussed. That's no BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could be more specific. If you are referring to the comment that Chopra practiced "real" medicine in California as a "real" MD with out a license; that is not in the source I saw and which was being cited.  Further, do you really think the constant, multiple aspersions cast on Chopra through out this discussion are all sourced and fall in line with best practices for a BLP at least in the spirit of the policy . Finally, I intended to ask an admin for advice as I said in my last post  and said I was happy to be wrong but felt I wanted to ask. Because the discussion was hatted I decided to let the issue drop, although another editor emailed me a list of admins they felt would be fair and neutral. Actually I find it sad that editors on that talk page are defending the language used to describe another human being, and that Wikipedia editors are behaving as they are in regards to this article and this person. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I'm saying that none are BLP violations, since such comments are allowed per BLPTALK as part of discussions "related to making content choices". --Ronz (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm saying you're wrong. BLP applies to talk pages, unless sourced, and unless being discussed as content for articles such comments do  not belong on a BLP talk page and should be removed, and  using a source as a means of hiding/ casting aspersions is pretty transparent, too. That said why is it OK anyway, to clutter a page with that kind of talk. It harms all of us on some level, and it does not  honour the spirit of BLP or Wikipedia. I find it sad and senseless. I am very busy in real life so will push off. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC))
 * BLPTALK is clear, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Hence my repeated quote of the relevant part of this policy.
 * Are you saying these discussions are an inappropriate use of the article talk pages in general? --Ronz (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not al at all. I don't say that anywhere or imply it. Your reading of the policy is inclusive, mine is exclusive of comments that are not directly related to discussion on content. That's all she wrote. (Littleolive oil (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I'm trying to understand your perspective not just because of how it has impacted the article talk page, but because I think the policy needs clarifying.
 * I don't see how an exclusive interpretation of the policy is helpful in any way. It's simply unenforceable given it would disrupt talk page discussions and consensus building. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ronz, libel is libel, whether it is on a talk page or in an article. I've not looked at the article in question, but saying someone practiced medicine without a license is an EXTREMELY serious charge, definitely something that needs the closest form of BLP scrutiny, and that includes talk pages.  Montanabw (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "I've not looked at the article in question" I'm stunned. Are you saying that after all this you never looked at the reference?! --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no links here to whatever article you are fussing about; I only know it has something to do with Deeprak Chopra, and I'm not about to touch it with a ten foot pole; I'm discussing general principles here, which you don't seem to understand; libel is a bad thing, if you are going to smack around a well-known public figure, you need impeccable sourcing.  Montanabw (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no links here because there are no BLP problems here.
 * Libel is a bad thing - agreed. However, it's worse to prevent discussions because of comments that might appear to be libelous to those unfamiliar with the sources. That's why our BLP policy has an exception for talk page discussions when those discussions are related to improving an article. --Ronz (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor alleges Chopra practiced as an allopathic physician in California with out a license. The source under discussion does not say that. I suggested the editor withdraw the comment. He didn't. Because of the nature of the comment I had decided to ask for admin input. Given my RL responsibilities right now and that the comment was hatted I decided not to pursue this issue further. Talk pages do not have exceptions for libelous statements or potentially libelous statements, or for any discussion that alleges information that is  not true which includes name calling. What happens on a Wikipedia talk page in terms of importance falls well below statements which damage another human being. That's all I can say on the subject.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC))
 * I don't understand. Seems like you simply disagree with the policy. BTW, the source says "He sees patients, but not as a doctor" and that he wasn't licensed.
 * Again, I think this is a misunderstanding of the policy, rather than not agreeing with it. I'd like to have the policy expanded and clarified to prevent such misunderstandings. I'd hoped to get some ideas from this discussion on how to best go about it.
 * Care to say what you think is meant by "and not related to making content choices"? If it's not an exception, what is it? --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like this is not the place to discuss this particular case further, and I am definitely not going into the dramafest of the article itself to comment further. But for your future education, Ronz, WP:BLP says "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. " End of story. Wikipedia could do damage to a living person's reputation based on allegations made on a talk page, which is a public page just the same as the article itself. Montanabw (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems Montanabw disagrees with policy as well. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ronz. Don't confuse disagreeing with you with disagreeing with policy. Further this conversation on my user page is over. Feel free to take the conversation elsewhere. Thanks for your input (Littleolive oil (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Correct, I am not at this time responding on that issue at this point. I may have a view, I am not choosing to go into details about it now. Montanabw (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel that assuming someone is disagreeing with policy is better than to assume they are ignoring it. Sorry this has bothered you. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, you would be wise to stop making assumptions altogether; that's good advice for anyone, by the way. Montanabw (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When editors ignore policy and choose instead to focus on individuals, I find it best to make good faith assumptions on why they might be choosing to do so. We're here, after all, to improve this encyclopedia rather than engage in personal disputes. --Ronz (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" defines content that should be removed. You seem to think that is equivalent to "any content not covered by this is allowed". But it's not equivalent. In the extreme, it should be obvious to anyone that libel - even when related to making content choices - needs to be removed immediately. Content related to making content choices is not disbarred by WP:BLPTALK, but it certainly may be disbarred by other considerations within the BLP policy. Our BLP policy actually requires that "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages". There's no doubt that text that has the potential of harm to living persons requires just as sensitive handling on talk pages as anywhere else. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for focusing back on the policy. Responding on your talk. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP on talk page again
I went over the source more carefully and refactored the comment where you were concerned that there might be a BLP problem. I hope this resolves your concerns. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks yes. I also went over the source and looked at multiple other sources to make sure Chopra was never sued for practicing without a license; there is nothing, so we have this right. Thanks again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Thanks! Glad we resolved that, and so easily. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2014 (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. — Legobot (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support
Littleolive oil, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification
QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Quack guru, WTF are you harassing Olive for this time? Without specifying what article you are concerned about how can anyone know what your problem is. And why are you warning her? Have you ever heard the adage, "don't template the regulars?" Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 22:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I was notified as well, apparently for making two edits to the Deepak Chopra article. I removed "New age guru" as his occupation in the info box and a quote from Demi Moore who said she expected to live to be 130, used to support the criticism of Chopra's statement that he expected to live beyond 100.  Slim Virgin was notified as well.  She has attempted to rein in the criticism in the Chopra article, but apparently she finally gave up.  Gandydancer (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Prem Rawat again
Hi LittleOlive! A neutral voice is needed to comment on the latest issue on the Prem Rawat talk-page, concerning the WAF-Event (which seems to be scaled by Francis Schonken mainly on the basis of number of participants) and the 'Ambassador of Peace'-denomination. Meanwhile I'm trying to find data and sources for the 'Ambassador of Peace'. Would you like to join?--Rainer P. (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Also, Surdas and Sylviecyn are denigrating the subject and his supporters (of which I am the only one working on the article) unremittingly with impunity, without contributing to the article, and I feel like I am not ready to continue if this goes on. And I had gotten topic-banned for 'battle-ground-behavior'! Who can I turn to? --Rainer P. (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rainer.... I'm not on WP much these days, family things to take care, so i can't promise to much on this. So sorry.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC))

Hope things go well for you, Olive! BTW Francis Schonken has got involved in the stalled Rawat article and is helping to develop things in a fairly acceptable way. So, there is a neutral voice already and you can be a little unburdened. Cheers!--Rainer P. (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Cite doi
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Cite doi. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2014 (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. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of Youtubers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of Youtubers. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Consensus. 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. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What is this?"
You lowered my comment to the bottom of the talk page article paragraph at Prem Rawat,  where it is out of context. When i am adressed by rainer i want to be able to comment this directly and don't need a schoolmaster like correction which i consider as biased anyway Surdas (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You inserted your comment into another editor's comment which is inappropriate talk page etiquette. Doing so confuses the sequencing of the comment. I'm not sure why you consider adhering to talk page etiquette biased, but at any rate, I watch that page and noted the mistake and made a simple clean up edit. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC))

Please comment on Template talk:Track listing
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Track listing. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Complete consensus
Hi, Olive! Under the impression of the ongoing struggle on the Prem Rawat-page, I was thinking that the self-imposed rule of only making edits after complete consensus should maybe be restricted to those, who actually edit the article - otherwise it is an open door for any fruitcake who simply does not like the whole thing and has never worked on the article, but has the veto-power to hinder any reasonable progress and burden the actual editors with the near-impossible task to produce a sensible text under these conditions. So, before I propose and discuss such an amendmend, I would like to learn your opinion, and, of course, whether you have ever edited the article!--Rainer P. (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have edited the article a few times. We can't really restrict editors from editing articles per Wikipedia. Any editor has a right to edit any article. Contentious articles are slow going for sure but the best strategy is to just keep showing up and be ready to back down and compromise which I think you do very well. I know also how frustrating contentious articles can be, but that's the nature of Wikipedia and its editing processes. I have been watching the article discussion, but its pretty confused and haven't had time to come in and "unconfuse" it for myself.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC))

Thank you! I didn't mean restricting editors from editing the article, but rather applying the all-agree-convention to only editors who edit the article - not just show up only on the talk page to veto edits, after all the work is done - which is what often happens on that article. Of course any editor can edit, but they should also share the responsibilty for the article, not just the privileges. I'm not sure if this was ever defined, so theoretically anybody with just an IP-address could come along and veto an edit on grounds of non-agreement. This is not only dysfunktional, but also not just and reasonable for the operating editors and should be discussed.


 * I don't think you can restrict editors from voting, discussing, and in fact its sometimes a good thing to have new eyes on the topic at hand. I understand the frustration and it can be very unfair. and you can have editors who are called in specifically to support a POV. While this may be a fault in the WP system, I don't think you or a group can restrict editors in the way you are suggesting. You might try asking an uninvolved admin., but I think you'll find this is the case. One thing that comes to mind is that in RfC's its not the vote that counts but the points that are made and an editor without information may present arguments that carry very little weight. Good luck.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)