User talk:Littleolive oil/Archive 4

Magnificat
I have restored the pre-merger situation as best I am able. There may be talk pages left in the wrong place and so forth. I expect a new merger discussion to be started and to be closed by an uninvolved person, preferably another admin. It would probably be a good idea to advertise it at one or more relevant wikiprojects? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I missed answering this. Thank you for your help.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

External image use for Sophie Hunter
Hello there! I've a favor to ask. I just noticed that the Sophie Hunter page has an external image that is outdated. The photo from IMDB was from 2011 but there's a newly uploaded photo that is more suitable, taken just this month. This one http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1259206656/tt2084970. I hope you can help in changing it. Thank you very much!

Another post I missed. I don't have any experience in this area so can't help you. Hopefully by now you've been able to find help. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC))

December 2014 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Applause
For your comment on the EFT talk page. Exemplary Wikipedianism. Guy (Help!) 10:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Honestly not sure what to say, except it is kind of you to comment here. I am as truthful as I am able so this was just an honest response to my own, probably, too apparent frustration. Thank you for your kindness and since there is applause perhaps a bow would be in order...:O) (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. 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, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE holiday 2014 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

GOCE 2014 report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). 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, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. 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, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Declaring a COI
Hello,

I want to start by assuring you that I absolutely respect your privacy, and I have no intention of violating it in any way. I also believe that declaring a conflict of interest does not threaten one's privacy. One may simply say, "I have a COI in such-and-such topic," without specifying what the COI entails and without revealing any personal information at all. Besides being better for Wikipedia, declaring a COI is likely to garner respect and cooperation from editors who will consider it a sign of honesty and good faith. I believe we can value the consensus on WP:COI while also valuing the privacy of editors. With all this in mind, would you please declare a COI?

Regards, Manul ~ talk 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you are suggesting. I am not paid to edit and I edit neutrally. You realize that you, an editor I have no memory of working with and know nothing about has come on to my user page, declared I have a COI, and wants me to admit to it. I find that more than strange.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC))


 * Hi, to clarify then, would you please declare a COI in the topic of Transcendental Meditation? I absolutely respect your privacy, and I have no intention of violating it in any way. I just believe it is best for Wikipedia when COIs are declared. Manul ~ talk 03:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No. I edit neutrally and probably more neutrally than many. Do I know a fair amount about TM and its sources, yes. I also know a fair amount about art, and for example the painter Odd Nerdrum. I am a gymnastic expert and edit there every now and then. Do I have a COI there. No I don't. I am an avid rock climber. No COI there either. Don't confuse knowledge with COI.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC))

Mention
Mentioned you here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANE_Ent&diff=645400274&oldid=645396409] NE Ent 03:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. 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) 00:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
Hello! 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, 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 feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Please self revert your latest rule breaking edit at the above article per the extant admin imposed sanctions - thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted per the RfC. Do you have a concern with that, and if so why? You are certainly free to open anther discussion. Why don't you have a problem with editors adding content that is clearly not supported by the RfC. Maybe I missed something. Let me know If I did.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC))

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Joining an edit war at Ayurveda, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." --John (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John. I appreciate this very much.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC))


 * I apologise, but I have tidied up an obvious error on this page. I hope you don't mind. I actually wanted to say that you owe me nothing, certainly no apology is required. Note to John - I would support an unblock, noting Olive's comments above. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Roxy; that's kind and very generous, but I do owe you an apology. I should have assumed good faith. No problem with the clean up. Thanks for that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note to self: Commented earlier.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC))

Ayurveda context - proposal?
Again, my apologies.

Looking at your comments closer, I was out of line. I see how you're deviating from the others' comments, saying that there should be some context, rather than agreeing that sources and points of view should be completely excluded. Maybe it would help to make some proposals? --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat reluctant to get involved much more with that article and discussion. I'll see in the next few days.Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC))
 * I don't blame you. Thanks again for your patience and understanding. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar
You should have checked. He blocked himself. --Neil N  talk to me 17:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the self block. He asked to have content removed from his talk. (See his user page) I did that.Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2015 (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 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) Three years ago, you were the 92nd recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, a "precious" gift from you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC))

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion (drafts). Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Innuendo?
I was merely giving the editors involved the chance to gracefully indicate their COI relevant to the RFC. It's necessary information for correctly weighting the opinion, and probably would look better as a self-admission. I'll post the links to the Arbcom and Arbitration Enforcement pages directly myself in a while if the situation doesn't resolve itself.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing graceful about any of this. You are making accusations and now adding threats. Let's get this out in the open. Linking to arbitrations doesn't frighten me or bother me, but clearly you want to threaten me and frankly I find that despicable, and unconscionable in an admin. What are you accusing me of specifically? This is an RfC and your behaviour is a shabby attempt to control the outcome. RfC are meant to garner the opinions of diverse editors and is not meant as a place to manipulate a decision. I want you here and now to list your concerns. If you cannot or won't then please stop the accusations. Further none of this has anything to do with an RfC.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC))
 * It has everything to do with the RFC: your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations needs to be considered while bearing in mind that you might be blocked from editing some alt-med articles if the RFC were to find the opposite position. That's the kind of information the closing admin (who most certainly will not be me) needs. I actually tried my damnedest not to threaten you and to give you plenty of opportunities to put in a mild statement of your COI that was under your control. If discussion of your COI doesn't bother you, why won't you just put a mild note in your statement that acknowledges it?&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Simple answer. I don't have a COI. Would you like to tell me what you think that COI is?


 * your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations,


 * What opinions? You are suggesting that my opinions on other editors has to be considered in determining the RfC? the word Wow comes to mind.


 * while bearing in mind that you might be blocked from editing some alt-med articles.


 * Blocked for what?

The day the WP described above becomes this Wikipedia, I'm done. The kind of control you are implying is based on subjective and biased thinking. excludes rather includes, assumes guilt with out justification and changes the meaning and tenor of the RfC and collaborative processes. Its wrong and you are in the wrong.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)).


 * You have long-standing ties to TM (and yes, I can be very specific without violating any policies related to outing). TM comes under the umbrella of alt-med. Should the RFC find that you have a COI related to alt-med as a topic, any of your recent discussions of topics ranging from ayurveda to Deepak Choprah to acupuncture could be prohibited or curtailed. Where's the mystery?&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how this conversation is getting so fragmented. You indicated that you didn't think editors tied to alt-med had a COI, and made a flat assertion: "Support of this idea implies all experts in all fields have a COI. If that is the case and if we want to restrict their editing we can shut down Wikipedia." That was pertaining to a question "do practitioners of alternative medicine (for examples, acupuncturists or naturopathists) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?". If people found in favor the opinion in opposition to yours, you might not be allowed to participate in articles related to TM (and, most likely, ayurveda, maybe Deepak, etc) depending on what restrictions people decided were reasonable and how broadly they chose to interpret "field of practice". I have no idea what "You are suggesting that my opinions on other editors has to be considered in determining the RfC? the word Wow comes to mind." is in reference to.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Kww. Let's wait and see how this RfC plays out. You can tell me then whether articles like acupuncture relate to meditation practices whatever they may be or whoever may practice them and whether your threats here will culminate in blocks  for editing.   I find these comments at any time to be  objectionable, but especially during an RfC. I won't forget them.

"your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations needs to be considered"


 * My cmts need not be considered beyond that of any other editor who comments. To do so would indicate bias, bigotry, and blatent disregard for WP

"You have long-standing ties to TM (and yes, I can be very specific without violating any policies related to outing)"


 * You have no ideas what if any ties to TM I have. I suggest that looking into years old archives which I specifically asked to have removed because of off-WP harrassment is problematic on two counts. One. You raised this during an RfC which along with your attempted  threats to link to arbitrations  is both an attempt to harass and also to intimidate. Two. Any information you have is years old and I would be careful about brandishing it about. And as a third comment. I commented on an RfC as did many other editors. Your response  was to threaten an individual editor, to make assumptions, to intimidate. and to interpret and then apply the RfC in a novel way that a way beyond the boundaries of the RfC as outlined by WP. I really have no more to say. (Littleolive oil (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
 * I have made no threats. Your COI exists, and needs to be disclosed before your argument is evaluated by the closer, not after. You seem to think that I have threatened to block you: I haven't. Reread: I was saying that the RFC closing against you could lead to you being blocked from editing certain areas. That's not a threat, that defining why you have a COI. I have given you an opportunity to reveal it in the RFC before closing. I will continue to leave that opportunity open for a while. I'm sorry that you view asking you to reveal that you have a COI as "bias, bigotry, and blatant disregard for WP". One of the reasons I would rather you did it is simply because I would like to leave the detail level under your control.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

COI Notice Board it that a way WP:COINB. Please feel free. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

And I'll clarify what I actually said:
 * You are telling me to declare a COI. You aren't asking me if I have one you are declaring I do.
 * You told me if I didn't declare that COI you would link to arbitrations and AE. Whether I care if you link to those cases is immaterial. You are using those links to "persuade" me to declare the COI you think I have. That's a threat
 * You are telling me that I must reveal this COi during an RfC. I have been around WP for about 8 years and never have editors been told that "your opinion about editors tied to alt-med organisations needs to be considered" That's a ridiculous assertion. RfCs are requests for opinions. RfCs include and welcome editors with every kind of position.
 * I misread what you said. You did not say you'd block me. You said I would be blocked from editing. Sorry for the misread.
 * I care very much about whether other editors will be treated as I am being treated on WP. Its for that reason that I cannot let you get away with this KWW with out voicing my concerns. You are potentially setting a precedent that will have long-lasting and negative repercussions on other people and on WP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
 * When was the last time you responded to an RFC where the result of the RFC would directly impact your ability to edit freely and that conflict was likely to be unknown to the admin closing the RFC? That's not a situation that occurs often. Most of the material that a closer needs to consider while weighing arguments is readily available. Occasionally, as in this case, it's not. I didn't say that you shouldn't have responded and made your position known, only that while responding and making your position known, you should also reveal the interest you have in the outcome. There's no rush here. Hopefully, tomorrow, you will read over what I've said here and see that I have not been unreasonable, nor have I treated you badly. I've simply asked you to put something in your comment to the level of "I have ties to an alt-med organization and the outcome of this RFC could possibly affect my ability to edit." That's not an unreasonable request.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not have ties to an alt-med organization. If you have further concerns please go to COINB. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC))
 * Hi Littleoliveoil! I noticed your comments on the COI RfC and came here to read a little more about you and noticed this thread. Just to let you know, Kww made similar rude and uncivil COI accusations towards me as well. I just thought you might like to know you're not the only one. LesVegas (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Las Vegas. Seems to happen every now ands then; someone decides to make accusations. I don't even have to edit articles to have that happen; a few comments and there are knocks on the door. My greatest concern right now is with the way people are treated on WP if they are viewed as moving against the new neutrality. I would like to help, probably don't, but do give it a try. I don't want others to experience what I have on WP.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC))


 * Hey, guess what? I commented at the RfC as well and have a notice on my talk page saying that I am overdoing the hyperbole myself.  Apparently some animals are more equal than other animals.  Montanabw (talk)  23:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed that. (Note tone denoting understatement) (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC))


 * I'm being accused of invoking Godwin's law because I used the term "ghettoizing." Hell, maybe I was thinking of Elvis.  Nothing pisses me off worse than having my motives misattributed.  Sigh.   Montanabw (talk)  03:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If he or she misunderstood you, its quite simple to say I'm sorry which smooths things over for everyone. There is a fair amount of that going around, misattribution that is. Then there's accusations and assumptions. Its hard enough to know what motive someone has even if you know them well, let alone someone you meet a few times on Wikipedia. (Littleolive oil (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC))

Removal of others comments
It looks like you inadvertently removed QuackGurus comments here you might want to put them back. AlbinoFerret 20:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like he already has. AlbinoFerret  20:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I was about to leave my computer so I wouldn't have seen the deletion. Not sure what happened there. I left QG a note. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

Thanks
Just a quick note to say thanks for your comments on ANI. They really do not seem to see the problem....thanks. DrChrissy (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You might think about taking a break from Acupuncture. The article isn't worth the strain and with distance I at least tend to see how unimportant these discussions are compared to real life issues. If I had my way I'd issue a time out for everyone - a recess - giving everyone a rest, to convene again in a month.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

GOCE June 2015 newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you.My pleasure. Chomp chomp chomp...(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Legobot (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Recent years. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciating your voice
My warm thanks for joining in at Talk:Waldorf education. There are always too few neutral editors...please feel encouraged to continue there. HGilbert (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hgilbert. I have to think seriously about whether I want to return to a contentious situation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC))
 * I certainly understand!! Very best wishes -- HGilbert (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Faith healing
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Faith healing. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Loaded question
I'm going to ask you a somewhat loaded question, which you're free to answer or ignore as you see fit. In regard to the pending Arbitration case about genetically modified organisms, you asked rhetorically: "Does anyone think that Monsanto is not in some way controlling or at least contributing to its own articles?" Now, I think the answer is almost certainly yes, at least to the second half, but I'm more interested in the implications of your question.

Let me rephrase slightly: Do you think that the Transcendental Meditation movement is not in some way controlling, or at least contributing to, its own articles? Why is is problematic (from your viewpoint) for Monsanto to edit or control its own articles, but acceptable for the TM conglomerate to edit and control its articles? The TM movement is no less of an integrated and profitable business conglomerate than Monsanto, so I perceive a double standard (to say the least) in voicing concern about one but accepting and even endorsing the other when it comes to controlling Wikipedia content. MastCell Talk 18:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't voice concerns I asked a question. My question was deliberately neutral so that my position on Monsanto whatever that may be is not the issue in this arbitration. I have never edited the Monsanto articles and don't intend to do so now or to take a public postion on the company.


 * As far as I know the TM organization is not controlling  the TM related articles. I can only speak for myself but no one has ever told me what to edit on any article, and if they had I would always decide for myself whether I felt that edit was appropriate. That you even ask the question is based in a misunderstanding and that is that anyone who admits to ever having learned to do TM is, as you said on Guy's talk page, (paraphrased) rushing to the phone to drum up TM business which I have never done in my life, and seems a little silly. You seem to assume anyone who begins to learn this meditation practice is part of an organization (conglomerate?). Will Beback made the same kind of misjudgement when he listed most of the IPs from a tiny midwestern town in Fairfield, Iowa, in an arbitration, asserting they  were all somehow connected to the so-called TM organization.  This is all based in a further mistake and that is that the TM organization uses the TM articles to advertise itself which in fact, I don't think it does. I doubt it needs these articles. What you fail to realize is that people start TM on their own volition and can stop at anytime on their own volition. No one is forcing anything, and the world outside of this small Wikipedia world is full of advertising  both for and against most kinds of meditation practice. In fact an article that is positive and one sided in terms of TM might just turn people away. Who believes pie in the sky, rose coloured worlds, anyway. Further, don't confuse the sources with reality. I've watched skillful editors add bits and pieces of seemingly innocuous sourced information which when added together in an article becomes pejorative and not what the sources say. You are a clearly western physician with a highly skeptical stance. Why should I not think that you playing here on WP for the "western physician establishment. It wouldn't cross  my mind to compare you or western physicians to Monsanto and making such a comparison to a meditation technique or even organization seems unfortunate, a stretch, and especially, surprising.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC))


 * Perhaps I gave my position on Monsanto away in that cmt.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC))


 * I don't know if you feel this opens some kind of discussion. It doesn't for me. You have consistently treated me with contempt which does not make my editing experience particularly pleasant, so I'll sign off on this topic and with you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC))

Andy
It seems that Andy has retired. I would like your help to understand what has led to all this and if possible find a solution that see's return. You recently stated that you felt the atmosphere at Wikipedia has gotten worse. I admit I share this feeling. I also admit that I have been less inclined to be helpful lately and have wandered away from the noticeboards such as DRN, RSN, Teahouse, Editor Retention and many other venues I used to be very active at. What are your thoughts here?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have found myself commenting in situations where Andy is also commenting. I have not found him to be particularly abrasive as some editors state just blunt and to the point (which I always like in a person) and almost always I agree with his positions. What I would say is that he is uncompromisingly honest and logical coupled with excellent knowledge of Wikipedia. He doesn't seem to have the agendas of many who are skeptics; one of the few truly neutral  editors in my opinion. He embodies what Wikipedia should be. This is just my limited experience with him of course. As for his retiring. I don't know what he has had to deal with over the years but suggest we leave him alone. Wikipedia is not always healthy or restful.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC))


 * As for Wikipedia as a whole. Its not real, you know. It has real world implications but an environment where everyone can be masked can only lead to people behaving in ways they would never behave if the repercussions of their behaviours were connected to their real life names. WP is a two dimensional world where we are trying, in situations that deal with behaviour to treat multiple dimensional issues. Here experts are often treated with disdain rather than  treated as  valuable assets who can be assisted with kindness and patience to understand the policies and guidelines. Any one can become a Wikipedia expert and that  can lead to power struggles as is often the case with those who are  not truly confident in their knowledge base and even those who are. And finally, Wikipedia is a place where the masked can create narratives about the masked with no discernible way of correcting the narratives. One can be accused of almost anything and with the right impetus everyone will believe the story. A friend recently said to me because of accusations that I was a bully, an accusation that is so far off reality as to be ludicrous, that you can see in any schoolyard kids supporting the bullies as they gang up on the scapegoat. As long as our justice system is punitive as it shouldn't be, rather than rehabilitative, and as long as we tolerate behaviours that are not only not Wikipedia friendly but life friendly; this project is going to be a place that burns out its inhabitants and will because Wikipedia is not  just an encyclopedia, but is  a crowd sourced project and it depends on people and the happiness of those people in the work place they inhabit; it will self destruct and perhaps is. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC))


 * You know, I think you quite accurately portrayed wikipedia's crowdsourcing as very slice of life and the schoolyard imagery is apt. The anonymity shield is both an asset and a liability. But I do not believe that WP is self-destructing; it is going through a round of growing pains and like a growth spurt, there are aspects that are not pretty.  I'm going to think on this analogy for awhile.    Montanabw (talk)  03:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is pretty big. Even the major arbitration cases are only a fraction of what happens every day...improving the project by creating new content or improving existing content. Almost everything Littleoilive oil said is pretty much right on the money. I do feel however, that perception is key here. I get personally attacked by one editor almost every time we interact on the talk page. Now I just request that he focus on the contribution and make little to no reply at all to personal attacks or accusations. But I do not look at it as an obstacle to my editing the areas of my greatest interest and knowledge. I see it as a challenge (one editors should not have to face on such a regular basis). DRN can be a very difficult place because editors can and will use whatever they can in an argument. And perhaps that is the real problem. People see dispute resolution as a fight or an argument. Worse than that are people that refuse to accept the format and try to move things around to suit themselves...only making the other side demand changes to suit them as well. DRN's basic format is as simple as it could be made but I am sure it can be improved. The improvements over a span of time took a great deal of discussion, pissed off a number of volunteers and had to be rearranged several times. It isn't perfect but it does allow people a place to request help and seems self sustainable with the current rotation of coordinators. People just need to understand that DR procedures are wrapped in red tape. Cutting that down is not always easy and adding too many stipulations to volunteering makes it unappealing for signing new mediators. I don't know what the answer is.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case
''You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms'' arbitration case: For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))
 * 1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
 * 2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hello (Adele song)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hello (Adele song). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 02:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2
You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 13:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

and thank you
for the kind words. — Ched : ?  21:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted
Hi Littleolive oil. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

the "thanks"
was actually for the entirety of your statement. — Ched : ?  14:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ched. I consider that high praise from you, someone whose perspective I respect greatly. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC))


 * Moar thanks from me, for quiet and kind help, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kim Jong-un
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kim Jong-un. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Season's Greetings
Thank you Montana and exactly the same to you in just those words with some ease and joyfulness thrown in. (Littleolive oil (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Littleolive oil!


Happy New Year! Littleolive oil, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Liz and a Happy and fulfilling New Year to you.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

Happy New Year, Littleolive oil!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Littleolive oil, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. LesVegas (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you very much LesVegas, and wishing you all of the above too, for this new year.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Stevie Boi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevie Boi. Legobot (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

More inappropriateness
Why should someone have to say sorry about a historical war of words that they had about another editor who is now deceased? Your plea for a belated apology from someone who knew nothing of Dreadstar's death, on a subject that had nothing to do with Dreadstar in the first place, is frankly, an embarrassment. Fair enough, an apology may be called for if the comments were made knowing of the other persons death, but this was not the case. Furthermore, did you not see my post that Drmies' comments were inappropriately placed into a section that had nothing to do with Dreadstar and were left for the amusement of SchroCat? If so, why did you then throw fat onto the fire by posting yet more inappropriateness? I hugely respect and I will assume good faith that he posted in the wrong section accidentally; I suggest that you didn't and that you knew your motive. You simply wanted to garner a reaction, so I guess you got what you wanted.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In fact I wasn't asking for an apology I was suggesting that in the face of death, and this was someone I had worked with for 8 years, that saying I'm sorry about the death is all that is needed rather than a lot of discussion. Further, I would never ask for an  apology and would never do so. First, such an apology would  probably not be sincere since it would be given at the request of someone else and  not because the party thought it was necessary, and second whether one wishes to apologize or not is not my business. I am sick to death off the  vitriol on WP and do feel the comments about any editor, including Dreadstar, are  not necessary. You misunderstood what I said and your first response is an attack,  not called for or needed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Why should SchroCat, I, or anyone else be made to publicly apologise for someone's death whom they have never met? Death is sad, in all circles, that's a given, but expression of such remorse should only be left to those close or personal to the deceased. This isn't a public obituary, it's a fucking encyclopedia!   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   19:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A salient point. I also suggest that any death is a loss to human life as a whole, and a general, I'm sorry, is often a given reply in our culture since it acknowledges both the loss and the feelings of the people who have lost someone. No one was making you do anything, and since as you note, this is an encyclopedia perhaps the attacks on editors are not a necessary part of the process. I have nothing more to say so please don't post further, here, on this issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC))


 * People can become friends even if they only interact online, and even if you didn't know someone at all, it is rather poor form to say something mocking about a deceased person, "never speak ill of the dead" and all (OK, so maybe certain famous historic figures are the exception, but I digress). In this case, where one editor made  an unkind statement about a deceased editor on another editor's talk page (amidst a heated discussion), a suitable response would have been to just say, "I'm sorry I made an intemperate remark about someone who is no longer with us," strike the comment and then move on, dropping that particular stick.  JMO   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  09:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Montana, As I pointed out in my talk page, and a subsequent email to you, I had no idea he was dead at the time I made the comment, and was only informed of the death afterwards. That's it, end of story. There is nothing for me to apologise for, and no-one to apologise to. Way too much has been made of this, and I will not be discussing the matter any further. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's to you!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#de922d; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

the Cap'n  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#006400;">Hail me!  has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding WikiScotch to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 17:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC) Don't get discouraged by all the vitriol on WP, it's still a place where good things happen. Thank you for all your good works pushing for NPOV on the Chopra page and elsewhere. Your focus on WP:CIVIL is inspirational and your voice is valued, there and throughout. the Cap'n  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#006400;">Hail me!  17:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

~Hic~. Thanks Cap'n. Not discouraged so much as not always a healthy environment. I've been watching the Chopra page for awhile and thought it was improved over months ago with the vitriol of that time. I hope it remains improved.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC))

Failed V
I tagged the OR. Please do not remove the tag without fixing the problems. The recent changes to the lede made the text too vague and incoherent. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The OR problems were fixed. I edited as closely to the source with out quoting; I also removed content that was too close to the source. This is the lead and as is is still too specific for a summary of an article but in my opinion is a compromise. I'm sorry you don't like the changes. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC))
 * The OR problems were not fixed. I did not spot any text that was too close to the source. I did spot the changes you made that were way too vague. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict:

I've readded the tag although I don't agree with your assessment. :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Please provide V from the source or I think you should delete the unsourced text you restored to the lede. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will be leaving the text as is. It is as close to the sources as I can get with out a copyvio. Further I see that you are dealing with the same use of the word "some " on another article. I have attempted to respect your concern but that doesn't seem to be enough. Its time to back away since your insistence on more than one article is becoming a tendentious issue. Some is implied by mere common sense and is not OR in these instances.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC))
 * If you think the word "some" is sourced then provide V. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take this up further on the article talk page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC))
 * I did take it up further on the talk page. The weasel word was removed. You restored it against WP:CON. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion for future reference

Suggestions on how to get talk page back on track?
You appear to not have liked my repeated attempts to get the discusion back on track. Any suggestions on how to do it better? --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * . As long as there are personal attacks there will be no progress. You have a distinct POV so it doesn't help a discussion in any way to note the POV of someone else while you have a plank in your own eye. A comment describing any not-negative content to Alternative Medicine as PR is a clear bias. I stopped working on the Chopra article because of the vitriol targeted at some editors including clearly neutral ones like Slim Virgin. Seems to me we as editors have to put aside our personal views while understanding that  implied gross generalities like, anyone who doesn't attack alternative medicine must be a supporter, cannot aid discussion. (Alternative medicine is  by the way  a huge  and general area that probably includes remedies we all use while others most of us would not even consider.) Multiply the responsibilities we all have in a BLP and the recipe for big messes becomes a reality when we allow our POVs to drive our discussion. You have an editor who has come in with clearly neutral suggestions. You don't need my input.  I would listen to him/her and follow their lead as suggested here:

''If your ultimate goal is to improve this article, I think a better use of time would be to start weeding out the extraneous details, tightening up a lot of the sentence structure, and tagging citations with dead links (which there are plenty of). I'll post my draft of this one section any time now. Swearsies. I keep getting sidetracked. Permstrump (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)''

(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC))
 * "You have a distinct POV so" Looks like it never crossed you mind that it's not my pov, but that from sources and FRINGE? --Ronz (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A POV is no longer a source POV when its used as a weapon to disregard the other editors in a discussion. I am not necessarily referring to you here; this is a general statement. The mistake I see is that editors assume the so-called truth of sources are the "truths" that must be manhandled into articles when in fact sources and their writers are are as prone to POVs as anyone else. For that reason while we are intrsucted to reference our sources faithfully we also have to be aware of the weight the sources hold in relation to a whole. Seldom if ever do I feel editors are aware of the whole range of sources, and seldom do I see weight being used in a way that it was meant to-in part to balance the POV of source writers. Blame has to be placed on editors who are human and see sources in  light of their own lives, who pick and chose what they will cite both from the whole range of sources and from the text of the individual sources. Yet, this would be fine if in discussion we all realized that we all have Points Of View which have shaped what we think, believe, and select to use  in an article. The moment we decide we are the only ones who know what the article should look like based on our reading of the sources is the moment discussion and collaboration fails. My truth is another man's or woman's lie, so we assume good faith and realize if some one feels passionately about something for the most part we have to work with that, realize we also feel passionately about something and slow down to accommodate both parties.


 * There is a discernible point where editors feel their Reading of the sources is the only reading of the sources possible. For some reason at that point some feel this gives them permission to attack other editors and the subject or topic, school yard behavior seems to me. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure the extent of the problem. It's a huge problem with COI situations, but I don't know how far it goes beyond COI's. I do think it is a problem that editors need to work harder to prevent from happening and to prevent the perspective that it is happening. (Awkwardly worded, but I think it makes sense and I'm too busy to try yet another rewrite). --Ronz (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I find that COI allegations in my experience are often red herrings. Certainly there are situations where COI must be considered but I'm afraid those accusing of COI often have COIs themselves.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC))
 * I agree that Wikipedia's slow moves to get a sensible COI policy in place is a mess. But that's not very relevant in this situation. There's no dispute that Askahrc has a COI. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue is not who has a COI but how we use the COI when dealing with editors. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure what you mean, "how we use the COI". How we apply the policy? --Ronz (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this with a final statement since I don't see that any progress is being made here. As long as discussion on content is interrupted by citing COI that discussion will potentially be derailed. To collaborate effectively people must feel equal; personal comments posed as incivilities, as well as comments which place some editors in a discussion on a lower level with lesser status than  others will not facilitate good collaborative discussion. The COI guideline is not meant to be used in a negative way to damage or hurt anyone on the encyclopedia (that anyone can edit), but it has become a  means to create lesser editors, those somehow on a lower scale. Using COI in reference to an editor immediately and potentially lowers them in terms of status. We can choose to discuss with everyone in a way that respects them as equals not necessarily in terms of their knowledge but in terms of their humanity. If we as editors, and this is a general statement, choose to use the blunt tool of COI to hammer away at people then we can expect results which equal that usage,  and that's not going to be smooth and easy collaboration.(Littleolive oil (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the response. Good points. I'm guessing you don't have experience working in a field where conflicts of interest are strictly managed. As much as I'd like for everyone to be able to work as equals, we can't, and the history of Wikipedia has very clearly demonstrated this. Editors that think their COI is not a problem are a very serious problem. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ronz, that last crack about "experience" was uncalled-for. Focus on content.  A POV and a COI are not identical, and at the end of the day, it is content that matters. To impute the motives, experiences or personal background of another is really not appropriate.    Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  04:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Expertise is required in some situations. If editors don't understand the reason for having COI restrictions, how a COI undermines NPOV, then we're not going to make much if any progress discusing them.
 * That said, I should have formed it as a question, or just left it out. I've struck it out. My apologies. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me make my point a little clearer: None of this has anything to do with anything Ronz. You did make an assumption, always risky, and you are suggesting that I don't care about COI or know anything about it. None of that is true and your cmt is a slur on me and my editing. Now let's be clear. COI on Wikipedia is often conflated with paid editing. COI on Wikipedia applies to all editors not just those who are paid to edit. The borders of what is COI and isn't can be hazy. For example, we have MDs editing; they most certainly have COI but should they be stopped from editing. I and others would say, No. And finally, COI allegations have been and still are excuses for the pitch fork crowd to get out their weapons. That an editor declares a COI or is paid to edit does not mean we can interrupt a discussion with accusations when we don't like the way that discussion is going. It does not mean we can harass an editor, can be disrespectful or uncivil to that editor, and its does not mean that editor cannot add worthwhile points to a discussion. Some thoughts.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC))
 * "and you are suggesting that I don't care about COI or know anything about it." It's assumptions like that on your part, and your running with them that are problematic.
 * There's nothing "hazy" about the COI here. Nothing. Why bring it up once again?
 * I'm unaware of how MDs in general could be a problem, unless they were alt-med advocates themselves.
 * "but should they be stopped from editing" I'm unaware of anyone suggesting such a thing in this case.
 * When an editor clearly places their own interests above the interests of Wikipedia where there's a clear COI, which is the case here, it's a problem. --Ronz (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ronz, what you are not seeing here is that you are making some really condescending statements that (in addition to their inaccuracy as to the person you are saying them to) make no positive contributions to the discussion. Just don't make any kind of assumption about an individual and focus solely on the content. Try to avoid using "you" statements and focus on the material, not the motive.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  03:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs? I'd like to be given the chance to refactor and otherwise address any mistakes I've made. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Chocolate for you!

 * Oh Yum! Thank you! I'm on a diet too; the one where you eat as much chocolate as possible so you don't fill up with those useless calories in fruits and vegetable\.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC))

Thanks re Gamel ref in Chopra
Thanks for that, though I hope it's not necessary. With all the editing going on and an open RfC, I'm waiting for the dust to settle for the most part. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop the edit-warring and follow WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE
I don't want to see you blocked or banned, but you are familiar enough with our policies. If you're not going to even try to gain consensus, then wait. I'd like to see what we can do if we can find the references that jps and I both think exist. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ronz. I have seldom seen anything so disingenuous (right along with an attempt to threaten me.)

You are reverting against consensus.
 * If you're not going to even try to gain consensus


 * I'd like to see what we can do if we can find the references that jps and I both think exist

jps made the change and so I assume supported his own edit and position. You false imply jps is not in agreement with his own edit but with you.


 * You are asking me to stop edit warring.

You know I posted that I would not revert again not because I care about the way I and others can and have been railroaded into sanctions but because first, I seldom  revert beyond 1 RR - my own standard, and second, its not worth it to me to deal with this kind of discussion and editing, to deal with editors who are so desperate to discredit a BLP that they will slant discussions and arguments. Its not worth my time, thoughts, and efforts. I want to see the subject of a BLP treated fairly. He is a physician, but for some reason some are desperate to exclude this in the place where it belongs As well, you are edit warring are you not?

Discussion is fun when editors are straight, are not twisting discussion, and threatening others. Its amazing really that this discussion which should have been so simple has become a morass.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC))

And I would advise both you and Quack Guru that you have pushed your position on the article after agreement by reverting content, have ignored agreement on that talk page, have reverted multiple times, have mischaracterized other editors, are threatening other editors thus attempting to remove them from the discussion, and so are in danger of suffering sanctions yourselves. Keep that in mind the next time you threaten.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC))
 * You will no longer revert? Great!
 * There is no consensus. BLP says that material should be left out until there is consensus for inclusion.
 * You tend to focus on editors. I'm doing my best to just ignore it all. Best provide diffs if you want them to be taken as something other than a FOC problem or worse.
 * You (and jps, and myself, perhaps others?) have made statements about the notability and significance of his being a physician. No one has offered any sources though, indicated the sources, etc. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ronz, please stop bothering this user here and focus on content at the articles in question.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  05:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. As I said, I'm always happy to refactor, etc. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Independent sources
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Independent sources. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter
Main Page history/2016 March 27, with thanks for your ARCA statements, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC) Thank you Gerda. I missed this until today for some reason.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

Precious anniversary
Read the original again, all still so true, - patience needed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Page mover. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Feedback on Marilyn Monroe?
Hello,

I was wondering whether you'd like to give me some feedback on Marilyn Monroe's article, especially on how to avoid gender bias? I was lurking in the Catherine Zeta-Jones FAC thread earlier and saw your thoughtful comments, and that Marilyn Monroe was also mentioned as an example of an article with issues by another editor. I was at first a bit surprised since I consider myself a feminist and because I started overhauling the article a year ago precisely because I wished the article to avoid the sexist clichés about Monroe (i.e. that she was either a dumb blonde or a vulnerable victim with no input in her own career) and to give a multifaceted view of her that reflects current scholarship. However, as I went back to re-read the article, I started noticing ways in which it could be more neutral, and have since worked to fix these issues. I would be grateful for feedback from someone who is also concerned about gender bias, and since I liked your feedback on CZJ, thought to ask you :) I completely understand if you're too busy though! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Thank you for the reply – don't worry about not being able to give feedback soon, I'm not in a hurry, in fact I'm still making some adjustments to the article. Enjoy your trip :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

10 July
Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - Thank you for your work on the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC
 * Working on Grace Sherwood under the direction of Rlevse was one of the best working experiences I've had on Wikipedia. If only every article was written as this one was while Rlevse was around, retention would go up and articles would be more uniformly well written. Thanks Gerda.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alyson Hannigan. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

a last effort
So the next time you make a misrepresentation in a discussion I am part of, i will gather the diffs I have defined and I will bring you to ANI. Especially if it is as gratuitous as the one you just did. I would rather avoid that drama, so please step carefully in the future. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop threatening people Jytdog. This is harassment and you have to stop. I have no concerns about what I have said anywhere on Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC))


 * I actually have to chime in and say that you are indeed showing some problematic behavior Littleolive oil. First, please read WP:FOC again. It's very apparent you've been sniping at editors (primarily Jytdog) from the start of your involvement at the article, and that is only exacerbating the situation. Even I've seen a history of battleground behavior with you relating to Jytdog (regardless of who started it) where you've been warned to focus on edits and not editors a few times now, and it's rare that edits involving Jytdog come up on my watchlist anymore. Being in that situation, going to an article where you have never been involved where you know such an editor is in a content dispute is WP:HOUNDING. It actually is starting to look like Jytdog has at least the start of a decent case for requesting an interaction ban if this keeps up.


 * Even if Jytdog is being a bit too stringent on sourcing requirements (that's a content dispute), that is not an excuse for the attitude you're interjecting in the talk page towards editors. That makes working with difficult editors still learning the ropes even more difficult. Turning around and accusing people of threats that are reminding you about this a good indication you're not aware of your own behavior, which I why I stopped by here. Also keep in mind that mentioning WP:AGF in your reply is not an excuse for poor conduct. It's still making the situation even more complicated distracting from moving ahead with focusing on content. Rather than take a warning about your behavior as a slight, use it to reflect on it instead if the problem still isn't clear to you. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow! Amazing comment. I stopped by that article because I have the notice boards watch listed. I also have Jytdog watch listed from past interactions as I do many other editors. I also saw a Canadian editor or seemed so, and as a Canadian I was interested so I checked to see what was up. I saw an accusation of edit warring and the poster was also accused of edit warring. I was surprised to see that an editor with Jytdpg's experince was edit warring to 4RR and assumed he had been falsely accused by a new editor so I did check the article, but in fact he had been edit warring. That led me to see what the argument was about and I saw a request for a comment by an uninvolved editor. I made a cmt. Jytdog immedialty attacked me. Yet I am the one with battleground behaviour? Is it OK for Jytdog to add a threat to every cmt he makes? I guess the idea was to remove an editor from that discussion. You are aiding and supporting behaviour that will land Jytdog in trouble eventually. Maybe not with me, because I don't care enough about the situation to deal with this kind of behaviour, life is too short, but eventually.  He isn't being a bit too stringent on sourcing; he is wrong on his understanding of policy, and he is owning an article, chasing away other editors with harassment and bullying tactics and is preventing the article from developing. An inexperienced editor is attempting to work with Jytdog but he is experiencing stonewalling at every point. You entered a discussion with words that indicated you were judging a situation with out good faith. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this post but still, I always am. You have the shoe on the wrong foot but frankly I have no interest in saying more here or at the article and of course when an editor tries to own and article this is exactly what he wants. I'm sorry actually that you have these blinders on; you seem like a thoughtful editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC))


 * Let's end the harassment of Olive here now. This type of psychological projection, where a good-faith editor is accused of bad behavior when said activity is actually what the accusers are doing needs to stop.  There are people behaving badly over at that article and on this page, and Olive is not one of those people.  Montanabw (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. As a wise person said recently ;o), everyday is a day to be thankful.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Good Article Status for university articles
Hello, can you please post the good article status for university articles in the Peter A. Allard Law School Talk page? I feel the other user is trying to fight me in every way possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRed (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Study the FA and GA articles here . You should get a good sense of what's acceptable and what's not for a WP article. FA and GE articles are our best and often our best writers work on them so they do represent a standard we can copy, in my opinion at least.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Instead of just mashing the keyboard to edit war your changes in, you would be better advised paying attention to what you're actually doing. Starting sentences with lower case letters and commas doesn't improve the text, it damages it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was in process of cleaning up punctuation after the changes I made given the computer screen I have, but I have to do this is in multiple steps. However, you reverted so quickly I couldn't finish the job. No worries; if you prefer the choppy text I have no interest in dealing with this further. It is always funny to see someone reverting text then accusing someone else of edit warring as if the policies and guidelines only apply to others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC))
 * That seems odd seeing as you reverted to your wrong text as-it-was. There is a "Preview" button, and so no need to edit "in multiple steps" - and quite what the "need" to leave such errors in place is, I can only wonder at! Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify this. I reverted to my text, text that I had begun to copy edit for punctuation, but there was an edit conflict. I can't easily see some of the small text in the editing page so at times miss it even with the preview. I'm not sure why I even bother to explain this to someone whose automatic reaction within seconds was to revert, and then to come over here to complain about edit warring. I did think a copy edit was needed and  did one, and was in process of cleaning up my own copy edit. I don't care at all if you understand this given your edit warring complaint. In light of your own behaviour I doubt there is good faith. So, let's leave this. I have nothing more to add. If you believe the text in the lead is acceptable, great. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC))

RfC on paid editing
I clarified a couple of things in the RfC, so please recheck your vote. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No probelm.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC))

Holiday card
Thank you for thinking of me Montana. I love the card and the article about the artist The happiest of Christmases to you and to your family.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Deadmau5
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deadmau5. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom process
Hi Olive and a Happy New Year to you. Thanks very much for your supportive words over at Arbcom recently. Even before your post, I was thinking that the appeal process is very much flawed. Some of the arbs seemed to think I had not indicated what they were expecting to read. However, it is very unclear what they were expecting. I am wondering whether the appeal process template should ask questions the arbs would like to see answered. Questions such as "How have you been positive to the project since the sanction?" "How have you changed your editing since the sanction?" "What have you learned from your sanction?" I know there will be other questions, but I thought I would ask what you think about the idea of the appeal template containing questions. DrChrissy (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Dr Chrissy. Happy New Year to you too. I've been thinking about AE and AE clarifications for several years now and have meant to lay out some thoughts, but never quite got around to it. It will take me a few days to put a comment together but have begun and will post something here within the week. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I'm quite happy to put something together to send to arbcom. It would not be any great detail because I think the template questions should be decided by Arbcom themselves, if they were to agree with this in principle. DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Something curious has happened. Your talk page is on my watchlist but your reply above did not appear on there. Probably just a minor glitch, but if you are expecting replies from other people, it could be problematic. DrChrissy (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A draft of a long set of thoughts. I am deliberately avoiding the word harangue.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A warning, a request, and a plea
Hello, reinserting a clear WP:PSCI violation into an article ("not a product of the brain") after an editor specifically pointed it out on the talk page and in the edit you reverted is a classic example of the kind of disruptive editing that often happens in topics covered under discretionary sanctions. Fortunately Sarah had the good sense to revert you.

Your ongoing and unfounded aspersions against me are even more alarming, however. Considering the recent one as well as your three previous sanctions in the topic area -- an editing restriction shared with another COI editor and two topic bans for tendentious editing -- it would seem I need to address this.

Please read the following carefully. I will no longer tolerate baseless aspersions against me, including but not limited to calling me insincere, questioning my motives, calling me dishonest, or hinting at some conspiracy in which I secretly obtained a deleted link. If I see any of this or similar from you again, I will proceed to arbitration enforcement and ask for you to be sanctioned a fourth time.

Further -- and this is the constructive part of my post where some actual good can come from it -- I ask that you finally read the AE request, the one you refused to read even after it was pointed out to you four times, and finally realize that there is no such conspiracy and that I have not been dishonest. I have made clear that to protect your privacy I will not say more than "read it". I then ask that you to add apologies to the talk pages where you have promulgated these falsehoods about me ( text is fine). That would go far in reducing the toxicity levels around here. Talk page archives aren't usually edited, but exceptions can be made in cases like this one.

Lastly, I would make an appeal for basic human decency. It would seem I have direct experience of what described in his reprimand of you: you and other affiliated accounts flout both site guidelines and common-sense prohibitions on COI editing, and then question not only the arguments but the very humanity of anyone who tries to hold you accountable. I would ask you to stop doing this. I would ask you to treat others with respect and kindness; assume good faith; recognize that we are all in this together; kumbaya; and so forth. Nobody -- including someone who does not share your point of view -- deserves such aspersions, especially aspersions based upon falsehoods, and especially-especially aspersions based upon falsehoods where direct evidence proving them false was repeatedly pointed out to you while you refused to look. Manul ~ talk 13:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Manul. It is never my intent at any place in my life to hurt anyone. That said, I will not be harassed or bullied. This is a false narrative. Will there be people on Wikipedia who believe this story, probably. Wikipedia often fails badly in that its very structures can support the surface level narratives set out by editors whether true or not and whether they believe them or not . I'm  not going to rebut the comments you make here which glaringly leave out the comments you made which led  to my responses. I will point out that your opening paragraph accuses me of reverting content as if I had added that content in the first place and as if there was no agreement for the kind of content it was. We have an excellent neutral editor on that page  who has explained as have I that there are places for explanation if there is going to be fringe content. Yet you reverted her. My revert was back to her as you well know and while she did remove some content - a few words - she did not remove the source. This whole narrative has the same level of mischaracterization. Slim Virgin asked you this: Unless you respond, which you haven't (and I've asked you this question too), I wonder of this is an effort to cloud the issue and to side step her question.

''I've removed that link, which I only just noticed. Manul, how were you able to link to a deleted revision from years ago? SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC) ''


 * I will not respond further to this post Manul; I am busy in real life and try to use my little Wikipedia time with matters that are life supporting and that might make a tiny difference to someone or something. Nothing can be gained by trying to argue against what falsely characterizes in the first place.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC))


 * First,, I was the one who added "not a product of the brain", then removed it because I knew you'd object. It's correct, though, and clearly what is meant. Failing to use common sense about these things just makes everything tiresome.


 * As for the other issue, I see what happened now. Manul copied the link from an AE report in 2013, in which an Arb gave an editor the link to a deleted revision. That shouldn't have happened (neither the posting to AE nor the copying of the link to the templates) because it violates WP:OUTING. If the link needed to be discussed, it should have been dealt with by email.


 * Littleolive oil, if you ask a functionary, they may be able to suppress it. I've removed two (not deleted, just removed), but I don't know where else they've been posted.


 * As for the COI issue itself, that's perhaps best discussed separately, so I won't comment on that here. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: although I think Manul ought not to have posted that link, it was an Arb who originally supplied it for an AE complaint, and said it was okay to post it there. It's therefore understandable that Manul thought it was okay to post it to the COI template. I'm adding this in case a functionary looks into it. SarahSV (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. The link Manul provided doesn't link, for me, to my case. When I dug around I didn't find the link that links to the years-old, removed content on my talk page.    Even if I could find the link, I don't see how a non-admin could see what that links to. It doesn't matter. I'm going to take a break given I have to travel out of the country for awhile to spend time with my dad.  Best wishes SV and thanks you for your help.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ivan Milat
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ivan Milat. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda. It seems such a short time ago that you sent your first precious sapphires.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC))


 * I feel the same. Remember how we got to an Easter egg tree then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/107050891 I hope this helps.