User talk:Neotarf/Archive 1

User talk moving/deletion
I undid your moving of your user-talk archives to userspace and subsequent tagging for user-req deletion. See WP:DELTALK for policy against this and the viable procedures for requesting deletion. DMacks (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What seems to be the problem here? There's nothing to prevent a user from deleting their own talk page archives. The user does not practise page-move archiving, so the archives are simple copy and paste from the user talk page, as can be seen from the history. Those are therefore eligible for db-house, and I have tagged them accordingly. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw page-moves involving archives, didn't realize the original archiving was manual cut'n'paste instead. I deleted them per request (as userspace, their original tag by the editor). DMacks (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DMacks and OhC. Neotarf (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:DMacks, I don't think they have been deleted. Shouldn't it be showing as a redlink? Neotarf (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Missed some stages of the move history (I was also seeing some already-deleted as bluelinks due to server caching):( According to your public edit history, I think it's all fixed now? DMacks (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, archiving isn't my strong suit. The talk pages are now red links, but I'm still seeing user pages for User:Neotarf/Archive 2, User:Neotarf/Archive 3, and User:Neotarf/Archive 4, which I was trying to get rid of. Neotarf (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I tagged them all, and it looks like they have all now been deleted. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Argentine history (casting aspersions)
Hello Neotarf. I started a clarification/amendment request that may be of interest to you. Please see Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your user name mentioned at WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding matters in which your user name has been mentioned. The thread is Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations. Thank you. &bull; Astynax talk 20:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (January 2014)
The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=592220666#Clarification_request:_Argentine_History request for clarification] involving you has been declined as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

ARCA
~Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  11:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification
The clarification request involving you has been archived. The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=600646249#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation original comments] made by the arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!

It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:

SURVEY

Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Page
Hi,

If you want the old typography back Put this code here :)

Having just read the rant I have to admit I did laugh so I won't rerevert you :)

Regards - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  03:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is marginally better. I think.  Screenshot, with code. —Neotarf (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :), Nope it shouldn't of gone like that, Are you using the Vector skin?, If not then that's probably why it looks odd,
 * Regards - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  09:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea. I just did copy/paste, and that's what I got. Feel free to tweak it if you know what to do. —Neotarf (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blank your css, A disable option's been added instead, Go to Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance - Find Vector classic typography (use only sans-serif in Vector skin) and tick the box & that'll disable it hopefully :)
 * I hope you have better luck with the new way :)
 * Regards, - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it started working again, except for the odd-looking serifs in the headings. —Neotarf (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hola
Hi Neotarf, perhaps you have some advice? People warned me AN/Is were a waste of time, and I cannot believe how useless and insane that was. After weeks of being harassed by Skookum1 and nothing happening, I'm pretty much done with Wikipedia. Is there any thing other recourse? Because I'm not just going to keep writing for free while enduring accusations and conspiracy theories. -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * ¡Ay caramba! You pick someone with a retirement banner to ask advice? Well, I can see right away what kind of advice you are looking for, so I am tempted to peer into my navel and see what kind of editing (or non-editing) philosophy I can come up with, but in the end, you are the only one who can decide what you want to do.


 * The purpose of ANI is not to get action, it is to collect diffs. What you do is you wait for the thing to archive, then store the link offline somewhere. The next time you have a problem, you can pull out the diff to prove the problem is ongoing and has not yet been resolved, even though it has been brought to various forums. Who knows, maybe it will be resolved, now that it has been brought out into the light. —Neotarf (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, help to create or repair an Article on Igor Janev / please can you fix it
Dear Neotarf, can you, please, help to create or repair an Article on Igor Janev. Or at least create a Stub. I do not know how to do that. please see some useful links. Sincerely yours, User from Macedonia and Serbia. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=603995897 http://www.makemigration.com/  http://www.answers.com/topic/igor-janev http://www.abebooks.co.uk/9788674192610/Diplomatija-8674192610/plp http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%88%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2 http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AF%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C http://www.mia.mk/en/Inside/RenderSingleNews/289/105947751 http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/21668/45/ or http://www.makemigration.com/iselenistvoweb/index.php?page=iselenici&id=247&tip_iselenici=7 http://s241910817.onlinehome.us/html/articles/janev/janev.html http://www.mkd.mk/makedonija/politika/nekoj-go-brishe-igor-janev-od-vikipedija http://dobarglas.info/naslovna_v6.htm http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2008/sonce748.pdf/12_15_janev.pdf http://www.time.mk/c/61e6ad16de/janev-postoi-praven-lek-za-imeto.html http://www.makdenes.org/content/article/1956873.html http://www.mkd.mk/54357/makedonija/se-ceka-na-potpisot-na-ivanov-rezolucija-janev-on LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE USE OF A PROVISIONAL NAME FOR MACEDONIA IN THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM citation: http://books.google.rs/books?id=JkgVV0AKW4oC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Igor+Janev&source=bl&ots=Oj3a_969Z_&sig=0RtIFcc3x2YFym3qoPU-JyhJ9dE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dNikUoqzKaaIzAP1hYCIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Igor%20Janev&f=false https://www.google.com/search?q=Igor+Janev&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 http://macedonianhr.org.au/wip/images/stories/pdf/1252648063581.pdf http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2009/bajalski_borko.pdf http://sam.gov.tr/on-the-uns-legal-responsibility-for-the-irregular-admission-of-macedonia-to-un/ http://www.sar.org.ro/polsci/?p=264 http://www.makedonskosonce.com/broevis/2008/sonce713.pdf/16_17_janev.pdf http://www.crpm.org.mk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Policy-Brief-NatoMak.pdf http://denesen.mk/web/2013/08/31/janev-postoi-praven-lek-za-imeto/ https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553374/pop-AngelovMarijan.pdf?sequence=1, p.77-78 http://www.mkd.mk/makedonija/politika/nekoj-go-brishe-igor-janev-od-vikipedija http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf, When we say US, p. 845, note 28. G. Ivanov, "Recalling that the International Court of Justice 1948 advisory opinion had determined that placing additional criteria on United Nations membership contravened the United Nations Charter", http://gadebate.un.org/67/former-yugoslav-republic-macedonia Thomas D. Grant, Admission to the United Nations, Martinus pub. , pp. 203-212 http://books.google.rs/books?id=5Uuv0NLNdZQC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=Igor+Janev+Admission+to+the&source=bl&ots=6DgOwcDxtS&sig=4DlZpp7DCtAOeeMqhjvN0QviEl0&hl=sr&sa=X&ei=GERKU9ivOsXOtQaD9oGIDA&ved=0CFkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Igor%20Janev%20Admission%20to%20the&f=false http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=sr&q=igor+janev&btnG= https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.news.macedonia/Gh9l8yZjA-Q http://books.google.rs/books?id=0k-9--x9EY4C&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Igor+Janev&source=bl&ots=bLD1RW0O6x&sig=SV0Ts24V87pzMIjAJwh1tQDzk-E&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sdakUtvhMaqVyAOGuoGYDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Igor%20Janev&f=false http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Igor_Janev

--178.222.110.165 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Information
New inf. --178.222.110.165 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Christ the Lord Is Risen Today (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Llanfair


 * Jesus Christ Is Risen Today (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Llanfair

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko
Just leave a note on my Reguyla account. Ill respond as soon as I can. Kumioko 172.56.3.160 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not going to leave any more comments on Fluffernutter's page and I recommend you don't either. I don't want you to get in trouble for trying to do the right thing on my behalf. Kumioko 172.56.3.200 (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not the "right thing", it is the fair thing. It is 99% certain that as things stand now, the community will reject your request, and the result will be painful for you.  But you have the right to find that out for yourself, and the community has the right to hear your appeal.


 * My opinion is that you should wait, but that is up to you.


 * My opinion is also that you should reconsider your IP comment campaign. Your activities on various arbitrators' talk pages come across my watchlist regularly, even if they are quickly and routinely reverted, so I have a pretty good idea of what you are doing there. It is not having the desired effect; in fact, it is probably counterproductive to your goals, and mine.


 * If you want to respond to something, for instance negative comments made about you on-wiki, it would be better to request an unblock specifically to answer the comments.


 * The Reguyla account is deleted, and if you notice, account creation is also blocked. That means no one can post on that page.  There is no email enabled on any of your accounts that I can find. That means you have a communication problem, assuming you still want to appeal the ban.


 * Fluffernutter has recommended that you communicate with me by email, because of the ban. My public email is Neotarf (AT) gmail (DOT) com.  You could also post your request here, and I would be willing to copy it to ANI. If you post anything but an unban request here, I will delete it.


 * I will be monitoring this page at least every 2 or 3 days, I should be able to respond to anything you post or email within that rough time frame.


 * My last advice to you is to talk to a few people you trust privately before you decide to go ahead with this, then let me know what you decide. —Neotarf (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

استفسار
بخصوص الموضوع عن الكلية انا ذكرت مصادر ما كتبت فما المشكلة و انا كان كلامى اقتباسا فانا وجهت القارى من خلال ترك المصدر للمقاله — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egy writer (talk • contribs) 18:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Egy writer:


 * لا يمكنك استخدام نفس الكلمات كمصدر.


 * .المصدر هو صاحب الكلمات


 * .لديك لتغيير الكلمات، وتلخيص المصدر


 * .لديك لشرح المصدر دون استخدام نفس الكلمات


 * .حتى لو بعض الكلمات هي نفسها، بل هو مشكلة كبيرة


 * آسف، ولكن بلدي المصرية ليست جيدة جدا. هل تفهم؟

—Neotarf (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see discussion on Jimbo talk page
Please see discussion on Jimbo page

Regards, 79.101.211.176 (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't know how to answer that. You could try asking at the Teahouse or the Village Pump.  I will put a welcome template on your talk page with links for new users. —Neotarf (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: User talk:Ohconfucius
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as User talk:Ohconfucius, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/business/chinas-battle-against-google-heats-up.html?_r=0, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at User talk:Ohconfucius and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, User talk:Ohconfucius, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at User talk:Ohconfucius with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on User talk:Ohconfucius. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at User talk:Ohconfucius saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit at the same time?
Did you make this edit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost&diff=next&oldid=615445180

I made that same edit and then when I went to the Revision History it showed you'd made it? Was this a glitch in Mediawiki or did you and I just make the same edit at almost exactly the same time, with you just beating me by a second or two. Zell Faze (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was mine, didn't get any edit conflict message.—Neotarf (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Waleed Abulkhair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Salon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitz@undefinedgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Clarification
You left a comment for Arbcom "clarification". Please have a look at User talk:Gerda Arendt, - it might help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't have time right now. I'll try to look at it in a few days if I can, but I have already told them I am not following the page anymore, so if they archive it before I can look at it, I'll try to answer something on your talk page.  Sorry I can't do better right now. —Neotarf (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Diff observation
In your list of diffs, the currently numbered 16 (right after "mental disorders", in case numbering changes), and the at the end of the sentence, linked to " were directed at me personally", are the same diff. Perhaps one of them should be something else? (acting in a clerk capacity)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not really, but thanks for checking. The same diff contains both tidbits.—Neotarf (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee, -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

question
Can I ask why you're dicking around with provocative strikethroughs and wikilawyering at AN/I rather than just wiping that shit off your talk page? betafive 08:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked the guy to remove it himself, so I thought I would give him a chance to show he's not trolling. But maybe yours is the better idea after all.  —Neotarf (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: it wasn't my idea, it came from the edit summary in this diff. Peace! betafive 08:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Eh, he's ticked off about the arbitration request. But I wasn't the one who made the request. —Neotarf (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko
I applaud your efforts to help a fellow editor. Though I might not agree with you on process, the sentiment is nice. Jehochman Talk 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I neither help nor hinder. It is an opportunity for the community to resolve an ongoing issue and put it to rest; it is an opportunity for Kumioko to have a sizable number of people give him feedback about his actions.  My philosophy about a ban appeal was expressed here, when the ban was first enacted. The rest will be up to the community, and Kumioko. —Neotarf (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC arbitration case - motion to suspend case
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A motion has been proposed to suspend the Media Viewer RfC arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the proposed decision talk page for this. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert
But I was out of town for the weekend. By the time I got your message, the discussion seems to have come to a resolution. Thanks. (PS: You appear to be as retired as I am semi-retired.;-) -- llywrch (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings
I'm not sure to whom or what you were referring at Gender Bias talk, but I don't see any text on that page which refers to any individual as a "girl" SPECIFICO  talk  17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comments on ARBCOM
You are grossly misrepresenting trans women and your statement on Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment is quite offensive. I will remind you that the case I'm requesting clarification on is precisely about disparaging transgender people.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A puzzling statement, indeed. I look forward to reading your explanation; I presume it will be made at the clarification request, as I'm sure many will be interested in your response. —Neotarf (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the clarifications requests are not for discussion and not to be threaded or address other editors specifically.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 15:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Users sometimes make responses or address any new issues in their own section. If there is some question about procedure, you may wish to ask a clerk, instead of someone you are accusing of disparagement. —Neotarf (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI closure revert
I noticed that you reverted the closure of a thread on ANI that I had previously closed. That is generally discouraged, particularly if you are involved in the dispute. I closed the thread because, as an uninvolved and unbiased observer, it was clear to me that the discussion would not result in any consensus to take any action. Then, you reverted the closure and started a proposal to ban certain users from a wikiproject, which predictably elicited roughly equal numbers of support and oppose votes. This should elucidate why I closed the thread in the first place. Please don't re-open it. ‑Scottywong | express _ 15:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

RFAR
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No I am not "involved", Robert, but thanks for letting me know. —Neotarf (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit
Do you really need to put "Comparisons with mental disorders are not going to be very constructive here." ? Yes passive aggressiveness is a mental disorder but you do not have to elaborate on it and throw it into the spotlight. This I not helping an already tense talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not "throw" it in the spotlight, it was already in the spotlight. It is not uncivil to point out that someone else is being uncivil. And it is really quite an unacceptable thing to say. I know the men's rights group on Reddit talks like that all the time, but that's no excuse for it on Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not in the spotlight though, it is just like someone else calling someone the N word and then going to describe it, it just adds salt into the wounds. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "not in the spotlight"? It is watchlisted by 77 people, and has been viewed 1743 times in the last 30 days.  And you want to leave that up unchallenged? —Neotarf (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Curious where you see discussion of mental disorders (or where the personal attack is for that matter) on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Im not the one who brought it up, the personal attack was blowing up the comment of what another editor had put down and throwing it into the spotlight. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's okay to make a personal attack, but not okay to object to a personal attack? Do you have a link to the policy for that? —Neotarf (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 has now introduced the "passive aggressive/mental disorder" meme on the arbitration page. So much for keeping things out of spotlights.—Neotarf (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request
Hi Neotarf, I've added you as a party to a case request currently before the Committee by request of an arbitrator. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very odd, Callanecc. Can you tell me who requested to add me to the case, and why? —Neotarf (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked the arb to comment on the clerks list. Don't think they're active at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really don't want to have to spend time looking for one of those "ping me if you think of some reason I should be here" statements I can copy-paste. —Neotarf (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was I who asked Callanecc to add you as a party; the reason is quite simple: I believe your recent conduct bears review as well, alongside that of the other parties. It doesn't mean I think you have done anything sanctionable, because to determine that I'd of course need a case first, but, yes, in my opinion, if we end opening a case which does not look likely at the moment  you should be a party too.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Salvio What do you mean "bears review"? Why am I being singled out? And no, it looks like the group is not eager to see the Arbcom involved. But I do appreciated your transparency. —Neotarf (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * By "bears review" I meant that I thought your recent behaviour should be examined by ArbCom, along with that of the other parties. So, no, you are not being singled out. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Respect of my gender
Hello, at one of the WP:ANI pages you commented and used male pronouns to describe me or subsequently used a comment like, 'Pretending to be something they're not'. I would like to note that I am a woman and referring to me by male pronouns by mistake, and fixing it later is perfectly fine, however given the context of the situation, I don't approve of it happening when I've made it clear several times that I am a woman. ArbCom especially has already set a precedent on this in the Manning case, where editors should respect other editor's gender identities, gender, backgrounds, and the like. I would like to be respected so I am going to ask that you edit your comment to use female pronouns. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Diff? —Neotarf (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours. Tutelary (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What male pronoun?—Neotarf (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretending to be something they're not' I also mentioned that bit. You're saying that I was pretending to be a woman. Tutelary (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Diff? —Neotarf (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The first diff I posted. Read where it starts "Claiming to be a woman..." Tutelary (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You were claiming to be a woman, and you are still doing so. —Neotarf (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that I am not a woman, Neotarf? Tutelary (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's cut to the chase, shall we? There are no diffs. There are no male pronouns.  Stop making stuff up, and go do something useful. —Neotarf (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not when your comment ultimately continues to say and implicate that I am a guy pretending to be a woman. Under ArbCom's manning dispute, other editors are to respect gender, gender identities, and other backgrounds. ArbCom also does good to enforce their rulings by sanctions. Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. And the Manning case said nothing about pronouns.  Content disputes are not in ArbCom's remit. You may, however, be interested in WP:ASPERSIONS —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do read Equality and respect[edit]

5.2) Wikipedia editors and readers come from a diverse range of backgrounds, including with respect to their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression. Comments that demean fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of any of these characteristics are offensive and damage the editing environment for everyone. Such comments, particularly when extreme or repeated after a warning, are grounds for blocking or other sanctions. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute Tutelary (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to continue making your ridiculous accusations, take it to the appropriate notice board, with diffs. ——Neotarf (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Required ANI Notice
[] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Changed to WP:AE foud [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact on Banning Policy case
Hi Neotarf, notwithstanding the fact that the workshop case has closed would you please go through the findings of fact you've proposed and ensure that the claims and allegations made there are supported by recent diffs. They will make it much easier for the Committee to decide what action to take than unsupported claims. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, but as I indicated on the workshop page, it will take some time. —Neotarf (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How about the three diffs which support [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=627120138 this edit]? After I just asked you to supply evidence you make an edit which adds more aspersions to your evidence. If you can't back them up with evidence (including diffs) please remove the allegations until you can. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a typo that was fixed in this edit. —Neotarf (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Given you side stepped my point which was that you still hadn't supplied evidence for an aspersion after I'd asked you to supply evidence I've removed the allegations which weren't supported by appropriate evidence. You are free to add them back but they must be supported by relevant and appropriate evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, have to recharge batt prob. —Neotarf (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. —Neotarf (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom Clarification Request
[] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This turned out to be useful for those who also thought we had to be super-careful and walk on eggshells with editor's pronouns. And you didn't even have to bother to reply. I did, FYI, since I've had some trouble with the issue already. Common courtesy regarding a good faith assertion of what pronoun to use obviously should be observed. Or at least avoiding the "wrong one". Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 19:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 14:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please remove your RETIRED banner
THIS indicates that 2 of your 3 biggest editing months ever have taken place in the last 3 months, with 65 edits and counting in October. Please don't use a deceptive banner. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you read the policy on the use of the banner, then read the discussion I linked to above about my reasons for using it. That said, I would imagine that a lot of people must be eager to drive a stake through my heart and see me completely dead and silenced. —Neotarf (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 's corrrect - Unless you've actually retired you shouldn't be using it full stop. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. My wiki-death is long overdue. —Neotarf (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. → Aza Toth 19:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What a bizarre statement. I know of no "personal information" I have added anywhere. —Neotarf (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look through your contributions you'll see that your post containing personal information was deleted. JerrieJohn (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why, JerrieJohn, you just signed up for Wikipedia today, and only have one edit--to my talk page. How very, very special.  But I see you are getting the hang of things real fast, and already know how to find deleted information.  What remarkable progress you are making. —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request closed
The request for clarification relating to the Sexology case has been archived without action For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries
No worries about your revert, it's your userspace after all. :)

But thanks for making that available as a resource.

However, just so you know there were many errors of literally the wrong words transcribed which wasn't what he actually said in his speech, per the video.

Per the video, your wholesale revert instead of changing back the stylistic parts you wanted your way -- also had the effect of adding back those wrong words.

Just so you know it's now less accurate because of that.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There are undoubtedly some inaccuracies in the transcription; I did it from the 7-hour tape, and it was impossibly unwieldy. However I would urge you to check some authoritative guide such as Chicago Manual of Style, and look over the standard practices for copyediting transcriptions, the first of which is that you correct any false starts and grammatical errors that are the natural by-product of the spoken word. A literal word-by-word accuracy is not the desired goal.  In addition, while Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not address the issue of transcriptions, it does address other style elements--for instance, the m-dash is not spaced. The text should also be in paragraph form, and follow the structure of the original, rather than be presented as a series of single sentences, each on its own line.  I do appreciate the link to the YouTube version; I really should go over this again, now that a better source for the audio is available. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you said, except strongly disagree with "A literal word-by-word accuracy is not the desired goal." Because to put forth a transcript with wrong words is essentially akin to lying. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * @Cirt: No one wants "wrong words", or to misrepresent the facts by not accurately reporting what was said. But what is accuracy? Think about how you would construct a written response by making a rough draft, then going back to correct typos, changing words to make your meaning more clear, and finally hitting the "save" button. Does the reader see all your deleted keystrokes?  No, only the final product. The same thing happens with the spoken word. People will correct themselves on the fly, making a more accurate word choice, or correcting a mispronunciation.  If your script contains all the "ums" and on-the-fly corrections, it will very quickly become unreadable and the original meaning will be lost.


 * This is nothing new. There is a whole set of conventions regarding transcriptions, and if you are going to continue to edit these things yourself, especially for high-profile individuals like Jimmy, I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the subject. If you are interested, there is a short list of online guides in my user space at Standards for editing transcripts.


 * Don't get me wrong, even if I don't think your version at Wikisource does justice to Jimmy's presentation (and I did wait until you were finished with your edits in my user space before I reverted), I really appreciate you taking the initiative in starting this, and I hope it will lead to more, and better quality, transcriptions. —Neotarf (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your last sentence. I agree we don't need all the ums, buts, and likes, though a recent study suggested people who use those words are generally more intelligent people on average. But we should try to be as accurate as possible. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, I doubt if you had time to look over the links for transcription standards in the three minutes you took to respond to my comment, and I don't really want to spend the rest of my weekend doing a issue-by-issue copypasta from those sources--they really do explain the subject much better than I could. I have started a discussion on the topic at WT:MOS.
 * But let me attempt to explain it this way. If someone changes their mind about a word halfway through a sentence and corrects themself, and then you print the word, you have just lied about what they said, by not including the correction. And a lot of times you cannot tell whether it was a correction just by looking at the written word, but only by interpreting the verbal clues given by their intonation. Likewise, assigning your own headings and paragraph structure to the transcript instead of using the headings Jimmy himself used for the speech on his slides, inserts your own interpretation of the speech, rather than presenting the "true" speech as it was actually given.


 * Now if you really want to make things interesting, let me throw this one out. It is clear from the video that Jimmy intended to end the speech with a video, but at the last minute changed the ending of the speech because the audience had already seen the video. So, assuming no copyvio issues, should the video be added to the transcript as well, since it was part of the context of the speech as experienced by the live audience? —Neotarf (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In your wholesale revert you added back wrong things, such as the wrong date. Are you going to address those, or leave it wrong? You left out missing entire phrases of his speech that I had added. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already responded to those concerns here, a thread I know you are following. I don't suppose you are going to respond to the concerns I have raised. Goodbye now, and have a nice weekend, what's left of it. —Neotarf (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see where you said anything about acknowledging that you put the wrong date on your transcript? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of "I hope I'll have time Sunday" do you not understand. As it turns out, I have used my Sunday Wikipedia time trying to respond to your concerns, so it looks like it's now on my (very long) "to do" list. —Neotarf (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, alright, alright, sounds good, good luck with your "to do" list! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

get down --> get right down

Please change back "get down" to "get right down"

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

and so forth --> and so forth like that

Please change back "and so forth" to "and so forth like that". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

terribly important --> incredibly important

He didn't say "terribly important", he said "incredibly important". diff. Please change it. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to highlight --> And I just wanted to highlight

This sentence started with "And", I made the modification diff but it was wholesale reverted. Please add it back. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing: "other people have talked about the software"

"other people have talked about the software". This entire phrase was missing. I watched the entire video. And checked against the transcript. And helpfully copy edited and added it in diff. Please add it back. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing: "but my idea is very simple. Actually, on this issue"

This phrase "but my idea is very simple. Actually, on this issue" was missing. I watched the entire video, copy edited the transcript, and added it diff. Please add it back. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"people do the wrong thing" --> "people are doing the wrong thing"

Please change this back. The current version is wrong. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"how we're going to get there" --> "how we want to get there"

Current version is wrong. I fixed it diff but was wholesale reverted. Please add it back. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"So, let's rewind a few years and go back about" --> "So, now let's go back and rewind a few years and think about"

I fixed this, diff, please change it back. Now in current version wording is wrong. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing: "And so, what are the kinds of things that we already ask of ourselves?"

"And so, what are the kinds of things that we already ask of ourselves?" this entire phrase was missing, now reverted back to wrong version with entire missing phrase. I had added it in after copy editing diff. Please add it back. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing: "So things like kindness"

Entire phrase missing from wholesale reverted version of transcript. Though I had fixed it before at diff. Please add it back. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"we have to remind ourselves of inspiration" --> ""we have to remind ourselves: We have to have inspiration."

Not what he said. Transcript is now wrong. diff. Please change it, thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Date of the talk is wrong !!!

I fixed the date of the talk, itself. That was wholesale reverted. The current transcript is wrong. The date of the talk itself is wrong. Please change it. Thanks. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (watching) Jimmy Wales Speaks at Closing Ceremony of Wikimania 2014 seems to be an official version. Why don't you have a corrected version each in user space, or work on Wikisource? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No Gerda Arendt, it's not an official version. It was done by one guy, and as you can see here, Jimmy says, "I haven't actually read the transcript and so I can't vouch for it." And as you see from the above discussion with the user who added it to Wikisource, there are some problems with it. Even after I pointed out the problems, the user did not correct these problems before publishing his version to the public. For example, the headings do not match Jimmy's slides, so someone has just added their own opinion into it. Also there are some formatting problems--it certainly does not follow the Manual of Style. I don't know very much about Wikisource, but seeing how this has been handled, I suspect they don't have standards like the English Wikipedia. —Neotarf (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was not clear, I should have said "official" or have mentioned Wikisource, not a RS that is. I don't believe that it is better than yours or that by Cirt, - that's why I think they all can coexist unless something is really wrong in a version, and that was about all I wanted to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but I don't think a transcript should change the meaning from the original, or add outside opinions, unless they are clearly marked as such (as Carrite's version was). My concern is also for the hearing impaired, since a transcript is often the only way they have of following a discussion. I would like to see more transcript of more speeches, like for instance Sue's "holy shit" slide about editor retention. There was also an interesting metrics meeting that was quoted extensively in the Signpost.  It would be great if professionally produced transcripts from those meetings were made available routinely, perhaps on meta.  —Neotarf (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
For the link to Reeves v. C.H. Robinson. While we had our disagreements on civility, the article you linked to was a very a satisfying and informative reading for me. Let's hope ArbCom sees it the same way. JMP EAX (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was impressed with the way they unraveled the issues. I was hoping to find some university website with access to Lexus Nexus so I could read the original case, but there has been no time. —Neotarf (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, this looks like it here. —Neotarf (talk)

Only warning
Neotarf, the arbitration process has a system in process for a good reason. Do not edit other users sections, for any reason. If you believe a section should be removed, contact the clerks, or the committee directly. If you continue to edit sections which are not your own, you may be barred from participating in the case. Worm TT( talk ) 08:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was afraid of that, but in the past it has taken an excruciating amount of time and effort to get something on the committee mailing list, since I am not one of the individuals who has been cleared for it, and my time in RL is limited at the moment. I would also point out that I did not volunteer to participate in this case, but was dragged to it by the Arbcom who saw fit to name me as a party.  Nonetheless I have attempted to participate to the best of my ability and with good grace. But this may all be moot, as it seems the situation may now be resolved.  Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hoi An, Vietnam (3340066517).jpg were afraid of what? Being asked to follow the same rules as everyone else? Heaven forfend. Where's the "specialness" in that? Disgraceful thought, especially when you have such important things to say. I'll wash my hands, I think. However, when you finally accept that wandering around everywhere looking for something to be offended about is pretty fruitless, and boring, you could maybe underline your "retired" template, or bold it, or put it in bright shocking pink or something. Just an idea. It's working ok for me, that ceasing to care thing. And I don't even have the template. Best. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is about the cat, give yourself time. Go walk on a beach or something.  It gets better. —Neotarf (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with the cat. As usual, you have seen a couple of twos and summed them to five. The gif you put on your blog is not an image of the friend who passed away - just a funny gif - I like cats, see... I posted a message to you in the other place imploring you to stop making a fool of yourself over this "gender gap/civility" nonsense long ago. Unrelated. I merely commented again so that you could be aware that the kind of nonsense, faux offense you peddle so prominently is a part of what drives folks away from this place, whatever you intend. That, and the willingness of this place to tolerate it. And yes, I see the irony in replying again and giving it more oxygen. You're welcome to the gif - I stole it too - enjoy. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm still sorry about the cat. —Neotarf (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I'm sorry about that too. Take care. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI
I have just fixed what I think was your problem expressed in the Smalls ANI thread re: linking to a category. You seemed to be a bit frustrated about it (understandable: been there, done that!). If I have misinterpreted your intent then please accept my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is you? O.o No problem of course, I gave up, as it didn't seem like a good enough idea to waste time searching for the correct format. —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is very weird. A bug, indeed. I removed the nowikis and added the colon in front, all in one edit. But that edit does not appear in the ANI history nor in my contribution history. I did it, honestly, and I'm willing to bet that Knowledgekid would confirm that they did not. There is something going very wrong here. Perhaps ping Knowledgekid to check, even though I am 100% certain of what I did, and then - when I'm next around - I'll raise it at WP:VPT? - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just looked at the diff you give and, barring a different edit summary, Knowledgkid did exactly what I did. No edit conflict at my end, though. Might just be a case of "great minds ...", I guess, although getting even the space correct is pretty astonishing. Still, we're all sorted now! - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Or maybe ping @Knowledgekid87 to see if he wants to start an SPI. ;) Actually I have had that happen as well, a simple technical correction with no edit conflict. (It was here: User talk:Neotarf/Archive 1) —Neotarf (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * lol it was the two of us making the edit at the same time, it happens but hey im glad to see so many helpful people here =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for the fix(es), I never would have found it. —Neotarf (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorted! I'm about to make myself a late-night snack, Knowledgekid. You know what I want so please get off your ass and do it for me :) - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You might try Bishonen's fridge, although I hear it's going to be replaced by Bishonen's Fat Camp. There's probably been some tea and coffee left out though. —Neotarf (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have any of you seen the film Bad Teacher? Knowledgekid is like a male version of Lucy Punch's character, I'm sure knows just what I mean ;-)♦  Dr. Blofeld  18:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No...so that was just a line from a film? What a relief; for a moment there, I thought they were going to kill each other on my talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
For the link to Reeves v. C.H. Robinson. While we had our disagreements on civility, the article you linked to was a very a satisfying and informative reading for me. Let's hope ArbCom sees it the same way. JMP EAX (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was impressed with the way they unraveled the issues. I was hoping to find some university website with access to Lexus Nexus so I could read the original case, but there has been no time. —Neotarf (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, this looks like the original case here. —Neotarf (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2014
 * Now this is curious, a collection of examples--mostly excerpts from published law review articles--of how workplace harassment law is increasingly being applied to areas outside of the workplace: "public accommodations" like libraries, restaurants, bookstores, and online services. More about harrassment law more here; the parent document is here. —Neotarf (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom talk comment
Hello Neotarf.

I'm puzzled by your recent comment at Arbcom talk. As far as I know, you never addressed me or mentioned me until you posted a proposal at ANI first week of September concerning page bans for me, Eric and Pork]. None of the assembled GGTF participants, in fact nobody at all (other than you) endorsed your proposal. Your narrative in today's comment gives a very different impression. As you may recall, in my case, I voluntarily withdrew from posting at GGTF in September because my efforts were not welcome there. At any rate, I just would like to suggest you check your narrative against whatever diffs you need to check to ensure that it's accurate. As you know, I've previously posted on the Decision Talk page about the importance of Principle 4 and I feel that everyone should be especially careful about fact checking and documentation in this case. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  15:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The narratives have no relation to the truth, much less the diffs.  Makes one wonder about Tarf's additions to articles. Probably misrepresenting sources as well.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 16:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom talk comment
Hello Neotarf.

I'm puzzled by your recent comment at Arbcom talk. As far as I know, you never addressed me or mentioned me until you posted a proposal at ANI first week of September concerning page bans for me, Eric and Pork]. None of the assembled GGTF participants, in fact nobody at all (other than you) endorsed your proposal. Your narrative in today's comment gives a very different impression. As you may recall, in my case, I voluntarily withdrew from posting at GGTF in September because my efforts were not welcome there. At any rate, I just would like to suggest you check your narrative against whatever diffs you need to check to ensure that it's accurate. As you know, I've previously posted on the Decision Talk page about the importance of Principle 4 and I feel that everyone should be especially careful about fact checking and documentation in this case. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  15:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I addressed you on your talk page., and (in response to ), and an admin addressed you on your talk page as well.  "I set the page up hoping it could become a place where women especially – and perhaps in particular new women editors – could feel relaxed, and might want to exchange ideas about working together or helping each other, or how to encourage other women. So anything that keeps the atmosphere friendly and warm would be very helpful." .  Carol agreed to either a one-way or two-way interaction ban, but you were the one who would not agree to any voluntary interaction ban, which is when the community enacted your one-way interaction ban with Carol.  —Neotarf (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously? The narratives have no relation to the truth, much less the diffs.  Makes one wonder about Tarf's additions to articles. Probably misrepresenting sources as well.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 16:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is misrepresenting sources in articles, Two kinds of pork, are you talking about me or User:Tarc? What do you mean by that, and what is your evidence for such an accusation? —Neotarf (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Neotarf: None of your writing above squares with the narrative you presented at Arbcom. The time sequence is all wrong, just for starters.  The diffs do not support any of your claims.   As to the ANI, you should recall that I responded to your initiative there and would have continued to work in good faith toward a resolution of the matter had it not been summarily closed immediately upon my initial participation in the thread.  You also know that due to the IBAN, I cannot comment further on those matters.  At the Arbcom pages, you have repeatedly misrepresented the substance of my participation at GGTF, which I voluntarily discontinued.  I feel disappointed to think that anyone who carefully read the body of my work there -- not just out of context fractions thereof -- could be so mistaken about what I said and my approach to remedying the gender gap and its effects on the Encyclopedia.  It's unfortunate, per Principle 4 of the arbitration, that you misrepresented me there.  Finally, anyone who were to examine my history (I'm not suggesting you do so) would discover that I've done plenty to support editors who happen to be women and even to step in where I thought there was gender-based bullying.  I do not differentiate that work from my other work to improve WP, nor do I discuss it as if it were anything especially noteworthy.   SPECIFICO  talk  05:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The ban discussion is here. It is true you offered to stay off the GGTF page, but there were concerns about other topic areas as well. I was not in a position to say anything about those, as I had only seen what happened at GGTF.  Also note my remarks under Diff 3, that "at the time I posted the comment, there were 28 posts by SPECIFICO".  If you are concerned about making further comments, you can email me.  But also note I did not vote in that ANI. I was trying to listen to all sides and find a common area of agreement. —Neotarf (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You've changed the subject. The entire narrative you posted at the Arbcom thread was undocumented and incorrect. Nobody expects you to discuss matters of which you have no knowledge or involvement, but the community does require you to be truthful and to document your claims.  You're not going to sustain any productive relationships with your fellow editors here if you continue to disparage them and to misrepresent their views and actions.  We needn't discuss this further.   SPECIFICO  talk  13:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The diff is this one, and is clearly indicated on the case pages. Anyone can go to this diff, and see for themselves what I saw and what an admin saw that caused concern.  They can count for themselves your 28 posts. And now, since you have presented no diffs of your accusations against me, and I have received nothing by email, it seem *you* are the one who is misrepresenting *my* views and actions. —Neotarf (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Oh, how can you delete this cute kitten?

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC) 

A tip
Howdy Neotarf. You don't have to have part of your posts copied in your edit-summaries. PS: If that's just your style? nevermind :) GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I do it so I can identify the particular conversation later, sometimes a copy paste is just faster. —Neotarf (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (watching) In edit summaries, I give info to readers of a watch list, trying to attract attention to my post. In may cases, a copy of the most important statement is the best solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)