User talk:OnlyInYourMind

Welcome!
Hello, OnlyInYourMind, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OnlyInYourMind, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

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

-- 04:10, Thursday, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Guy (Help!) 11:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing Zeitgeist film series
It appears your account is mostly single purpose. Your first and last edits are on Zeitgeist material. While that is o.k. to be a single purpose account, I see you are running into problems because again it appears you are an advocate for the Zeitgeist group and insisting on having information from your group highlighted a certain way. For instance claiming consensus is not a good idea when you make edits I could give a lot of other examples of your editing being problematic but suffice it to say now that if you tendentiously edit the talk page and the article and related articles over a period of time the way you are doing you could have problems. This is just a friendly reminder of that. Right now I would assume you are part of the group called here by the group to edit. That does not even matter but it does matter about neutral tone. You appear to be edit warring information also. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an issue with jumping the gun when he tries to determine whether an editor is a single purpose account, and whether the editor is trying to introduce bias into Zeitgeist related articles. I have raise the issue at the administrator's noticeboard here.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * According to his edit history his first two edits are on Zeitgeist material ''05:28, 28 April 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . m Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) ‎ (→‎Categories)

05:16, 28 April 2015 (diff | hist). . (+535)‎ . . Talk:Zeitgeist (film series) ‎ (→‎Discussion on 'Documentary style': adding my 2 cents)'' Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What oversight prevents veteran editors from misbehaving?
From Teahouse:


 * So, I have not assumed bad faith, that assumption is the luxury of the veteran editors. I've only noted that their behavior is terrible (including their accusations of bad faith as justification for reverts) on this one article, and I'd like help in figuring out how to get them to behave normally. Thanks. OnlyInYourMind T  16:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From someone uninvolved, and has no desire to get involved in the actual dispute, when you say "get them to behave normally" what specifically are you desiring of their behavior? What actions could they perform to meet your criteria of "behaving normally?" Can you be specific as possible?  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 20:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. By "normal", I mean for these editors to behave in the way they do with the rest of the articles on wikipedia. The way wikipedia would like us all to behave all the time. Following policy. Assuming good faith. Civility. Building an encyclopedia. Specifically, behaving "normal" is to not engage in behaviors like these:
 * incivility and assuming bad faith (accusing other demonstrably neutral editors with multiple interests of being single purpose accounts sent here by Zeitgeist to push POV and "paste FAQ material")
 * removal of accepted sourced content against WP:PRESERVE (likely justified by the next point)
 * reverting expand tags on a 100 word film synopsis claiming "too long" even after I remind them WP guidelines recommend 400-700 words. And if the article is too long, then why not move some sections to separate articles? The answer is because the admitted effort of these editors is to merge all the Peter Joseph and Zeitgeist articles into one. A past RfC was used as justification for the first merge of the films and movement. And now we have a 17,000 word article about a film series that tries to cram in details about each film and about the movement that spawned from the films while somehow respecting the WP length guidelines.
 * using the talk page to rant about how much they dislike the topic
 * reverting RS sourced content as "promotional" because it describes a paid event, but not reverting similar content on other articles like Burning Man or Comic-Con. (This is the topic of the current DRN)
 * always reverting, so so much reverting, must everything be a fight?
 * And despite all this, I believe they believe they are defending the integrity of the wiki. They are just going about it the wrong way. The right way would be to separate the articles, allow expansion where reliably sourced, and continue to defend against the occasional ACTUAL promoters of Zeitgeist who mostly want to blank and soapbox.
 * So, do you think "normal" behavior is something that can be attained through some other dispute resolution after this DRN is complete? Thanks for listening. :-) OnlyInYourMind T  19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to reply. I saw your help me the other day and decided to offer some advice.  Here is my response.
 * First off, I am going to again say, I have no desire to get into whatever dispute you are involved in. This is an argument based on the general concept of what is considered "normal" in a community
 * Secondly, I encourage you to accept that you are involved in a dispute, plain and simple. One definition of a "dispute" may be that what one person considers "normal" differs from what another considers normal, and a plea to have another editor "act normal" is really a plea for another editor to "do things the way I want them to be done".  In situations where the two differ, usually the editor with experience has a better understanding of what is "normal" in the context of a project.


 * Thirdly, as an administrator myself, things like WP:RFC are pretty strong guidance for action. If an RFC suggests or encourages a merge, it is generally appropriate to pursue that as an outcome.  These decisions are not made based on article length, but on the underlying connectivity between two issues.  In this case, I suspect that this artist and their films, relative to all other artists and films in Wikipedia, should not be as long as you are suggesting.  This comes from the top down, where one says "This artist and their films are not notable enough to stand alone as articles, so merge them together".  If you make that decision based on "words" it becomes who can spend the most time padding an article with words so that it meets some threshold so that it becomes two articles.  This does not increase the notability or the distinctiveness of the articles, only creates the illusion of such.
 * Fourthly, If that is what the editor in question was doing (pursuing the merge per some sort of consensus) (and unless you have absolute evidence to the opposite, you are encourage to WP:AGF, as I am here). To say "this is what the RFC suggested" and "this is what I want" is to say that your desires are greater than that of the communities.
 * Fifthly, For the reasons I explained above, things such as "article length" represent "guidelines", not hard and fast rules.  In situations where the community suggests a merge, a guidelines should not be used to overturn this without a really good reason (again, it is easy to keep adding words).  For example, a guideline might suggest that a section be of a certain length, but some other reason or rationale may preclude this suggestion (in this case, the community deeming that the articles should be merged)
 * Finally, at the end of the day, (and no offense intended) the amount of effort spent in a dispute about an article about a moderately notable film producer and their moderately notable films is disproportionate to the impact they have made. Let them be merged, make sure the most important points, and only the most important points are in the merged article, get over it, and move on. There are far more important things to be done to ensure the overall quality and success of Wikipedia.

I hope this helps explain things from the perspective of an 3rd party observer, uninvolved, and who has assumed good faith on behalf of all parties. Thanks Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 20:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally, WP:AGF is super important. I assume good faith on the part of both parties, and come to a reasonable explanation. Someone disagreeing with you, and acting accordingly is not bad faith, it again is a dispute. In a dispute, both parties can be acting in [[WP:AGF|good faith]\]


 * Thanks for your candor. I appreciate the advice, and I intend to follow it.
 * I want to be clear that whether articles are merged or not makes no difference to me. I'm not trying to undermine an RfC. I only mentioned separating the articles because I've had edits reverted based on the guideline that the article is too long. So I thought separating the articles was the only way to add new content. Now I guess nearly every attempt to add content to an already overly-long article will result in a content dispute. Does that sound about right?
 * My goal with Wikipedia is maximizing RS encyclopedic content. WP:PRESERVE seems to agree. I kind of assumed content would be added forever and sections would be split into new articles as needed. I find it hard to agree that actual useful content should be removed (unless it's redundant or unsourced or something). Do I have the wrong idea of Wikipedia?
 * What are the more important things that will ensure the quality and success of Wikipedia? OnlyInYourMind T  07:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the word "Useful" may prove to be the challenge here. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia has chosen, by consensus, not to be "useful", but to be factual. It must only record reported facts, whether those facts are useful or not. It has no requirement to report all the reported facts, though most editors strive to do so. Where facts are disputed by the people who state them (these are people external to Wikipedia), editors generally phrase the article to show, but not to interpret, the different views that are reported in the world outside Wikipedia. We may hold strong opinions. I know I do. But we may not incorporate our opinions, however important and valid they may be to us, into Wikipedia articles.
 * Encyclopaedic content is that which is referenced thus: "We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42." All else is material that we may not incorporate into Wikipedia.
 * Quality and success are judged on the reliability of our articles. We already know that citing Wikipedia is foolhardy. Wikipedia is the jumping off point for real research because it provides pointers (not directions) to the work that has gone before. When I write or edit an article I treat it as a personal success if it is unbiased, referenced and unemotional. I hope that helps you to an extent. Fiddle   Faddle  07:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Collate lists?
If you have time and resources, would you mind collating my list with the main list (keeping only unique)? I am now at work, with issues, and I'd be grateful for the help.

If you got the bandwidth, thanks. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Nicola Sturgeon is backed by Occupy protesters in London The National-May 10, 2015
 * 2) Forest boy "inspired by Zeitgeist movement" Telegraph.co.uk-Jun 17, 2012
 * 3) «Биологически я несу его гены, но это — не самое главное» Yarsk.ru-May 26, 2015
 * 4) Jim Rickards on dollar debasement &amp; Peter Joseph explains Zeitgeist Movement RT-Mar 7, 2014
 * 5) Zeitgeist solutions for the world RT-Sep 15, 2011
 * 6) Zeitgeist a Blend of Skepticism, Metaphysical Spirituality, and Conspiracy Religion Dispatches -Jan 16, 2011
 * 7) Beyond capitalism and socialism: could a new economic approach save the planet? The Guardian-Apr 22, 2015
 * 8) Segment: Peter Joseph on "market paradox"  RT December 11, 2014 03:30

The movement:
 * 1) Zeitgeist Movement on CBS TV: https://vimeo.com/27003447
 * 2) ZDay BBC 2009 https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=zeitgeist+bbc&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

The film: Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Robert Stacy McCain, veteran journalist http://theothermccain.com/2011/01/12/salvia-zeitgeist-and-the-tucson-shooter/
 * 2) AP NewsBreak: More warning signs on day of shooting
 * 3) More warning signs on day of shooting
 * 4) Ariz. suspect's parents: 'We don't know why this happened'
 * 5) [href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/jared-loughner-parents_n_807479.html Jared Loughner's Parents Devastated, Neighbor Says]
 * 6) Picture Of Suspect's Troubled Life Comes Into Focus
 * 7) [href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346342/Gabrielle-Giffords-fights-life-Arizona-ICU-husband-Mark-Kelly-clutches-hand.html?ito=feeds-newsxml" Astronaut Mark Kelly clutches his wife Gabrielle Giffords' hand as she fights for life in Arizona ICU

Don't worry -- cancel that. I got this. Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, just want to mention a few things I noticed in these sources...
 * The 60 minutes spoof appears to be the work of college students. It did not air on CBS.
 * The BBC thing looks like just a protest to try to get the film aired on BBC, not an actual report.
 * Religion Dispatches looks possibly reliable. They seem to be a magazine with editors that takes submissions. The author of that piece, I think, is a professor. It may have been a submission. Dunno if submissions are fact checked by their editors.
 * Russian article is a passing mention.
 * The RT interviews are probably good for notability. I'd guess, in terms of content, interviews would be equivalent of primary sources. More interviews are available here: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zeitgeist+movement+interview


 * OnlyInYourMind T  07:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. If it is only a college spoof, it would be good for you to point that out in the threaded discussion on that.  Sorry. I don't have sound, so was unable to evaluate.  And at this point, content is not the issue -- notability of mention is the issue, as I understand it.  I am finding a number of mentions in books. This work would probably be easier if I knew anyone in the Movement.  Grammar&#39;s Little Helper (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)#RFC:_One_or_Two_Articles.3F_Should_film_series_and_movement_be_split.3F
OIYM, you shouldn't invite individual editors to contribute to a discussion, it's dangerously close to WP:canvassing. Open invites on article talk pages etc. are different, for that reason alone I am going probably to decline to contribute. … … ''ps plus I don't really have an opinion worth anything to anyone.Pincrete (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) ''


 * My invitation seemed to be in line with Canvassing, but I understand. Happy editing :-) OnlyInYourMind T  15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I was already aware of this discussion, but hadn't contributed because I had nothing useful to say. When I first responded above, I misunderstood that this might be a new RfC, hence my slight over-reaction. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Proposal to topic-ban Earl King Jr. from the Zeitgeist articles. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)