User talk:Owlmonkey

Shoko Asahara
I consider your revision very good. Thanks. Also: see Shoko Asahara talk, there is a warning re contributions without discussing first in article's talk.


 * Thanks! - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Naropa University
Thanks for your extensive and reasonable input on the page. I have always thought that a subsection about "contemplative education," as defined by Naropa, should be included. After all, isn't that a "product" they invented almost single-handedly, and isn't it the university's most elemental characteristic? My own attempts, however, are consistently deleted. I'm now realizing that it's a difficult thing to source because Naropa, itself, has released so little material that would qualify as an official statement on their part. If, at some point, they did print an official essay defining contemplative education and I quoted it with citations, then would my edits survive?

Seems to be some agreement around reverting to an earlier version of the Naropa page under its 'discussion' tab. What do you say? 205.170.134.65 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Commented and reverted. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another raging debate over at the Naropa University page. It is very similar to the previous one. Your opinion seems to be respected and, perhaps, you could weigh in as a more neutral arbiter? 205.170.134.65 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion
Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual bullies, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)


 * Thanks for letting me know about it. Sadly, such an overwhelming number of delete opinions are unlikely to be overcome. To establish notability she really needs to encourage being talked about by others, having people review her books and expand upon the material, especially critiques, will better establish her notability. My suggestion is to keep the work you've done and as she gains that kind of secondary source commentary about her work over time the article can be recreated. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Curtis Silwa
On May 16, 2007 on the FOX News network's Hannity & Colmes show, Silwa advocated the use of violence against XM Satellite radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony for engaging in discussion about forced sex with the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others. Clip available on YouTube

You don't think that's major? This is a guy who started an organization to fight violence and crime advocating the use of violence?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felicityhughes (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well two thoughts. 1) it was awhile ago but it didn't really get pickup up by secondary sources and commented upon. I see a couple blogs mentioning it, but no news sources. but 2) when i watched it I didn't see that he was advocating violence generally, just that he was steaming mad at what he perceived these two guys as doing: advocating rape. And then specifically, what he said was that in his old neighborhood if people were advocating rape the local ruffians would rough them up. he did say yes to the follow up question "so you're advocating violence?" but that was specifically framed by his earlier statements. That is to say, by this idea that these folks were advocating rape. Whether or not the DJ's really were advocating rape was then a topic of discussion and rebut in that youtube segment and the subsequent part 2 segment. But back to point #1, if his comments weren't really noteworthy to be reported upon in citable references - beyond the original source - then we probably shouldn't be including it in an encyclopedia article about him. Especially because he's a living person (see WP:BLP) and any criticisms must have secondary sources per that guideline. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is why Google's Knol project is so much more superior to Wikipedia. You think secondary sources are necessary with the original source is the person himself, recording on video tape with audio? I'll create my own Curtis Silwa page on Google Knol, where authors don't have to tolerate fools like yourself.


 * It's not a question of what he said, it's a question of notability and how it is viewed. If no secondary sources think it was relevant, then why should it be here? This is especially important for biographies of living persons, per wikipedia policy. Sounds like Knol is a better fit for your style of editing, since your idea of collaboration includes insulting other editors. But a word of caution: the wikipedia policy is to avoid libel, and if you go around writing potentially libelous statements about living persons then it is you who are potentially accountable for them &mdash; in civil court &mdash; and every article on knol as far as i know has your full name listed as the author. That's a different kind of forum and writing biographies about people there is more like publishing an unauthorized biography about someone and putting your name on it. It's going to be really interesting to see how biographic entries play out there, especially concerning criticism. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First you wrote, "it was awhile ago but it didn't really get pickup up by secondary sources and commented upon" then you wrote "If no secondary sources think it was relevant, then why should it be here?"

But secondary sources DID pick it up.

http://digg.com/people/Guardian_Angels_Curtis_Sliwa_advocates_violence_against_Opie_Anthony 282 diggs is pretty significant, and there are dozens of comments on the youtube video page and on the digg page.

I don't read dailykos, but I understand it's a major political blog: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/29/1028/25810/730/466083 M. Sliwa is Maria Sliwa, the sister of right-wing New York City talk show host Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels and a strong supporter of the Republican Party who regularly speaks at Republican fund-raisers and national conventions. Curtis Sliwa himself advocates violence (against talk radio hosts Opie and Anthony).

You have no business editing any biographies of living persons if you think it's libelous to point out what someone himself (or herself) said on a recorded and nationally televised program. Raising that concern in reaction to my edit is seriously ridiculous. Sounds like your idea of collaboration is making up rubbish excuses so you can be a win an argument and be a control freak.

a ha, just read your bio. You list Guardian Angels and Curtis Silwa as your personal interests, that makes you unfairly biased. Stop making excuses and let the truth be told. This whole ordeal doesn't make you much of a Buddhist in my book.


 * It's not biased to have an interest. How else would you care about an article to edit? I list it as an interest because I've put energy into those articles here. I found and solicited the pictures for it, for example. You seem to have an interest in the article too, yes?
 * Please read the whole WP:BLP policy, it's been given a lot of thought, to avoid wikipedia turning into a place where anyone with an ax to grind doesn't weigh in on every controversial, notable figure. Can you imagine for a moment what would happen without those guidelines? The rules about adding criticism or controversial statements are there for a reason. We don't add random facts to try to imply something, we summarize notable views on a topic. How? By using credible and neutral secondary sources. DailyKos is not a neutral source and he doesn't talk *about* the incident he just mentions the youtube video to make a point. If he was talking about it, then we could cite it as a criticism specifically from "the liberal blog DailyKos" or some qualifier but then is really that trustable or noteworthy if an anti-conservative blog criticizes a conservative popular figure? and Digg is equivalent to a forum or blog, not a fact-checked, neutral news source. Review WP:SOURCES more about sources and questionable sources. I'm not making all this up.
 * I'm sorry you don't like my efforts here, but I'm trying to understand and help keep wikipedia articles about living persons within guidelines. It's too easy for wikipedia to turn into place where anyone can criticize anyone they want otherwise, to the point of libel. You are welcome to disagree with me. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You might also find it interesting to read the ongoing discussion about the BLP policy, on its talk page, as a way to get more of a sense of the ongoing evolution and thoughts on it. Why blogs are generally avoided as sources was a recent discussion point there, for example, in regards to biographic articles. It has also been a recent topic among the administrators, and it looks like it is becoming an area where even more strict control is occurring. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument - COI
I think the long await HBDI COI has arrived today. I've reverted once & am holding off for a few hours before exercising another revert. Grateful if you'd do ... whatever you think best. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Will keep an eye on it too. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your David Roach fix
Yep thanks for fixing it so fast. bbx (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Got yer back. :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Shoshanna Lonstein Gruss "Spam link removal"
I didn't realize that cityfile.com was a site that had been spamming Wikipedia. I found some of the information I used my re-write of her entry on Cityfile.com after googleing around for details. That why I put it in. I do some work for Shoshanna and did not intend to post a link to a place considered "spam". qraali 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. A few other accounts just recently started actively linking to cityfile - on a number of articles in a systematic fashion - and I was going through removing them. I didn't think you added that cite with any kind of spamming intention though. Cheers. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tory Burch
I do not understand why you yanked all the citations. They seem to go along with most other sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think your usage was fine, it's just they are proving to be an unreliable source generally and then in addition someone started promoting that site by adding external links to them across a number of biographical articles. You'll find a list of accounts that were doing that spamming in the spam reports. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and look for cityfile. Owlmonkey (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Christy Turlington & Ed Burns
I added additional references to these profiles and they were taken out and marked as spam. I just started using Wikipedia, but I thought additional links to outside sources for information were useful? If there's some other way I should be sourcing things like that (or from some other place) please let me know. Thanks! 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)GreenTeaz (talk)


 * Generally yes but there has been a pattern of adding promotional links to cityfile.com across biographic articles here recently. Also, another editor has made the case that cityfile.com does not meet reliable source standards for citations and I tend to agree. You're welcome to discuss those points. Also, make sure to familiarize yourself with the WP:RS and WP:EL guidelines. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read all those pages, but I guess I'm still a bit confused. The New York Times lists the site as a resource on some of its Times Topics pages (which were chosen by staff researchers and editors), and I would assume that the New York Times' criteria for a reliable source would not be lower than Wikipedia's generally. Also, the Reliable Sources page mentions that sources are "in relation to the subject at hand," which is why I thought my adding sources to two celebrity profiles was perfectly legitimate. Thanks.GreenTeaz (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Spamming aside for a moment, the NYT lists cityfile as one of "A list of resources from around the Web about Richard S. Fuld as selected by researchers and editors of The New York Times." That's not the same as the NYT using cityfile as a citation source for fact checking. And citations here are about validating facts. So if cityfile lists a birthdate of a celebrity, is it trustable? In other words, how do I know that cityfile is ensuring their facts are accurate? Do they adhere to the same journalistic standards as the NYT? Birthdays are potentially innocuous but then what of more substantial rumors, gossip, or viewpoints that are contentious? another guideline to make sure you're familiar with concerns biographies of living persons, which are more strict here in terms of ensuring accuracy than other articles. Cityfile might be a reliable source, but they don't disclose their standards or methods and editors here have pointed out some example cityfile pages which demonstrate a lack of neutrality. You're welcome to contest that. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you make a good point about adding rumors, gossip, etc., especially concerning the biographies of living people. I was just trying to add some sources of additional information for profiles of the wikipedia pages of celebrities I like. But I'll definitely take all of the above into consideration anytime I'm using wikipedia in the future. One more quick question: Is the talk page of a specific profile the best place to explain why I put in a link, or is that best left to the edit summary line? Thanks for all the help! GreenTeaz (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I find, personally, that good "edit summary" comments really help when reviewing lots of changes across articles. edit summaries are convenient, but they only hold so much so if more explanation is needed the talk page is the place to go. Especially for controversial or contested changes. Then adding "see talk page for explanation" in the edit summary is helpful so we know that you're leaving more information there. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On break
Note: I'm taking a break for awhile as I turn my attention to tanjur.org, my buddhist community wiki project. If you'd like to invite me to a discussion or review you might try contacting me there.

Little Buddha
Hi, om. I just rented Little Buddha again and watched the part where Raju, Gita, and Jesse are recognized as reincarnations of Lama Dorje. As far as which character is the body, speech, or mind of Lama Dorje, I admit this is not explicitly stated in the film, but I believe it is demonstrated through the special strengths of the individual characters. Given Raju's physical prowess as a performer and protector, the oratory skills of Gita ("Song") including her spontaneous recitation of the Heart Sutra, and Jesse's insatiable curiosity about all things Dharma, I believe it is not difficult to infer who is the body, the speech, and the mind. Emptymountains (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you weren't subjected to any Keanu Reeves sections during the re-screening. j/k. I buy the argument. Feels funny stating it as fact though without some confirmation. Got an email address for Khyentse Norbu? Maybe we could ask. :) - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning another one....
And....gone. Thanks for the headup. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Buddhism and Spirituality
I've been working on collecting critical references on Buddhism and Spirituality in general. Unfortunately, this is greatly lacking in Wikipedia. http://nonspiritual.net/ is one site that aggregates such references. I noticed your comments in the Talk:Buddhism_and_science and thought should let you know here. - Nearfar (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Nearfar. Thank you for the link, and an interesting project. Good luck with it. I looked at your article on the Buddha and had some suggestions if you're open to them. 1) the four noble truths don't really claim that life is suffering. They claim it is "marked by dukkha". Early translators rendered dukkha as suffering but modern translations tend to acknowledge it as having more meaning and is more akin to "anxiety" or "restlessness". So then you might instead have something like "life is marked by restlessness and subtle anxiety". 2) Similarly, enlightenment then is merely the cessation of that restlessness in that presentation instead of the conflated version that your current Enlightenment article describes, in which you've combined all possible uses of the term. The enlightenment article would likely need to clarify which tradition said what to avoid confusion. Similarly, I don't think all traditions of Buddhism ordinarily rate parinirvana above nirvana. Some believe nirvana is only possible at the time of death, but not all. 3) "karma" according to the Tibetan Buddhist canon is included in the "provisional" teaching category instead of the "definitive" teaching category (it's "trangdon" not "ngedon") which means that it's among the teachings of the Buddha meant to "approximate" truth and lead a student along a path but is not-true. So the Tibetan's at least categorize the teachings on karma and reincarnation as not-true yet useful. You might clarify that distinction. The Tibetan's as well have discussed many of the teachings of the Buddha in this kind of taxonomy. Some are considered ontologically "true" but many are considered path instructions and metaphysically invalid. That's important when discussing spiritual traditions generally I bet. Science seems to focus on metaphysical truth, and while early spiritual traditions may "sound" like they're discussing metaphysics or were asked to by people to explain such and such their ultimate goal may NOT have been some kind of metaphysical claims about the nature of reality. It's easy to misread older texts then to be making metaphysical statements when that was not really their aim. So then critiquing metaphysical claims in older religions is a red herring. 4) In summary I think the added discernment and critique is quite useful but I also think it only adds significant usefulness when you dig into the real meaning of things instead of staying at a surface / conceptual level - that is merely a kind of stereotypical or contemporary usage of the terms (e.g. karma.) Critiquing only the contemporary usage does not really critique the true meaning of the terms effectively or get at what they were really trying to say. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Owlmonkey,


 * 1) nonspiritual.net is not a website owned by me; it is being maintained by Harmanjit.


 * 2) re-suffering:- Mr. Buddha did claim that life /is/ suffering.. or more precisely "the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha" .. aggregates being flesh and blood body (not just the 'attachment' to them). See Skandha ('ineffable skandhas of the Buddha') and Parinirvana.


 * 3) re-Enlightenment: Enlightenment, then, is the trascending of the aggregates (this flesh and blood body; physical) to attain Parinirvana (non-physical/formless realm). All one needs to do is go straight to the sources .. it is very very simple. I'm also cognizant of the fact that several tranditions try to water-down the core-dogma to make it appear more rational/empirical/repeatable .. nonspiritual.net deals with the core issues of Spirituality.


 * 4) re-trangdon: I'm cognizant of Upaya .. and the 'raft simile' where Dhamma is considered a raft.. It is not entirely clear as to what is considered as Dhamma. For example, is Nibbana considered to be Dhamma (raft)? If so, it [freedom from restrlessness] need not be true (hence achievable) .. thus contradicting the core of Buddhist philosophical assumptions. Is Parinirvana considered to be Dhamma? And did Mr. Buddha leave any clue as to which part of his Dhamma is to be considered 'path instructions' (while the rest being stated facts)? This is why I consider it essential to state the written teachings clearly in Wikipedia (without ignoring it in the name of Upaya .. unless it is said so by Mr. Buddha himself)


 * 5) I am also somewhat confused about your statement "Science seems to focus on metaphysical truth" .. Scientific method deals with observable (not metaphysical) phenomena.


 * 6) re-aim:- It is essential for Wikipedia to only cite tangible sources (eg: religious texts) than making claims as to the 'aims' (or intent, agenda, etc..) of the people behind the same sources. Thus, one only need to read it as it is (no misreading or reading between the words). Don't you agree?


 * 7) re-real maning:- As long as the 'real meaning' of things are directly deduced from the sources (eg: religious texts), I consider it a valid citation in Wikipedia, would you agree? But if there is no such source where the 'real meaning' (eg: Enlightenment, acc. to Mr. Buddha, being in a physical realm as opposed to the non-physical Parinirvana) cannot be found, then I doubt Wikipedia can simply state it so. If different tranditions hold difference views, it is ok to state all of them (which is the reason I edited the Buddhism and science article to reference Parinirvana) .. but in that case, no definite conclusion can be inferred independent of those differing views.


 * Since your response is evidently to nonspiritual.net (instead of Wikipedia content), it is pertinent to state the following from the Introduction page:


 * nonspiritual.net takes the unambiguous position that spirituality and religion are fundamentally flawed responses to the human condition. Not content with criticizing the ostensibly criminal, exploitative or reprehensible acts of the various spiritual teachers, nonspiritual.net seeks to criticize the very fundamentals of their teachings, their morality, their unscientific claims and their inability to live up to their own impossible ideals.  [emphasis added]


 * In that light, I think it is better to discuss the accuracy of the articles there elsewhere: 1) sending an email directly to Harman, or 2) asking in the Actual Freedom mailing list.


 * - Nearfar (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Sorry, thought that was your web site. And my comments were specific to the content there, which I was misaddressing to you then. But to respond to your points &mdash; which are interesting to talk about &mdash; if you like: dukkha is in my opinion better translated as restlessness or unease, not suffering. The dukkha article discusses that somewhat and that was my point. But again, I was critiquing the language on the nonspiritual site. I agree that enlightenment then is cessation of that unease in that context. But the nonspiritual site conflates the meanings of many traditions into one article, and that was what I was critiquing. They are clearly a non-neutral site pushing a viewpoint, but they're doing a poor job of it at that. Then my critiques concerning what is &mdash; from a Tibetan Buddhist viewpoint specifically &mdash; trangdon and ngedon categorically was a critique of how the nonspiritual site critiques Buddhism. They assume that the teaching on reincarnation, because it lacks empirical observation, demonstrates a flaw in the tradition. My point is that according to major Buddhist lineages, that teaching is not considered definitive truth even. Therefore their argument is based on an invalid or over generalized assumption. In terms of Metaphysics (by that I mean the larger philosophical sense of theories on the nature of reality) I do think science is interested in the nature of reality. My point though was that though many religious traditions make statements that also sound like they are making claims about ontological truth in my opinion that is only one way to interpret them. If one does, then religious statements are easy to critique vis-a-vis science whereas if one instead takes those statements to *not* be ontological statements the conflict is less apparent. Which is not to say there is not conflict. I just would rather people critique where there really is something to talk about, instead of taking a rather lame surface or conventional view of these seemingly metaphysical statement (e.g. karma) and then tearing them down like a paper tiger. It's not really an argument when sites like nonspiritual.net do that. It's merely preaching to the faithful, or in this case the non-faithful, instead of really trying to understand in an educated way and have a real conversation. So my apologies for responding with my critique of nonspiritual.net and directing it in a reply to you. Since you had advocated the site to me, I incorrectly assumed you were involved with it. But thank you for giving me an opportunity to take a look. In terms of Buddhism and Science, there seems to me to be a kind of pop cultural view that Western Buddhism and Science not only are compatible but are self affirming in some way. I think that's a pop culture view though and am happy to try to point out the naivety of that. But I think it's fine to have an article that compares and contrasts features of different philosophic approaches and views. I just don't have any kind of axe to grind about it. I especially don't have an axe to grind about Buddhism, I think there is a lot of good mind science in that tradition that is useful and will be useful to study as our cognitive science skills increase. Some of the fMRI studies are already producing really interesting results of Buddhist meditation. Therefore, don't throw out the baby with the bath water, in your effort to critique, if you may excuse the metaphor. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Mitsube - Nearfar (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Shambhala Wiki ?
Hi Good filtering to find me. I just saw yer invite to Shambhala Wiki, there's a lot on your position I want to catch up on (above) but certainly I'm interested...one day, after my July dathun. Except, hasn't Halifax sort of already moved on this? At least they've opened up a blogging site run by Mark in Marin..... Or.. Are you hoping for a more DIY/outside thing?  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One trick that you've missed- WP desperately needs a Kasung article. I'd like to see Kasung explained per it's origins & as an innovation in American Buddhism.
 * I see you live in SF Bay? Where? I'm in Berkeley.  Hilar leo  Hey, L.E.O. 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I sent an email to you with account details on labelingthoughts. I agree the Kasung could really use an article here, great idea. Did you want to start it? I think Tricycle has a full article about the Kasung that would be a great citation, but I don't have a physical copy. The self-published books would be good for details. Any other third party sources though besides Tricycle? It's tough finding things about not-so-public entities. but as a precedent, there is the Sea org article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

USS New York LPD-21
Owl Could you tell me why you find the posting of my web site is spam, its been there for almost 2 years now. Thanks Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that simple. Have you thoroughly reviewed the external links guidelines? In particular, the sites to avoid linking has a lot of guidance concerning which sites should be not linked. Spam is one reason, it's often the case that people link to articles here with the hopes of driving traffic to sites. Also review the conflict of interest policy, you probably should not be linking to your own site in any case but instead suggesting it on the talk page to have other, impartial editors decide if it should be included. But concerning the external linking policies, I thought your site should be omitted for reason #1 - "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." In other words, external links on articles generally should not be to every and all external resources that relate to the topic. If your web site was the "official" site for the ship, then it should be linked for that reason. But otherwise there is little reason to link to your site from an encyclopedia on the topic, even though it's a nice site and well organized and well presented. - Owlmonkey (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Owl I did not originally link, I just undid a site deletion. If you are going after spam there are 3 links in that article that link to another site, is that normal? There are inaccuracies in the article as well that pertain to me, I have not posted on them due to COI. Is it possible to have editors review this? www.northjersey.com/news/newyorkmetro/WTC_steel_lives_on_in_naval_warship.html http://www.southbergenite.com/NC/0/904.html http://militarytimes.com/blogs/broadside/2009/02/18/bonded-by-a-miracle/ Thanks for your time, Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.224.140 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure but you should post that on the discussion page of that article. That way other editors of that article would participate in the discussion about them. If you post these there I'll see the post. These might be useful for citations more than as external links though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Owl, I have posted the links on the talk page, thanks for your help

Ransom Everglades
I checked the online directory and indeed, Nicholas Winset 1987 is there. What does "formerly Sid Fine" mean ? GroveGuy (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's necessary really, but Nicholas changed his name from Sid just after graduation and was known as Sid while there. Perhaps that detail isn't really encyclopedic for this article, more useful for people who knew him there more than really the intention of the section. Your call. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I see you took out the bit about the former name. I kinda liked it. The story about the name change would probably be more interesting than the tawdry story about getting fired. I read several of the articles about the firing. It seemed that the psudo-violence demo was just the last straw after several other incidents. How come nobody has added the movie Wild Things to the R-E article? GroveGuy (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I looked for a credible citation awhile back to connect Wild Things to RE for the article and failed. But maybe there are some reasonable cites now? perhaps this one? I had quite a laugh when I rented the film years ago without knowing the location filmed, and the related story line even. Quite a hoot! - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Dominic Carter
Someone has added information to the Dominic Carter page. He is a living person and the information that has been added is about domestic allegations made against him. I changed this a few days ago to make it more compatable with Wiki Living Bio standards, but now someone has added an entire section about these domestic allegations. This looks like it was done by someone with an ax to grind. Could you take a look at it please? thanks Doctorfun (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. I don't follow the news about this person at all, but will check the citations, etc. - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana
Owlmonkey, you have disputed that Steve Cooley's stance on medicinal marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles County is not controversial. Could you please explain why? I feel that it is because:

1) Cooley is an elected official. 2) The electorate supports dispensaries by a 3:1 margin. 3) Cooley(a DA) is trying to make policy, rather than enforce the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.190.229.162 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll respond on the talk page of that article so that others can also contribute to any discussion. I'll copy your comment there as well. - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted image
Please do not restore the 'True Blood Lorena.jpg' image to the Mariana Klaveno article. The fair use criteria attached to this copyrighted image is for character depiction only. The image cannot be used on Klaveno's article under the non-free use criteria as a free image could reasonably be expected to be found of her. You are violating the HBO copyright by restoring the image. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I doubt I'm actually violating HBO's copyright, frankly. But I just took a closer look at the wikipedia guideline and I'm fine with not restoring that particular image, mea culpa. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for taking the time to read the guidelines. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions
A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks&mdash;Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 15:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pacific Biosciences, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illumina. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)