Thank you, very much, for your kind and positive comments about my recent edits. Regarding Quantumsilverfish ( talk · contribs), yes, I do think this is most likely a throwaway sock account WP:SPA used in an attempt to disrupt and make a Featured Article Candidacy fail. It is most unfortunate and a perversion of the FAC process. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey RA, perhaps you can help with this as I have gotten zero response from X!. I use the WP:BN/R template on my talkpage with the |left code in place to push it to the left of the screen. This has worked just fine until I just archived my talkpage last time around. When I don't have the code hidden, it is now right and the |left code isn't working. I have looked at the WP:BN/R template (no changes then or now). I looked at User:X!/RfX Report, no changes other than an update from the bot. So I am unsure what would have caused the problem and why it would have happened only when I archived my talkpage.
Would you take a look at the pages and see if something or someone goofed the code that is not allowing |left to work on the code? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear ResidentAnthropologist, thank you very much for your recent comment at BLPN relating to what you described as another user's behavior, "crossing the line here into WP:HOUNDING territory" Also, your statement here: "Cirt has proven to be more than capable of learning and improving from criticism. You very clearly are unable to as I have talked with you twice already on backing off from Cirt. Cut it the next time you turn content dispute into a kangaroo court of Cirt bashing I will take you to WP:AE and seek remedy under the the creation of hostile under the "Editing environment (editors cautioned)" clause." is truly very much appreciated. Thank you so very much, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Jewellery. http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/BritishCanadianAmerican.htm - am I missing something. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to make a constructive edit on Affirmative Action. The statement made was clearly a biased statement and the top of the page indicates weasel words are/have been in use on the page. At the time, I considered editing the statement to make it more reliable but having not read the source material, I was not comfortable in changing the words, so I deleted it and then clicked save forgetting to submit a 'reason' for my edit. I am also a resident anthropologist, so I urge you to please be constructive on Wikipedia as well, even if it means contacting another member/user prior to accusations of vandalism. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calray18 ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, also I did take your advice and made an minor edit to help neutralize the unreliable language on the page. Thanks, I'm learning. pls don't delete me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calray18 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I am curious about this warning. At first I thought the editor had vandalized Church of Scientology again. Looking closer I see the editor hadn't made any more edits since his previous warnings when you issued yours (though he was likely in the process of vandalizing Forever Dusk's user page at the time). Aside from the usual procedure of not continuing to issue warnings without further vandalism; since I had already warned him about the Church of Scientology edit within my welcome template, why would you warn him again for it? — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 00:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize in advance, for obtuseness. I've read "nom, nom, nom" as mocking my efforts to improve the WOP WikiProject, with a prior AE request, an RSN thread, and an MfD nom. Others have counselled me that I've read too much into it.
I appreciate when anyone offers me popcorn, virtual or otherwise. Thanks.
But would you be willing to indicate whether "nom, nom, nom" is meant to be derisive or not? If you would be willing to offer the indication, even if the answer is that you do view my efforts as meriting at least mild derision, would you please do so? I'm not looking to complain to anyone, anywhere, about a personal attack. I'm a smart-ass and some mocking in return comes with the territory. What I'm looking for is a "reality check." If you can help me understand, even if the message is indeed meant to be at least faintly derisive, you'll be doing me a great kindness. I just can't figure out if that's what's happened here or if my skin is becoming waaaay too thin. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You might wish to pay a bit more attention next time, you stuck your Welcome to the Jungle comment in the middle of another user's comment. I have since moved it for you. Soxwon ( talk) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
talkback:minsainiac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsainiac ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Frank | talk 00:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the featured article review of L. Ron Hubbard. I agree that it is a pity to lose useful material, but I have decided to follow Newty's suggestion in the review and have spun off the largest piece of excised material into its own separate article, Early life of L. Ron Hubbard. I will do some more work on this article to develop it more fully (I am using Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., a featured article, as a model). I hope this goes some way to resolving your concerns about losing the material.
L. Ron Hubbard is currently being considered as a candidate for the day's featured article on March 13, 2011, on the centenary of Hubbard's birth - see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#March 13. You may have a view on the matter. Helatrobus ( talk) 00:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Resident, theres a thread at the BLP noticeboard here - seems like a mid point addition might be possible, anyways it would help if you specified any objections there, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia, and I will try to follow the rules you have layed down for me. I have one question...I've heard that many users often get blocked from Wikipedia for reasons I don't really know about. Is it possible for me to get blocked? And if so, how do I avoid it? Thanks! Finallyunderstood ( talk) 00:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
And what if the proposal does not reach 66%. Do we than just return to further discussion? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
{{vacation3}}
And Back The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk / contribs) 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you think you could do a peer review on the Frank Buckles article? I have it at PR but it is really backlogged. If so, please let me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this edit because it was malformed and I had no idea who the master was supposed to be. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to inform that user's sock, also. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering what you would consider a reasonable search for a free image. I usually use FIST, which did not reveal any free images. Are there other resources you would recommend? Gobonobo T C 05:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it was so great to have archived the ANI sub-page. It's not an evidence collection page; there was evidence presented, but also productive discussion and analysis going on, which was relevant to whether arbcom should accept the case. Now there's noplace to continue the discussion other than the arb request page, which isn't all that suitable for it. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 05:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lacunae Expanse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
The Resident Anthropologist
(talk)•(
contribs) 22:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lacunae Expanse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
The Resident Anthropologist
(talk)•(
contribs) 22:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I really hope that's an April Fools Day joke, as I almost blocked you as having your account compromised again... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
...the following seems appropriate! ;) -- can dle • wicke 04:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The Destroyer of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Oh my gosh what did you do now it seems there are monkeys and fish everywhere someone help they a... |
Please don't undo vandalism reverts, especially as you're the one doing the vandalising. I'll remove it again, please don't put it back. Barking Fish 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Ironholds ( talk) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I was very busy and just catching up on stuff. I suggest you leave a request at WT:POLAND, we have many active editors there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
A talkpage stalker? Sounds so evil! I was waiting for a reply to a question I posed on his talk page :) Ajh1492 ( talk) 17:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
ResidentAnthropologist, I think you've misunderstood Tijfo098's evidence about the other Economic history articles. He's not accusing Noleander of anything there at all. Evidence need not only be about Noleander in the arbitration, but can also be about the activities of others who are involved in the mess. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
The Resident Anthropologist
(talk)•(
contribs) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sadly I can see Miradre and his/her projects getting away with it. S/he has obviously a great knowledge of wikipedia politics and communication and a very well-planned strategy of harassing, standing off and tactically retreating. S/he is able to lead her/his struggle on multiple fronts/pages at the same time too. Jagiello ( talk) 02:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar for the 2011 Religion meeting. I hope the meeting proves to be ultimately beneficial. I also very much believe your suggestion, in particular, may prove to perhaps ultimately be the most valuable aspect of it, and want to offer you my own thanks for it. I am very happy to see we do have some active academics here, and am very sincerely grateful for your continued participation. John Carter ( talk) 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so stupid, but answer is 'no'; however...they can pages in any talk namespace - ie "User talk:1.2.3.4/whatever", and of course "Wikipedia talk:/foobaabaz" - and that is the reason why AFC submissions are in "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...whatever" e.g. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia: the Cure? - which was made by an IP.
I could've said this on helpdesk but...well, while it's not exactly BEANS it is close enough to avoid it there. Chzz ► 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey RA, first - thanks for dropping me a note - I did reply by the way. I looked on the WP:SPI page when I saw your note, but didn't see his name there. I'll keep an eye open though. Thanks again. — Ched : ? 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
It appears that in the past, you have had some experiences with User:WLRoss (also known as "Wayne") on the 9/11 terrorist attack articles. I have started a Request for Comment on the conduct of WLRoss here and I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if you can contribute anything regarding your experiencecs. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Thread name goes here. Thank you.— This, that, and the other (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The attack of the JIDF on the JIDF talk page was not a "good faith" edit. It was an attack on the organization. -- 109.123.99.46 ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) is busy in real life . Time normally devoted to Wiki-editing has been reduced, The Resident Anthropologist and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
|
Thanks for notifying me of the article's rapid-fire and manipulative fast-tracking through the AfD process....for the third time, and after two prior attempts failed decisively. People never stop using the rules here to further their own "take" on the spirit of those rules until the desired outcome was reached. I don't really care, I'm no longer active here. All I can say, three months too late, is: "HEY, don't let me or common sense stop you."
But just as a FTR kind of thing, and as the originator of that article.....it was VERY amusing to see people attempting to ascribe to me a desire to smear Putin, when my real intention, one right there in the article Talk for all to see, was to give the edit-warriors and Russophiles/Russophobes an outlet to fight things out that would give the main article a chance to breathe and become a quality BLP article. That will NEVER happen now, as long as Putin lives or the present "consensus" on BLP "criticism" pages holds sway. Per user Sceptre, only .488% of WP articles are rated "featured" or "good", and it's not hard to see why.
But hey: thanks for helping prove my point that WP is quickly becoming an passive-aggressive anarchy behind the guise of well-intentioned rules, and overseen by people whose first allegiance is to those arcane rules, and NOT to the subject matter. This single event does more to further my personal criticisms of WP than anything I've ever seen. Thanks again! Ender78 ( talk) 08:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
He's admitted to it on the ASKE mailing list, so surely we can mention his name? I admit I really need more support on fringe archaeology articles, he does have a point. Dougweller ( talk) 18:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
See the DYK entry at Megalithic Yard - not the first time DYK has been used to push fringe stuff. Dougweller ( talk) 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi ResidentAnthropologist. I noticed that the article that you incubated/adopted had been deleted under code G6 by orangemike and was wondering if you knew this, or if you had gotten too busy to work on the article with me. I have been working on it on my userpage as I had sent you the link for it to look at in comparison with the article that was incubated. If you could kindly let me know if you abandoned the effort or if this was not what you wanted. Not sure how this works on wikipedia. I had thought that these articles were not to be deleted on user pages unless requested but if you decided to abandon it, that's cool, I understand. I will continue to work on the one I put on my userpage and if you have time to look that one over and leave me a message on my talk page about anything, I would appreciate it. Thank you again for your time and effort. Theonelife ( talk) 21:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
— Jess· Δ ♥ 00:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Jolly good. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I doubt there will be consensus for that, but good luck - see how bad it was before I trimmed it to a third in June 2009. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Resident Anthropologist, I’ve seen that you have posted periodically on my talk page and have provided input in a few matters where I’m involved. Could you could assist in an editing matter? I just posted a response regarding an edit I proposed on the David Miscavige page. Could you check into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige#Tom_Cruise_section and provide some input? Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a few questions about anthropology. If you are willing please drop me an email. (This is very loosely wiki related) -- Guerillero | My Talk 02:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Done The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Referring to your recent edit in Cult checklist, what is "non authrative"? How to determine whether a writing is "non authrative"? Do you mean that "non authrative" people cannot support Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Ancos ( talk) 06:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, are you "non authrative"? Ancos ( talk) 06:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, ResidentAnthropologist, for your close of the "Proposal to stub this article" at Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Now you know how I feel. Silver seren C 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm bringing this to your attention because of your role as a neutral/uninvolved view on the Southern Adventist University article. This pov was made because Fountainviewkid canvassed for it. Wouldn't this be gaming the system, and what can be done about it? b W 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
BW has made another controversail revert adding Historic Adventist to the Southern article. This is an extreme description, that generally does not apply to official denominational schools. That is more than 1 RR in 24 hours. Fountainviewkid 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem confrontational. That is not my intention at all. I am simply tired of controversy on what I expected to be a relatively simple task to take to good article, instead, it becomes a battleground for no good reason. I'm also sick of the repeating myself, over and over again, to an editor who doesn't come up with policy arguments and yet keeps insisting on his side. b W 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
b
W has given you a wiki free beer of your choice to wiki drink. This user advises you to not get too wiki-drunk or you could get a wiki-hangover.
It appears that won't be necessary for the moment. Fountainviewkid has been blocked for a week for edit warring. Thank you for your objectivity in approaching this topic. Here's to hoping for an end to the disruption! See Wikipedia:Free beer for more info or give some one a free wiki beer with {{ subst:freebeer}} |
Thanks for starting a discussion at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. You've made a number of assertions in the thread to which I've replied with questions, but you haven't responded with any answers. For example, you write that the article is a coatrack of material from opponents. I've asked you to identify that material and those opponents, but perhaps you missed that question. You've written that some material is irrelevant, but you haven't said which. It'd really help if you could participate more in the discussion to describe your concerns more specifically, since you initiated the proposed move. Will Beback talk 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, ResidentAnthropologist, but I think it is more constructive to stay focused on this particular article with regard to the merits of retaining it on Wikipedia in generally its current form — rather than engaging in tangential debate about various camps involved. I think that is for the best at this point in time. The article had three AFDs, all before I performed any expansion or sourcing work on it — all three failed to get the article disappeared. Two proposals have been proposed on the article's talk page — to either stub the article or merge it and/or make it a daughter article of something else, or indeed, make the article about something else entirely — and consensus from the community of over twenty editors commenting appears to oppose both of those proposals. Best to focus on that for the time being. Thank you for your polite tone during this matter, I really appreciate it, very much, -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You forgot to change the template when you failed it. I changed it now. Moray An Par ( talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
They could use some help over at the Ganas article discussion page -- Campoftheamericas ( talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
After all, ain't no power in the 'verse can stop us; can't stop the signal. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
My wife and I are located in Hillsboro Village and would be happy to give you a ride to the local picnic if you're relatively near us (my address and full contact information are all on my Davis Wiki profile). Plus enough established history and information to establish that we're not axe murderers, even if my Wikipedia history is thin. Leaving a message on my DW profile or the no-account-needed-to-edit GnomeHQ profile will automatically send me a message (or you can just email or call me).
Let me know. Either way, I hope to see you there. Thanks for your work in helping the world of open information.
-- JabberWokky ( talk) 22:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ever been to Chattacon? -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI [2], so nobody else wastes time reading it. Revert if you disagree. Thanks.-- Chaser ( talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As someone who previously Prodded and nominated for AfD this article I wanted to provide notice that I removed the redirect and placed cited information back in the article location. Hasteur ( talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Puffin Lets talk! 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You should have messaged the inactive admins on talk page and by email, and waited a month according to the policy... now stewards have removed the rights of several inactive admins against policy. For that, sir, you deserve one of these:
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
AD 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Smash!
You've been
squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
I just became aware of this, and without adding to the deserved trouting and whaling above, can I point out that the thread on the bureaucrats' noticeboard was started by you, and contains criticism of the actions you took, but has no response from you. Not every will be aware of this trouting thread, so maybe you could post something over there to bring some closure to that? I started a clarification section where I raise this point. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi RA, I noticed the tag you just added to this article, and I'm wondering if it may be because of my additions to the article. I have never read the man's work, and don't know squat about him beyond what's there. I happened upon the AfD, and looked to see if I could find sources about him. I added what seemed relevant, which was mostly, but not entirely, positive. (I had nothing to do with that last section of the article.) So. Suggestions? Ladyof Shalott 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you clarify where the LaRouche related discussion / controversy happened in this round?
I'm trying not to get down in the ugly mess there, but I couldn't remember any of that, and searched LaRouche in both the RFC and its talk page, nothing showed up.
If it's there that's fine, I just wouldn't want to burden a RFAR with everything under the sun if that topic wasn't actually up and going in this round of dispute.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman ( talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am going to bed now all questions related the Request for arbitration can wait till then The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 09:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, your "As We all know the Santorum mess blew up several in the past month" is in need of some editorial attention. Rgds JakeInJoisey ( talk) 17:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Point 8 of your initial statement in the Request for Arbitration - those would be "...accused editors" rather than the unfortunate typo you have made there. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. The use of tags can be valuable, but excessive tagging is a disruption to the encylopedia, as is discussed in WP:TAGBOMB. Out of the several tags on the page, I hope you will at least consider using one omnibus tag to replace the three listed below (emphasis added):
Regards — Eustress talk 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I made reference to you in this comment, so I'm letting you know.-- SPhilbrick T 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
See this Arbcom decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision
In particular, "Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility."
Desist from further incivility as in this edit commentary: [7]
Miradre ( talk) 05:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
RA, looking at the wikilinks you added to your RfAr statement, the third one after point 2 leads to a brief AE discussion in which I wasn't involved. However, two other discussion I was involved in were this one, which I initiated, and this one, where I participated. It probably doesn't matter much, as they're all linked somewhere, but I just happened to notice it. Best wishes. -- J N 466 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You were mentioned in an edit warring report against Miradre: [8] aprock ( talk) 06:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, you removed some church doctrine on the Twelve Tribes article that I had just put up because is wasn't sourced. I added citations and sources to the discussion page of that article but don't want to edit war with you. Could you please restore the info you reverted and help with proper citation? Thanks! 69.245.72.101 ( talk) 04:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to add, thanks for continuing this conversation. I'm enjoying it and look forward to improving the article with you. 69.245.72.101 ( talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing the Chattanooga State Community College article in an effort to add factual, documented information and to remove any language that sounds promotional. Presently, approximately half of the references are college sources and the other half are newspaper, journal, and book references. I heard Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, speak at the American Library Association about the guidelines for editing Wikipedia. She said that they were not as stringent in prohibiting persons working for an organization from editing the Wikipedia article on that organization as long as the article was sourced and neutral in tone.
I have also been working with Wikipedian fetchcomms to try to make the article conform to Wikipedia style and guidelines.
Please review the article again and let me know if it meets with your approval. If so, would you remove the banners at the top of the article? If not, would you let me know what steps are necessary for it to meet with the Wikipedia guidelines?
Thanks so much.
Vicky102510 ( talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Vicky102510 Vicky Leather Dean of Library Services Chattanooga State Community College
I'm positive you know better than to remove a speedy deletion tag on an article you created. What's up with that? Toddst1 ( talk) 22:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I am re-posting my earlier request about the Chattanooga State Community College article. Please let me know if there is something else I should do to improve the article. Thank you.
Vicky102510 ( talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Vicky102510
Perhaps if Eve had had a ladder, she might have avoided the Serpent.... Sorry, couldn't resist. Peridon ( talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you have nominated a number of "...in popular culture" articles for deletion, but you simply moved Latter Day Saints in popular culture to that title. Is there a significant difference between it and the other articles? Will Beback talk 23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Why only notify me of the AFD when nearly all the work was done by User:Jacobisq ? Apart from minor editing, about the only thing I did was start the article by copying and pasting text on narcissistic abuse as written by User:Jacobisq in a temporary home in abuse. Also the notification you sent me was faulty as the link given to the deletion discussion is a redlink. -- Penbat ( talk) 07:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Your wholesale reversion of the substantial edit I did a couple of days ago at L. Ron Hubbard (and which received praise but zero criticism on the talk page) strikes me as unsubstantiated, extremely rude and quite possibly a symptom of WP:OWN. I don't get it--do you have any doubt that my editorial efforts there are in good faith? Why the hostility? -- BTfromLA ( talk) 00:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please could you keep remarks to your own section ("parties")? I do not wish to enter into a threaded discussion with you on the workshop page as it is unhelpful to arbitrators. It's fine on the talk page. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk)
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manipulation of BLPs Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 662 words and 14 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 06:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Please could you remove the header you added as it is difficult to comment at the moment. Also could you please move the comment to the parties section? Otherwise things get messy. BTW I think at the moment the ArbCom case is not about individual editors (eg you or Will Beback), just in case you were worried, but general issues (eg should there be an article for Spriggs?). If you could remove the title and move your addition that would save a clerk doing it. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You make BelloWello, wherever he is probably very proud. That is why he gave you a free beer last time?-- Fountainviewkid ( talk) 03:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Really don't want to risk being pulled into WP again. Edited ages ago, but don't have the time now. If I stay IP, it limits how much I can do. =)
Oops! Sorry about that. The file may be deleted. Thanks for telling me! Pinkstrawberry02 ( talk) 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Resident Anthropologist. I need your assistance on a certain matter -- user 173.167.1.129 has expressed concern over the attribution of claims on the L. Ron Hubbard article. The issue of attributing claims has been discussed on the talk page recently, and there seems to be a group consensus that this issue must be addressed. How do you propose to go about this? Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the decisive action on Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. There were two single-purpose accounts supporting retention of that content, which seems in principle verifiable (though it had no sources). I needed some way of getting some uninvolved editors to join the discussion so it wouldn't become a revert war of me against 2. Can you suggest a better way for the future? Thanks, -- Macrakis ( talk) 23:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing really complicated about it - she just has to make a team of ministers composed from members of the supporting parties and present it to the Queen who then signs it, making her officially prime-minister. There is no risk that she will not become prime-minister at this point, and she has already been congratulated by foreign heads of state. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, ResidentAnthropologist. Please take note of my comment here—I think that's a bad message to send to an inexperienced editor. Best regards, Swarm u / t 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I already provided the context you requested. If you feel it is inadequate and do not have the intention to provide advice on the question, please let me know so that I will take the noticeboard off my watchlist. Thanks -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
sir, the concerned article has been rewritten...please review it once and suggest improvements...thanks..you shall find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp Svechu ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Whoever RA is, screw u. If I wrote anything defammatory about TT it is because I know it to be fact. Wiki is a place for facts not PC bullshit and marketing which is how TT uses wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.190.237 ( talk) 10:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 ( talk) 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi ResidentAnthropologist, Your assistance is requested in resolving a dispute at Falun Gong. I am pinging you because you have some prior exposure to the topic (and NRM in general), but not so much that you have developed a discernible interest that might incline you towards bias. If you have an opportunity, I hope you can read the latest talk page discussion in its entirety, along with the page history from the last few days. Best, Homunculus ( duihua) 05:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, very much, for your kind and positive comments about my recent edits. Regarding Quantumsilverfish ( talk · contribs), yes, I do think this is most likely a throwaway sock account WP:SPA used in an attempt to disrupt and make a Featured Article Candidacy fail. It is most unfortunate and a perversion of the FAC process. -- Cirt ( talk) 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Longevity has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [ • 22:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey RA, perhaps you can help with this as I have gotten zero response from X!. I use the WP:BN/R template on my talkpage with the |left code in place to push it to the left of the screen. This has worked just fine until I just archived my talkpage last time around. When I don't have the code hidden, it is now right and the |left code isn't working. I have looked at the WP:BN/R template (no changes then or now). I looked at User:X!/RfX Report, no changes other than an update from the bot. So I am unsure what would have caused the problem and why it would have happened only when I archived my talkpage.
Would you take a look at the pages and see if something or someone goofed the code that is not allowing |left to work on the code? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear ResidentAnthropologist, thank you very much for your recent comment at BLPN relating to what you described as another user's behavior, "crossing the line here into WP:HOUNDING territory" Also, your statement here: "Cirt has proven to be more than capable of learning and improving from criticism. You very clearly are unable to as I have talked with you twice already on backing off from Cirt. Cut it the next time you turn content dispute into a kangaroo court of Cirt bashing I will take you to WP:AE and seek remedy under the the creation of hostile under the "Editing environment (editors cautioned)" clause." is truly very much appreciated. Thank you so very much, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Jewellery. http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/BritishCanadianAmerican.htm - am I missing something. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to make a constructive edit on Affirmative Action. The statement made was clearly a biased statement and the top of the page indicates weasel words are/have been in use on the page. At the time, I considered editing the statement to make it more reliable but having not read the source material, I was not comfortable in changing the words, so I deleted it and then clicked save forgetting to submit a 'reason' for my edit. I am also a resident anthropologist, so I urge you to please be constructive on Wikipedia as well, even if it means contacting another member/user prior to accusations of vandalism. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calray18 ( talk • contribs) 05:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, also I did take your advice and made an minor edit to help neutralize the unreliable language on the page. Thanks, I'm learning. pls don't delete me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calray18 ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I am curious about this warning. At first I thought the editor had vandalized Church of Scientology again. Looking closer I see the editor hadn't made any more edits since his previous warnings when you issued yours (though he was likely in the process of vandalizing Forever Dusk's user page at the time). Aside from the usual procedure of not continuing to issue warnings without further vandalism; since I had already warned him about the Church of Scientology edit within my welcome template, why would you warn him again for it? — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 00:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize in advance, for obtuseness. I've read "nom, nom, nom" as mocking my efforts to improve the WOP WikiProject, with a prior AE request, an RSN thread, and an MfD nom. Others have counselled me that I've read too much into it.
I appreciate when anyone offers me popcorn, virtual or otherwise. Thanks.
But would you be willing to indicate whether "nom, nom, nom" is meant to be derisive or not? If you would be willing to offer the indication, even if the answer is that you do view my efforts as meriting at least mild derision, would you please do so? I'm not looking to complain to anyone, anywhere, about a personal attack. I'm a smart-ass and some mocking in return comes with the territory. What I'm looking for is a "reality check." If you can help me understand, even if the message is indeed meant to be at least faintly derisive, you'll be doing me a great kindness. I just can't figure out if that's what's happened here or if my skin is becoming waaaay too thin. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care... Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You might wish to pay a bit more attention next time, you stuck your Welcome to the Jungle comment in the middle of another user's comment. I have since moved it for you. Soxwon ( talk) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
talkback:minsainiac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minsainiac ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Frank | talk 00:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the featured article review of L. Ron Hubbard. I agree that it is a pity to lose useful material, but I have decided to follow Newty's suggestion in the review and have spun off the largest piece of excised material into its own separate article, Early life of L. Ron Hubbard. I will do some more work on this article to develop it more fully (I am using Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., a featured article, as a model). I hope this goes some way to resolving your concerns about losing the material.
L. Ron Hubbard is currently being considered as a candidate for the day's featured article on March 13, 2011, on the centenary of Hubbard's birth - see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#March 13. You may have a view on the matter. Helatrobus ( talk) 00:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Resident, theres a thread at the BLP noticeboard here - seems like a mid point addition might be possible, anyways it would help if you specified any objections there, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia, and I will try to follow the rules you have layed down for me. I have one question...I've heard that many users often get blocked from Wikipedia for reasons I don't really know about. Is it possible for me to get blocked? And if so, how do I avoid it? Thanks! Finallyunderstood ( talk) 00:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
And what if the proposal does not reach 66%. Do we than just return to further discussion? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
{{vacation3}}
And Back The Resident Anthropologist ( Talk / contribs) 18:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you think you could do a peer review on the Frank Buckles article? I have it at PR but it is really backlogged. If so, please let me know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this edit because it was malformed and I had no idea who the master was supposed to be. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You might want to inform that user's sock, also. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just wondering what you would consider a reasonable search for a free image. I usually use FIST, which did not reveal any free images. Are there other resources you would recommend? Gobonobo T C 05:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it was so great to have archived the ANI sub-page. It's not an evidence collection page; there was evidence presented, but also productive discussion and analysis going on, which was relevant to whether arbcom should accept the case. Now there's noplace to continue the discussion other than the arb request page, which isn't all that suitable for it. 75.57.242.120 ( talk) 05:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lacunae Expanse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
The Resident Anthropologist
(talk)•(
contribs) 22:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Lacunae Expanse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
The Resident Anthropologist
(talk)•(
contribs) 22:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I really hope that's an April Fools Day joke, as I almost blocked you as having your account compromised again... — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
...the following seems appropriate! ;) -- can dle • wicke 04:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The Destroyer of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
Oh my gosh what did you do now it seems there are monkeys and fish everywhere someone help they a... |
Please don't undo vandalism reverts, especially as you're the one doing the vandalising. I'll remove it again, please don't put it back. Barking Fish 04:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Ironholds ( talk) 01:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I was very busy and just catching up on stuff. I suggest you leave a request at WT:POLAND, we have many active editors there. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
A talkpage stalker? Sounds so evil! I was waiting for a reply to a question I posed on his talk page :) Ajh1492 ( talk) 17:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
ResidentAnthropologist, I think you've misunderstood Tijfo098's evidence about the other Economic history articles. He's not accusing Noleander of anything there at all. Evidence need not only be about Noleander in the arbitration, but can also be about the activities of others who are involved in the mess. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you.
The Resident Anthropologist
(talk)•(
contribs) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sadly I can see Miradre and his/her projects getting away with it. S/he has obviously a great knowledge of wikipedia politics and communication and a very well-planned strategy of harassing, standing off and tactically retreating. S/he is able to lead her/his struggle on multiple fronts/pages at the same time too. Jagiello ( talk) 02:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar for the 2011 Religion meeting. I hope the meeting proves to be ultimately beneficial. I also very much believe your suggestion, in particular, may prove to perhaps ultimately be the most valuable aspect of it, and want to offer you my own thanks for it. I am very happy to see we do have some active academics here, and am very sincerely grateful for your continued participation. John Carter ( talk) 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Not so stupid, but answer is 'no'; however...they can pages in any talk namespace - ie "User talk:1.2.3.4/whatever", and of course "Wikipedia talk:/foobaabaz" - and that is the reason why AFC submissions are in "Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/...whatever" e.g. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia: the Cure? - which was made by an IP.
I could've said this on helpdesk but...well, while it's not exactly BEANS it is close enough to avoid it there. Chzz ► 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey RA, first - thanks for dropping me a note - I did reply by the way. I looked on the WP:SPI page when I saw your note, but didn't see his name there. I'll keep an eye open though. Thanks again. — Ched : ? 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for your work on the September 11 attacks article! MONGO 23:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
It appears that in the past, you have had some experiences with User:WLRoss (also known as "Wayne") on the 9/11 terrorist attack articles. I have started a Request for Comment on the conduct of WLRoss here and I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if you can contribute anything regarding your experiencecs. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Thread name goes here. Thank you.— This, that, and the other (talk) 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The attack of the JIDF on the JIDF talk page was not a "good faith" edit. It was an attack on the organization. -- 109.123.99.46 ( talk) 14:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) is busy in real life . Time normally devoted to Wiki-editing has been reduced, The Resident Anthropologist and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
|
Thanks for notifying me of the article's rapid-fire and manipulative fast-tracking through the AfD process....for the third time, and after two prior attempts failed decisively. People never stop using the rules here to further their own "take" on the spirit of those rules until the desired outcome was reached. I don't really care, I'm no longer active here. All I can say, three months too late, is: "HEY, don't let me or common sense stop you."
But just as a FTR kind of thing, and as the originator of that article.....it was VERY amusing to see people attempting to ascribe to me a desire to smear Putin, when my real intention, one right there in the article Talk for all to see, was to give the edit-warriors and Russophiles/Russophobes an outlet to fight things out that would give the main article a chance to breathe and become a quality BLP article. That will NEVER happen now, as long as Putin lives or the present "consensus" on BLP "criticism" pages holds sway. Per user Sceptre, only .488% of WP articles are rated "featured" or "good", and it's not hard to see why.
But hey: thanks for helping prove my point that WP is quickly becoming an passive-aggressive anarchy behind the guise of well-intentioned rules, and overseen by people whose first allegiance is to those arcane rules, and NOT to the subject matter. This single event does more to further my personal criticisms of WP than anything I've ever seen. Thanks again! Ender78 ( talk) 08:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
He's admitted to it on the ASKE mailing list, so surely we can mention his name? I admit I really need more support on fringe archaeology articles, he does have a point. Dougweller ( talk) 18:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
See the DYK entry at Megalithic Yard - not the first time DYK has been used to push fringe stuff. Dougweller ( talk) 04:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi ResidentAnthropologist. I noticed that the article that you incubated/adopted had been deleted under code G6 by orangemike and was wondering if you knew this, or if you had gotten too busy to work on the article with me. I have been working on it on my userpage as I had sent you the link for it to look at in comparison with the article that was incubated. If you could kindly let me know if you abandoned the effort or if this was not what you wanted. Not sure how this works on wikipedia. I had thought that these articles were not to be deleted on user pages unless requested but if you decided to abandon it, that's cool, I understand. I will continue to work on the one I put on my userpage and if you have time to look that one over and leave me a message on my talk page about anything, I would appreciate it. Thank you again for your time and effort. Theonelife ( talk) 21:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
— Jess· Δ ♥ 00:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Jolly good. :) ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I doubt there will be consensus for that, but good luck - see how bad it was before I trimmed it to a third in June 2009. Off2riorob ( talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Resident Anthropologist, I’ve seen that you have posted periodically on my talk page and have provided input in a few matters where I’m involved. Could you could assist in an editing matter? I just posted a response regarding an edit I proposed on the David Miscavige page. Could you check into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Miscavige#Tom_Cruise_section and provide some input? Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a few questions about anthropology. If you are willing please drop me an email. (This is very loosely wiki related) -- Guerillero | My Talk 02:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Done The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 00:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Referring to your recent edit in Cult checklist, what is "non authrative"? How to determine whether a writing is "non authrative"? Do you mean that "non authrative" people cannot support Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Ancos ( talk) 06:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, are you "non authrative"? Ancos ( talk) 06:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, ResidentAnthropologist, for your close of the "Proposal to stub this article" at Santorum (neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Now you know how I feel. Silver seren C 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm bringing this to your attention because of your role as a neutral/uninvolved view on the Southern Adventist University article. This pov was made because Fountainviewkid canvassed for it. Wouldn't this be gaming the system, and what can be done about it? b W 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
BW has made another controversail revert adding Historic Adventist to the Southern article. This is an extreme description, that generally does not apply to official denominational schools. That is more than 1 RR in 24 hours. Fountainviewkid 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I seem confrontational. That is not my intention at all. I am simply tired of controversy on what I expected to be a relatively simple task to take to good article, instead, it becomes a battleground for no good reason. I'm also sick of the repeating myself, over and over again, to an editor who doesn't come up with policy arguments and yet keeps insisting on his side. b W 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
b
W has given you a wiki free beer of your choice to wiki drink. This user advises you to not get too wiki-drunk or you could get a wiki-hangover.
It appears that won't be necessary for the moment. Fountainviewkid has been blocked for a week for edit warring. Thank you for your objectivity in approaching this topic. Here's to hoping for an end to the disruption! See Wikipedia:Free beer for more info or give some one a free wiki beer with {{ subst:freebeer}} |
Thanks for starting a discussion at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement. You've made a number of assertions in the thread to which I've replied with questions, but you haven't responded with any answers. For example, you write that the article is a coatrack of material from opponents. I've asked you to identify that material and those opponents, but perhaps you missed that question. You've written that some material is irrelevant, but you haven't said which. It'd really help if you could participate more in the discussion to describe your concerns more specifically, since you initiated the proposed move. Will Beback talk 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, ResidentAnthropologist, but I think it is more constructive to stay focused on this particular article with regard to the merits of retaining it on Wikipedia in generally its current form — rather than engaging in tangential debate about various camps involved. I think that is for the best at this point in time. The article had three AFDs, all before I performed any expansion or sourcing work on it — all three failed to get the article disappeared. Two proposals have been proposed on the article's talk page — to either stub the article or merge it and/or make it a daughter article of something else, or indeed, make the article about something else entirely — and consensus from the community of over twenty editors commenting appears to oppose both of those proposals. Best to focus on that for the time being. Thank you for your polite tone during this matter, I really appreciate it, very much, -- Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
You forgot to change the template when you failed it. I changed it now. Moray An Par ( talk) 08:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
They could use some help over at the Ganas article discussion page -- Campoftheamericas ( talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
After all, ain't no power in the 'verse can stop us; can't stop the signal. -- Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
My wife and I are located in Hillsboro Village and would be happy to give you a ride to the local picnic if you're relatively near us (my address and full contact information are all on my Davis Wiki profile). Plus enough established history and information to establish that we're not axe murderers, even if my Wikipedia history is thin. Leaving a message on my DW profile or the no-account-needed-to-edit GnomeHQ profile will automatically send me a message (or you can just email or call me).
Let me know. Either way, I hope to see you there. Thanks for your work in helping the world of open information.
-- JabberWokky ( talk) 22:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Ever been to Chattacon? -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI [2], so nobody else wastes time reading it. Revert if you disagree. Thanks.-- Chaser ( talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
As someone who previously Prodded and nominated for AfD this article I wanted to provide notice that I removed the redirect and placed cited information back in the article location. Hasteur ( talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Puffin Lets talk! 16:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You should have messaged the inactive admins on talk page and by email, and waited a month according to the policy... now stewards have removed the rights of several inactive admins against policy. For that, sir, you deserve one of these:
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
AD 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Smash!
You've been
squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
I just became aware of this, and without adding to the deserved trouting and whaling above, can I point out that the thread on the bureaucrats' noticeboard was started by you, and contains criticism of the actions you took, but has no response from you. Not every will be aware of this trouting thread, so maybe you could post something over there to bring some closure to that? I started a clarification section where I raise this point. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi RA, I noticed the tag you just added to this article, and I'm wondering if it may be because of my additions to the article. I have never read the man's work, and don't know squat about him beyond what's there. I happened upon the AfD, and looked to see if I could find sources about him. I added what seemed relevant, which was mostly, but not entirely, positive. (I had nothing to do with that last section of the article.) So. Suggestions? Ladyof Shalott 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you clarify where the LaRouche related discussion / controversy happened in this round?
I'm trying not to get down in the ugly mess there, but I couldn't remember any of that, and searched LaRouche in both the RFC and its talk page, nothing showed up.
If it's there that's fine, I just wouldn't want to burden a RFAR with everything under the sun if that topic wasn't actually up and going in this round of dispute.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 07:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Please take my name off your list of "involved parties". I'm not a party to any of your disputes involving cults, Larouche, transcendental meditation or anything else. Commenting on the evidence presented in the RfC/U does not make me a party to your own disputes - I don't think it's fair or reasonable to rope everyone who participated in the RfC into an arbitration case that I want no part of. Prioryman ( talk) 09:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I am going to bed now all questions related the Request for arbitration can wait till then The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 09:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, your "As We all know the Santorum mess blew up several in the past month" is in need of some editorial attention. Rgds JakeInJoisey ( talk) 17:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Point 8 of your initial statement in the Request for Arbitration - those would be "...accused editors" rather than the unfortunate typo you have made there. Cheers, LessHeard vanU ( talk) 18:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. The use of tags can be valuable, but excessive tagging is a disruption to the encylopedia, as is discussed in WP:TAGBOMB. Out of the several tags on the page, I hope you will at least consider using one omnibus tag to replace the three listed below (emphasis added):
Regards — Eustress talk 23:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I made reference to you in this comment, so I'm letting you know.-- SPhilbrick T 12:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
See this Arbcom decision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision
In particular, "Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility."
Desist from further incivility as in this edit commentary: [7]
Miradre ( talk) 05:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
RA, looking at the wikilinks you added to your RfAr statement, the third one after point 2 leads to a brief AE discussion in which I wasn't involved. However, two other discussion I was involved in were this one, which I initiated, and this one, where I participated. It probably doesn't matter much, as they're all linked somewhere, but I just happened to notice it. Best wishes. -- J N 466 23:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
You were mentioned in an edit warring report against Miradre: [8] aprock ( talk) 06:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hiya, you removed some church doctrine on the Twelve Tribes article that I had just put up because is wasn't sourced. I added citations and sources to the discussion page of that article but don't want to edit war with you. Could you please restore the info you reverted and help with proper citation? Thanks! 69.245.72.101 ( talk) 04:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to add, thanks for continuing this conversation. I'm enjoying it and look forward to improving the article with you. 69.245.72.101 ( talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I have been editing the Chattanooga State Community College article in an effort to add factual, documented information and to remove any language that sounds promotional. Presently, approximately half of the references are college sources and the other half are newspaper, journal, and book references. I heard Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, speak at the American Library Association about the guidelines for editing Wikipedia. She said that they were not as stringent in prohibiting persons working for an organization from editing the Wikipedia article on that organization as long as the article was sourced and neutral in tone.
I have also been working with Wikipedian fetchcomms to try to make the article conform to Wikipedia style and guidelines.
Please review the article again and let me know if it meets with your approval. If so, would you remove the banners at the top of the article? If not, would you let me know what steps are necessary for it to meet with the Wikipedia guidelines?
Thanks so much.
Vicky102510 ( talk) 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Vicky102510 Vicky Leather Dean of Library Services Chattanooga State Community College
I'm positive you know better than to remove a speedy deletion tag on an article you created. What's up with that? Toddst1 ( talk) 22:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I am re-posting my earlier request about the Chattanooga State Community College article. Please let me know if there is something else I should do to improve the article. Thank you.
Vicky102510 ( talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Vicky102510
Perhaps if Eve had had a ladder, she might have avoided the Serpent.... Sorry, couldn't resist. Peridon ( talk) 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you have nominated a number of "...in popular culture" articles for deletion, but you simply moved Latter Day Saints in popular culture to that title. Is there a significant difference between it and the other articles? Will Beback talk 23:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Why only notify me of the AFD when nearly all the work was done by User:Jacobisq ? Apart from minor editing, about the only thing I did was start the article by copying and pasting text on narcissistic abuse as written by User:Jacobisq in a temporary home in abuse. Also the notification you sent me was faulty as the link given to the deletion discussion is a redlink. -- Penbat ( talk) 07:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW ( Talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Your wholesale reversion of the substantial edit I did a couple of days ago at L. Ron Hubbard (and which received praise but zero criticism on the talk page) strikes me as unsubstantiated, extremely rude and quite possibly a symptom of WP:OWN. I don't get it--do you have any doubt that my editorial efforts there are in good faith? Why the hostility? -- BTfromLA ( talk) 00:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please could you keep remarks to your own section ("parties")? I do not wish to enter into a threaded discussion with you on the workshop page as it is unhelpful to arbitrators. It's fine on the talk page. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk)
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manipulation of BLPs Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 662 words and 14 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ArbClerkBOT( talk) 06:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Please could you remove the header you added as it is difficult to comment at the moment. Also could you please move the comment to the parties section? Otherwise things get messy. BTW I think at the moment the ArbCom case is not about individual editors (eg you or Will Beback), just in case you were worried, but general issues (eg should there be an article for Spriggs?). If you could remove the title and move your addition that would save a clerk doing it. Thanks, Mathsci ( talk) 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You make BelloWello, wherever he is probably very proud. That is why he gave you a free beer last time?-- Fountainviewkid ( talk) 03:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Really don't want to risk being pulled into WP again. Edited ages ago, but don't have the time now. If I stay IP, it limits how much I can do. =)
Oops! Sorry about that. The file may be deleted. Thanks for telling me! Pinkstrawberry02 ( talk) 19:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Resident Anthropologist. I need your assistance on a certain matter -- user 173.167.1.129 has expressed concern over the attribution of claims on the L. Ron Hubbard article. The issue of attributing claims has been discussed on the talk page recently, and there seems to be a group consensus that this issue must be addressed. How do you propose to go about this? Thanks. NestleNW911 ( talk) 22:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the decisive action on Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. There were two single-purpose accounts supporting retention of that content, which seems in principle verifiable (though it had no sources). I needed some way of getting some uninvolved editors to join the discussion so it wouldn't become a revert war of me against 2. Can you suggest a better way for the future? Thanks, -- Macrakis ( talk) 23:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing really complicated about it - she just has to make a team of ministers composed from members of the supporting parties and present it to the Queen who then signs it, making her officially prime-minister. There is no risk that she will not become prime-minister at this point, and she has already been congratulated by foreign heads of state. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 01:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, ResidentAnthropologist. Please take note of my comment here—I think that's a bad message to send to an inexperienced editor. Best regards, Swarm u / t 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I already provided the context you requested. If you feel it is inadequate and do not have the intention to provide advice on the question, please let me know so that I will take the noticeboard off my watchlist. Thanks -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
sir, the concerned article has been rewritten...please review it once and suggest improvements...thanks..you shall find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp Svechu ( talk) 08:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Whoever RA is, screw u. If I wrote anything defammatory about TT it is because I know it to be fact. Wiki is a place for facts not PC bullshit and marketing which is how TT uses wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.190.237 ( talk) 10:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new religious movements BigJim707 ( talk) 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi ResidentAnthropologist, Your assistance is requested in resolving a dispute at Falun Gong. I am pinging you because you have some prior exposure to the topic (and NRM in general), but not so much that you have developed a discernible interest that might incline you towards bias. If you have an opportunity, I hope you can read the latest talk page discussion in its entirety, along with the page history from the last few days. Best, Homunculus ( duihua) 05:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)