Thanks. May the new year bring you good things! • Astynax ^talk 00:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a request for clarification in which you are named here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Landmark_Worldwide.2FR6_Additional_eyes_invited DaveApter ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DaveApter ( talk) 11:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but we cannot actively mislead our audience by claiming conspiracy theories support changing historical documents to how we think they should be. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a courtesy message to inform you that an arbitration clarification request in which you were listed as a party has been closed and archived with a motion being enacted which authorises standard discretionary sanctions for the topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this removal. Of course CEO is not Chairman... bleary-eyed edit on my part. Cheers, Tgeairn ( talk) 16:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Landmark Worldwide, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Apologies for this bureaucratic silliness, but according to the labyrinthine WP:AC/DS system you aren't "alerted". Which doesn't make sense because you were part of the arbitration case, but bureaucracies seldom make sense. Manul ~ talk 01:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I did notice a notice posted on a couple of talk pages, but didn't know whether some other notice was required. • Astynax ^talk 08:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! With this edit you removed both the notability tag and the 3rd party sources tag. While I disagree with the removal of the notability tag, let's leave it off if we can get some unrelated sources there. I've re-tagged for the 3rd party sources, and I'll take a look for some over the weekend. From your edit comment, it sounds like you know something about her though. Do you have any sources to add as well? Thanks, Tgeairn ( talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Had you bothered to look, you would have easily found multiple references. You obviously tagged before doing any such thing, even after I added a newspaper account. This sort of drive-by tagging without making any effort to locate or look at the referencing regarding an article's subject is a very poor way basis on which to begin Afd processes, particularly for shorter articles. How many other articles have been deleted on this inappropriate basis? Please take more care in future. • Astynax ^talk 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the addition of the newspaper article. There is no requirement to look at anything other than the article before tagging. WP:BEFORE applies to AfD. As far as Ms Warburg, I didn't see anything in a quick search that met WP:ACADEMIC (a couple very lightly cited book collaborations, a few barely cited articles, the usual non-RS websites, social media, etc). I still don't. That doesn't mean that sources don't exist though, and you seem pretty confident that they do. Maybe in another language? -- Tgeairn ( talk) 19:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margit Warburg until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tgeairn ( talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Landmark Worldwide". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 February 2015.

The 
request for formal mediation concerning Landmark Worldwide, to which you were listed as a party, has been 
declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 
mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 
Chairman of the Committee, or to the 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

You are the subject of a request for enforcement from the Arbitration Committee. You can see this at the Request for Enforcement page and you can enter a statement and other evidence to the Arbitration Committee there. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration. Thank you. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 17:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a child on the Main page, - don't remember any, - precious again, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Astynax. Do you participate at all at pt:? Do you know anyone who does? I'm interested in how they handle admin tasks. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know many other topics, other than at times pseudoscience, Israel-Palestine, and a few others, that get sent to AE so often as Landmark. Three times in the past two months, so far as I can tell, and it looks like none of them are found to have any significant merit to them. If there were any evidence of cooperation between the three individuals who have filed those AE requests, that might not unreasonably be seen as basis for AE action on its own. And some of the comments I've seen elsewhere regarding this matter in the past month or so give me real reason to think that, maybe, you or some of the others who have been kind of targeted in the recent AE's might not find it unreasonable to start expressing your own concerns. In fact, from what I can remember, in the second in the string of recent AE's one of the uninvolved administrators more or less specifically indicated that there was at least sufficient verbiage to raise what would be basically a BOOMERANG complaint against the filer of that complaint. And, yes, some of the other comments I've seen recently, although I am clearly not in a position to confirm or deny them, as they apparently deal with sensitive matters I'm not privy to, give me reason to think that there might be very good reason to raise concerns at AE or, maybe, if they might extend beyond Landmark per se a little, to ANI. Is there any particular reason you haven't field any complaints yet? John Carter ( talk) 19:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any robust method for addressing POV advocacy cases through dispute resolution, as it entails looking at content. Similarly, even after an arbitrator said that COI cases should be taken to COIN, the request was booted right back to ANI, where evidently no one was willing to look into it. This is quite discouraging. I will try again when I have a bit of time, even though this is starting to seem like a huge waste of time to do anything to correct what is blatantly advocacy. Even though many people are aware that there is a serious problem on the topic, almost nothing has been done to correct. It is very curious that ensuring that the presentation of accurate content which reflects reliable sources seems to be less valued than (some) editor behavior by many here—odd for an encyclopedia. • Astynax ^talk 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As a result of this AE request, I have fully protected the article Landmark Worldwide for one month to allow time for disputes to be worked out without edit-warring and other disruption. Further, you are warned not to cast aspersions, not to make accusations about editors outside of the proper fora, and to critique edits and content rather than editors and their motives. I strongly suggest you avoid Tgeairn beyond participating in talk page discussions. I will be giving him a similar warning, and you can request enforcement of that at AE, but note that enforcement can also be requested against you should you fail to adhere to the expected standards of conduct. It is my impression that admins' patience with this dispute is wearing thin, and that liberal use of topic bans is a likely result, should the measures taken today prove ineffective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you might be in a position to contribute, if you choose to do so, some behavioral evidence or other input at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tgeairn. Please feel free to do so if you so desire. John Carter ( talk) 19:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a related incident that should be relevant. • Astynax ^talk 22:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you have flat-out lied about what Callanecc said and completely omitted that you attempted to raise this same argument at WP:AE only to end up with a warning yourself and NO finding of puppetry or anything else. Cailil and Harry both warned you (and John) to stop - and yet you have continued to make unfounded accusations. -- Tgeairn ( talk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Astynax, I believe the above statement unequivocally constitutes a direct personal attack as per WP:NPA, particulary the "flat-out lied" part. I believe you may be interested in contacting an AE admin and seeing if such are considered actionable on their own. John Carter ( talk) 23:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Good news: I finished Rosas article. Sorry for taking so long. I have less and less time available. Of course, most of the blame is simply because I feel no pleasure writing for Wikipedia anymore. Hope you can take a look at the article and improve it. I plan to add further sources, but the text is all done. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I will try to look at it tomorrow. Yes, less and less time is a problem and gets worse with every year. I had a few small additions that I was going to add from Shumway's book, but I also put it aside because of time. It is good that this will be finished! • Astynax ^talk 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Done for good there. I added more references. -- Lecen ( talk) 20:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Great! I will reserve the small additions I had until after the FAC. • Astynax ^talk 04:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually started an essay, intended to deal with editors other than any involved in this current situation, at User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet. It is still only just a rough draft, but I think it might be useful to change it and particularly take into account any possible questions of solipsistic editors, which I tend to think, in various ways, might be among our biggest problems. Maybe it could be made some sort of addendum or alternate page to WP:EXPERT as well as WP:SPA and or WP:POV. Anyway, feel free to make any changes to it you deem reasonable to make it more useful as an essay. John Carter ( talk) 15:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Astynax,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB ( talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)