Wikipedia needs experts. I do hope you'll be willing to contribute. Feel free to post messages to my talk page, for example if you have any questions about how to do things on Wikipedia. Or just to say hi. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the following WP statement about attempted outing really mean anything in Wikipedia?
"Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 04:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
How about this one?
"Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. '''Off-wiki harassment''' can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop. You are not eligible, as you have been notified. We are alerted every time you vote, and we will remove them as we have to. Regards, — neuro (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you have added four more votes to ArbCom candidacy pages today, after being made aware of them several times and being offered the opportunity to comment by making indented votes, I am forced to assume that you will not consent to following the election policies put into place regardless of how many times we ask nicely. Therefore, this will be your final advisory, from me at least, about the policies. You are not permitted to make votes to these pages. The policy is not clear this year on whether users are allowed to comment, so I'm offering the benefit of the doubt by indenting votes rather than removing them. Thus far, your votes have been indented by other users, wasting a significant amount of their time. If you wish to make any further comments in support or opposition to ArbCom candidacies, please prefix them with a "#:", rather than a "#", so as not to affect the numbering and to make it obvious that you wish to comment. If you fail to do so and continue to circumvent election policy, you may be blocked or topic-banned from the election subpages for the remaining duration of the election. ST47 ( talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Followup: I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Eligibility_of_Mervyn_Emrys. Please advise of questions or concerns. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Your votes have been reinstated following Lar's CheckUser results. -- Tznkai ( talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [1] [2]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source concerning the organizations finances. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That was supposed to be "Let's be fair now, this is sourced". Sorry about the delay, I've had some real world things taking up more of my time than usual the last few days. I see your point about concerns about the SPLC's business conduct more properly belonging on the SPLC's page on not on the page of the fellow that runs it. At the same time wouldn't you agree that since this is, as far as I know, his life's work it is worthy of mention. How would you feel about a sentence along the lines of "At times, the SPLC has been criticized for what some perceive as financial impropriety"? In the vein of making the article more concise, and this would be your call, it looks like there is enough material to make a separate article out of the Morris Dees Justice Award. Also, as I look over the article, I'd like to expresse my concerns regarding the sentence "in this respect Dees was apparently successful, because those candidates were rejected by voting members." If Dees came in 16th out of 17 candidates do we really know if he was responsible for those other 3 not getting elected? Did the head of the SPLC really draw votes away from immigration reform activists? - Schrandit ( talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Thanks for the layout work on Southern Poverty Law Center. Its much cleaner and no longer a jumbled mess! Thanks for sticking your neck out in a hot topic and helping improve the article! ```` 198.70.210.143 ( talk) 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for your feed back, and sorry for the mess. Because two things were not correct here, I assumed the third was incorrect as well. My mistake. I hope you and me can find some time to express Eastons importance in the aricle some more. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on this article. I've put it through as GA. Cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It's all good. Schwael ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mervyn Emrys - I've been popping in on the Wengert article. There is one remaining claim that I think should be independently sourced: the sentence that begins "These publications were eclipsed somewhat later in his career when he advanced a seminal theory of the 'politics of getting'..." What would be needed is a citation that supports this being described as a seminal theory and/or one that eclipsed his earlier contributions. DO you think you can come up with something on that? If you can, I would feel this was almost all of the way there for GA and you could re-submit it (if you're game! :-)) If you're ready to have a shot at that, we should get User:Coppertwig to have a look and see what s/he thinks, too. Cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mervyn Emrys. You had asked me a question a few days ago and I don't think I answered yet. The answer is that in my opinion, the reviewer indicated that the only things essential for GA review were the things mentioned in the sentence at the end with the word "decisive" in it. I.e. nothing about details like punctuation, just a couple of content issues. By the way I did go to the library on the weekend and looked for material, but didn't find much. I got a copy of a biography from a database called something like "Academics Online" or something (I don't have it with me right now) which mostly lists a bunch of the positions he held at various times. Plus one sentence mentioning him in a review of a book by someone else. I searched the articles on the New York Times obituary pages for about 9 days after he died and didn't find anything. (I didn't look at the little notices, just the articles.) I've renamed the page to Norman Wengert; his son has a different name so I don't see any good reason to object. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Good concise summary of WP:NPOV – here. Thanks for helping other users learn one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind that I was looking at your contribs: I was looking for a particular comment, but found this instead. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been assuming your username is an alternate spelling of Mary Stewart's Merlin character, named "Myrddin Emrys". Is this where you got it, or was there another source? Just curious...-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The following four paragraphs quote from WP:NPOV. The first sentence of the article University of Maine does not conform to this standard.
The preceding material is presented here for any who may have overlooked its significance in the current discussion. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mervyn, I applaud your work on making Wikipedia more factual. I have no real working knowledge of Wikipedia so I hope you could keep an eye on Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, John Tanton and Southern Poverty Law Center entries. Diversity of citations is seriously lacking, especially on the first three, and I don't have anywhere near the wikiprowess to get them where they need to be. If you need articles or reports about any of these sources, will be glad to help out. -- TheSilverRiver ( talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
An IP from the UMaine Physics Department posted on Talk:University of Maine claiming that you had a particular basis for your opinion on the flagship discussion. Whether what he posted was accurate or not, it's a violation of WP:OUTING, and I have deleted those revisions and informed the user that further attempts at WP:OUTING would result in a block.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I inserted "referred to as" before "the flagship" on three university pages: [4] [5] [6]. I figure I'll wait a bit to see if there's any reaction before doing some more. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mervyn, can you have a look at Talk:High-level_radioactive_waste_management ? thanks Mion ( talk) 22:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to
User talk:Larry Sanger. While
objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Our policy at
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is quite clear: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This applies to talk page discussions. Wikipedia is not for advocacy or opinion pieces. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 19:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I have had enough of your insults.
[7]
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make
personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
(The following was copied from my talk page. It is silly to have the same conversation in two places.) --
Guy Macon (
talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
What is your problem??? Are you a cop now "protecting" Sanger from discussion of a proposal you don't like? If I wanted your comments I would have posted here, but I'm not seeking your comments, am I. Is it your personal crusade to prevent communication on Wikipedia? Right now you are about two key strokes from a serious complaint about your actions. Leave it alone, will ya? And don't refer to me as a vandal again or we'll go to the Arb Com. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 19:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stay off of my talk page. You are not welcome there. I have this page on my watchlist and will see any replies posted here. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon, Brain Police. I like it. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I see Wikipedia has an article about Julian Assange. In what sense is that article not "promotional?" Isn't the fact Wikipedia has an article about him promoting his view of the world? Oh, and isn't he wanted in the US for criminal espionage, publishing secret State Department cables and the like? Why is it not promotional to promote Julian Assange, but promotional to make a simple proposal on a talk page and ask for comments? Aren't you (and perhaps Wikipedia too) using a double standard in this regard? Fact is WP is promoting Julain Assange, his ideas and his actions by publishing an article about him. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 07:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox 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.
Guy Macon (
talk) 15:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Your proposal:
Is despicable. Just reading it makes me want to take a bath in bleach. We live in a time when a member of team red sent bombs to a bunch of people on team blue, and a member of team blue tried to murder everyone from team red at a baseball game, and you want to compile a hit list so that these deranged freaks can target people because of where they work or what political party they belong to? have you no shame? You disgust me. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia. A complaint was filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about your behavior. I was hoping that maybe I could de-escalate the situation a bit. Wikipedia is generally the wrong place to raise important issues. As an encyclopedia, we can document issues that reliable sources consider important, but we ourselves don't engage in activism. We also have to be careful of defamatory content, such as claims designed to " name and shame". This is because of two key policies: maintaining a neutral point of view and biographies of living people. If a newspaper article reports that a prominent organization has criticized someone's behavior, we can report this; however, we can't single this person out for criticism ourselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or place to promote other projects, which means that you want to do this, you'll need to do it on a different website. Generally, I don't think there's a problem with asking Jimbo Wales about his opinions on stuff – he seems pretty open to this – but it might be better if you did this via email. It will avoid giving people the impression that you're here only to engage in activism or promote a project. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 09:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Acid Rain Retirement Fund is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Rain Retirement Fund until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. — JFG talk 10:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
With reference to your comment here [17], do note in accordance to the WP:terms of use and the notice on every edit window, any text you own the copyright for which you contribute anywhere on en.wikipedia needs to be dual licenced under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licences. There is no exception for your sandbox or any other page, nor for weird definitions of publish. Also while we do allow slightly more discretion in content on sandboxes and people will normally leave them alone if you are using them in a reasonable way to try and improve wikipedia, all our policies and guidelines like WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP and content on them which violate such policies may be removed. If you want to publish your work without having to licence them under those two licences and without needing to comply with our policies and guidelines, you should do so somewhere that's allowed. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
"Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:Civility: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates...Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit other people's talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. This includes inserting your own comments, signed or unsigned, in the middle of other people's comments. See WP:TPOC and WP:INTERSPERSE. (You are free to delete other people's comments from your own talk page, but you are not allowed to them.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I have not intentionally edited any of your edits here, preferring to allow them to speak for themselves. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
; edited ~~~~~
(note that's five tildes not four) to one's signature, per WP:REDACT. However the best course of action in a contentious discussion is obviously to always add one's new point as a new reply in the discussion rather than to append to an old post. Softlavender ( talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I regret to inform you that per the community's consensus at AN/I, you have been blocked indefinitely. You are free to appeal this block if you think you can adequately address and voluntarily resolve the issues associated with your editing. For information on requesting an unblock, please see WP:GAB. It has been suggested that you should perhaps wait six months and request the standard offer as well, which you might want to consider. Regards, Swarm talk 01:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs experts. I do hope you'll be willing to contribute. Feel free to post messages to my talk page, for example if you have any questions about how to do things on Wikipedia. Or just to say hi. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Does the following WP statement about attempted outing really mean anything in Wikipedia?
"Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 04:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
How about this one?
"Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. '''Off-wiki harassment''' can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop. You are not eligible, as you have been notified. We are alerted every time you vote, and we will remove them as we have to. Regards, — neuro (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Since you have added four more votes to ArbCom candidacy pages today, after being made aware of them several times and being offered the opportunity to comment by making indented votes, I am forced to assume that you will not consent to following the election policies put into place regardless of how many times we ask nicely. Therefore, this will be your final advisory, from me at least, about the policies. You are not permitted to make votes to these pages. The policy is not clear this year on whether users are allowed to comment, so I'm offering the benefit of the doubt by indenting votes rather than removing them. Thus far, your votes have been indented by other users, wasting a significant amount of their time. If you wish to make any further comments in support or opposition to ArbCom candidacies, please prefix them with a "#:", rather than a "#", so as not to affect the numbering and to make it obvious that you wish to comment. If you fail to do so and continue to circumvent election policy, you may be blocked or topic-banned from the election subpages for the remaining duration of the election. ST47 ( talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Followup: I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Eligibility_of_Mervyn_Emrys. Please advise of questions or concerns. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Your votes have been reinstated following Lar's CheckUser results. -- Tznkai ( talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [1] [2]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source concerning the organizations finances. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
That was supposed to be "Let's be fair now, this is sourced". Sorry about the delay, I've had some real world things taking up more of my time than usual the last few days. I see your point about concerns about the SPLC's business conduct more properly belonging on the SPLC's page on not on the page of the fellow that runs it. At the same time wouldn't you agree that since this is, as far as I know, his life's work it is worthy of mention. How would you feel about a sentence along the lines of "At times, the SPLC has been criticized for what some perceive as financial impropriety"? In the vein of making the article more concise, and this would be your call, it looks like there is enough material to make a separate article out of the Morris Dees Justice Award. Also, as I look over the article, I'd like to expresse my concerns regarding the sentence "in this respect Dees was apparently successful, because those candidates were rejected by voting members." If Dees came in 16th out of 17 candidates do we really know if he was responsible for those other 3 not getting elected? Did the head of the SPLC really draw votes away from immigration reform activists? - Schrandit ( talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The Modest Barnstar | ||
Thanks for the layout work on Southern Poverty Law Center. Its much cleaner and no longer a jumbled mess! Thanks for sticking your neck out in a hot topic and helping improve the article! ```` 198.70.210.143 ( talk) 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks for your feed back, and sorry for the mess. Because two things were not correct here, I assumed the third was incorrect as well. My mistake. I hope you and me can find some time to express Eastons importance in the aricle some more. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on this article. I've put it through as GA. Cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It's all good. Schwael ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mervyn Emrys - I've been popping in on the Wengert article. There is one remaining claim that I think should be independently sourced: the sentence that begins "These publications were eclipsed somewhat later in his career when he advanced a seminal theory of the 'politics of getting'..." What would be needed is a citation that supports this being described as a seminal theory and/or one that eclipsed his earlier contributions. DO you think you can come up with something on that? If you can, I would feel this was almost all of the way there for GA and you could re-submit it (if you're game! :-)) If you're ready to have a shot at that, we should get User:Coppertwig to have a look and see what s/he thinks, too. Cheers. hamiltonstone ( talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mervyn Emrys. You had asked me a question a few days ago and I don't think I answered yet. The answer is that in my opinion, the reviewer indicated that the only things essential for GA review were the things mentioned in the sentence at the end with the word "decisive" in it. I.e. nothing about details like punctuation, just a couple of content issues. By the way I did go to the library on the weekend and looked for material, but didn't find much. I got a copy of a biography from a database called something like "Academics Online" or something (I don't have it with me right now) which mostly lists a bunch of the positions he held at various times. Plus one sentence mentioning him in a review of a book by someone else. I searched the articles on the New York Times obituary pages for about 9 days after he died and didn't find anything. (I didn't look at the little notices, just the articles.) I've renamed the page to Norman Wengert; his son has a different name so I don't see any good reason to object. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Good concise summary of WP:NPOV – here. Thanks for helping other users learn one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind that I was looking at your contribs: I was looking for a particular comment, but found this instead. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been assuming your username is an alternate spelling of Mary Stewart's Merlin character, named "Myrddin Emrys". Is this where you got it, or was there another source? Just curious...-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The following four paragraphs quote from WP:NPOV. The first sentence of the article University of Maine does not conform to this standard.
The preceding material is presented here for any who may have overlooked its significance in the current discussion. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mervyn, I applaud your work on making Wikipedia more factual. I have no real working knowledge of Wikipedia so I hope you could keep an eye on Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, John Tanton and Southern Poverty Law Center entries. Diversity of citations is seriously lacking, especially on the first three, and I don't have anywhere near the wikiprowess to get them where they need to be. If you need articles or reports about any of these sources, will be glad to help out. -- TheSilverRiver ( talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
An IP from the UMaine Physics Department posted on Talk:University of Maine claiming that you had a particular basis for your opinion on the flagship discussion. Whether what he posted was accurate or not, it's a violation of WP:OUTING, and I have deleted those revisions and informed the user that further attempts at WP:OUTING would result in a block.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I inserted "referred to as" before "the flagship" on three university pages: [4] [5] [6]. I figure I'll wait a bit to see if there's any reaction before doing some more. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mervyn, can you have a look at Talk:High-level_radioactive_waste_management ? thanks Mion ( talk) 22:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to
User talk:Larry Sanger. While
objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be
a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Our policy at
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is quite clear: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This applies to talk page discussions. Wikipedia is not for advocacy or opinion pieces. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 19:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I have had enough of your insults.
[7]
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make
personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.
(The following was copied from my talk page. It is silly to have the same conversation in two places.) --
Guy Macon (
talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
What is your problem??? Are you a cop now "protecting" Sanger from discussion of a proposal you don't like? If I wanted your comments I would have posted here, but I'm not seeking your comments, am I. Is it your personal crusade to prevent communication on Wikipedia? Right now you are about two key strokes from a serious complaint about your actions. Leave it alone, will ya? And don't refer to me as a vandal again or we'll go to the Arb Com. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 19:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stay off of my talk page. You are not welcome there. I have this page on my watchlist and will see any replies posted here. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon, Brain Police. I like it. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I see Wikipedia has an article about Julian Assange. In what sense is that article not "promotional?" Isn't the fact Wikipedia has an article about him promoting his view of the world? Oh, and isn't he wanted in the US for criminal espionage, publishing secret State Department cables and the like? Why is it not promotional to promote Julian Assange, but promotional to make a simple proposal on a talk page and ask for comments? Aren't you (and perhaps Wikipedia too) using a double standard in this regard? Fact is WP is promoting Julain Assange, his ideas and his actions by publishing an article about him. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 07:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Mervyn Emrys/sandbox 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.
Guy Macon (
talk) 15:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Your proposal:
Is despicable. Just reading it makes me want to take a bath in bleach. We live in a time when a member of team red sent bombs to a bunch of people on team blue, and a member of team blue tried to murder everyone from team red at a baseball game, and you want to compile a hit list so that these deranged freaks can target people because of where they work or what political party they belong to? have you no shame? You disgust me. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I'm an administrator here on Wikipedia. A complaint was filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about your behavior. I was hoping that maybe I could de-escalate the situation a bit. Wikipedia is generally the wrong place to raise important issues. As an encyclopedia, we can document issues that reliable sources consider important, but we ourselves don't engage in activism. We also have to be careful of defamatory content, such as claims designed to " name and shame". This is because of two key policies: maintaining a neutral point of view and biographies of living people. If a newspaper article reports that a prominent organization has criticized someone's behavior, we can report this; however, we can't single this person out for criticism ourselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or place to promote other projects, which means that you want to do this, you'll need to do it on a different website. Generally, I don't think there's a problem with asking Jimbo Wales about his opinions on stuff – he seems pretty open to this – but it might be better if you did this via email. It will avoid giving people the impression that you're here only to engage in activism or promote a project. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 09:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Acid Rain Retirement Fund is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid Rain Retirement Fund until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. — JFG talk 10:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
With reference to your comment here [17], do note in accordance to the WP:terms of use and the notice on every edit window, any text you own the copyright for which you contribute anywhere on en.wikipedia needs to be dual licenced under the terms of the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licences. There is no exception for your sandbox or any other page, nor for weird definitions of publish. Also while we do allow slightly more discretion in content on sandboxes and people will normally leave them alone if you are using them in a reasonable way to try and improve wikipedia, all our policies and guidelines like WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:BLP and content on them which violate such policies may be removed. If you want to publish your work without having to licence them under those two licences and without needing to comply with our policies and guidelines, you should do so somewhere that's allowed. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
"Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
"Tendentious editing is a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:Civility: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates...Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 00:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit other people's talk page comments, you may be blocked from editing. This includes inserting your own comments, signed or unsigned, in the middle of other people's comments. See WP:TPOC and WP:INTERSPERSE. (You are free to delete other people's comments from your own talk page, but you are not allowed to them.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I have not intentionally edited any of your edits here, preferring to allow them to speak for themselves. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 05:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
; edited ~~~~~
(note that's five tildes not four) to one's signature, per WP:REDACT. However the best course of action in a contentious discussion is obviously to always add one's new point as a new reply in the discussion rather than to append to an old post. Softlavender ( talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I regret to inform you that per the community's consensus at AN/I, you have been blocked indefinitely. You are free to appeal this block if you think you can adequately address and voluntarily resolve the issues associated with your editing. For information on requesting an unblock, please see WP:GAB. It has been suggested that you should perhaps wait six months and request the standard offer as well, which you might want to consider. Regards, Swarm talk 01:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)