User:Penbat/fladrif

This user is a participant in WikiProject Law.

This editor is a
Journeyman Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

This editor is an
Apprentice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

This editor is a
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Registered Editor

Novice Editor

Apprentice Editor

Journeyman Editor

Yeoman Editor

Experienced Editor

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Penbat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!—ScouterSig 21:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Fladrif, please be careful about accusations of vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM. TimidGuy (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked per WP:OUTING on the Talk:Warnborough College page. Dreadstar † 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious.Fladrif (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I'm sorry and it will never happen again I thought simply asked the question about who User:Warnborough was, given the user's self-identification as a representative of the school. But, I see that could be interpreted as crossing the line. Sorry. It won't happen again. I think that I have otherwise been a highly responsible contributor who's added a lot of valuable content and documentation on a variety of topics.}} Fladrif (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed with the blocking admin. Standby. - auburnpilot talk 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Fladrif (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Warnborough

I just wanted to thank you again for the recent rewriting and reorganization. It really improved it. I feel pleased every time I look at it. I actually feel like the article is close to being done. There are about 4 small things that I may eventually suggest be changed, but overall it really seems to be shaping up. TimidGuy (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and for your own input and perspective on the article. Fladrif (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Malnak

Thanks for correcting Adams. I mostly agree with you, but the context in which he mentions it would necessitate looking at the other decision to see why he's contrasting it in order to understand his point there. And thanks for correcting my point about the footnote. Don't know how I made the mistake. I think you're pretty weak on characterizing a point as "uncontested" that the document itself contradicts. And it was wrong to delete the attribution to Markovsky. I think we've both reached the WP:3RR limit. If you revert again you could be blocked. Gotta run. TimidGuy (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NPA

This is enough. It is a blatant personal attack on another editor. You will restrict your comments to the editorial content of the article and make no further comments about other contributors per WP:NPA and WP:CIV or you will be blocked Dreadstar † 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been previously cautioned by another administrator about making uncivil comments directed to other users. It appears from this edit made yesterday that your personal attacks have continued, nonetheless. Please do not make it necessary for me to block you to prevent further disruptive activity. The talk pages are only for discussing article content, not attacking or impugning other editors. This is your final warning.  JGHowes  ^talk 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

GFDL

When copying text from one article to another, you must include in the edit summary where you found the text. This is necessary to comply with the Gnu Free Documentation License, under which Wikipedia is released. Please make a dummy edit now to include attribution. Thank you, - Eldereft (cont.) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mediation availability on TM article

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. (olive (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Thanks

...for taking on the job of changing Maharishi to "the" Maharishi. Its a tedious task and I'm glad you're doing it and not me :o).(olive (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Name

Just curious -- does your name come from the Lord of the Rings (Fladrif the Ent)? Omnedon (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottawa Street Power Station

Thanks very much for helping with the Ottawa Street Power Station article. I didn't know how you came into that article until i just saw your comment of congratulations to a new RfA, so now i figure you saw mention of it at my own Talk page. (Also, I don't think i want to be considered a barbarian, but no offense taken.) Anyhow, thanks for simply doing a good job with the Ottawa Street Power Station article, settling the situation there well, I think, knock on wood. doncram (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too, in resolving stuff at this article. Hmmm...my niece wore a really cute barbarian outfit last Halloween...lots of pink furry stuff...I believe I'll embrace barbarianism. Lvklock (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Leopold Bros..gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leopold Bros..gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Leopold Bros..gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leopold Bros..gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove another editor's comments on the talk page if they were unconstructive. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not take part in some weird bureaucratic experiment in democracy. In what way could this possibly be viewed as an out of procedure nomination? I believe the image should be deleted, so I nominate it at IfD? I previously nominated it at PUI, where it was kept, rightly, due to the fact I pressed the wrong button. IfD is the correct venue in this case, and ranting about procedure in a discussion about a specific image is not appropriate. As such, I will remove the comments again. If you have valid points, raise them on my talk page. If you want to rant, get a blog. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines generally, the IFD guidelines, the fact we can ignore rules if they're obviously broken, and so on and so forth. That discussion is to determine whether an image should be deleted. I believe the image should be deleted- you may believe otherwise, you're welcome to present your argument. The IP poster is interested only in ranting about some imaginary process that I'm clearly not violating- if they want to do that, they can leave messages on my talk page where they can be replied to, ignored, deleted or acted upon as appropriate. Cluttering a deletion discussion is not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, if you're holding that kind of position, it's clear that we needn't discuss that issue any further. I'll leave the comments there, but don't expect anyone to take any notice of them. Care to explain to me why you believe this nomination is out of process? J Milburn (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit, I considered the use of pseudo-speedy deletion, but I felt (rightly) that the deletion may be contested, meaning that a discussion was warranted. (I meant to send it to IfD rather than PUI in the first place.) Now that it is there, why not have the discussion there? Why go through the process of me tagging the image as replaceable, you claiming it is not, and sending it to IfD so that a consensus can be reached? J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit Reverts

Hi Fladrif, just a friendly reminder to be careful with your edit reverts. There are some limitations and consequences. For more information please see WP:3RR. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Thanks for the comment. I was using a computer that belonged to another person that is also a Wiki editor and that person was logged in when I did my edit - hence the error message. Bigweeboy (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Today I deleted the Wiki username "Mrsjolly". My wife set this account up in June when she thought she wanted to get involved in Wiki as an editor. This never happened. When you look at her usage record, you will she made no edits on Wiki, made no comments on any Wiki discussion pages, and did not participate in any way in Wiki. The only time her account appeared on Wiki was as a error message when I did some edits on the Transcendental Meditation article as Bigweeboy while, mistakenly Mrsjolly was logged in on the computer we use at home. This was a simple mistake and the Mrsjolly account has not been used again until today when I submitted it for deletion to the Wiki Administrators. --BwB (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case the above comment is not clear - On 11 June 2009 at 15:59 (UTC) we created a new Wiki account for my wife with the username Mrsjolly on our home computer. Twelve minutes later, at 16:11 (UTC) I made an edit on the TM-Sidhi article discussion page while logged in as Mrsjolly, and signed the edit as Bigweeboy. My wife had forgotten to sign out from Wiki before I began to edit and I did not realize that she had not logged out. So when I say above that "she made no edits on Wiki", this is in fact true since my wife never used the account again, and the edit associated with this account was made by me (Bigweeboy) while logged in as Mrsjolly by mistake. The Mrsjolly account was deleted yesterday, 11 August, 2009. --BwB (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The User:68.238.26.31 was created when I made some Wiki edits having forgotten to log in. I have requested this account to be deleted.--BwB (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ThaddeusB

I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) Your comments about my dispute resolution skills meant a lot to me and I was glad that you offered them. I am honored that you consider me "thoughtful" and "a strong addition to the admin ranks," and hope I can continue to serve the community well in my new role. If you ever need any administrator assistance, please don't hesitate to ask, as I will be glad to help.

Thanks again, ThaddeusB (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

TM Article Discussion

Hi Fladrif. I really enjoy participating with you and the other editors in the cut-and-thrust debate on the TM article in the talk pages. However, I would prefer if you comments, while containing good points of criticism, do not include name-calling and abuse. Many thank. See you on the TM Discussion pages. --BwB (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

More on personal attacks

Fladrif, please remember it is very bad Wiki form to refer to editors in a derogatory or personal way. Sentences like "kool-aid drinking pro-TM true believer" simply have no place in Wikipedia. All editors are just that: editors, and should be referred to in no other way. If this is in any way unclear, please refer to WP: ATTACK, which, at the very beginning of the page states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment regarding the 7th

So funny, I laughed a nice cup of tea all over my laptop. It is good to at least see one intellect on certain wiki pages :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"I even thought I detected some uulating, thought I can't be entirely sure about that"

Alas, another day, another keyboard. Shocking dear girl/boy; quiet shocking :-) Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th) (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

re Eugene Register-Guard

Hi Fladrif, this clarification and apology sort of got lost in a flurry of edits this morning, so wanted to point it out in case you missed it. I enjoy working with you, Woonpton (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I guess I'd never come across a web page before that you have to drag around to see all of it instead of scrolling to see it, I apologize for my ignorance; it still doesn't seem a very efficient way to read an article, since every time I'd drag a bit to see some more of it, then the page had to reload, a very tedious way to read an article. But having read it, I'm still of the opinion that it's not a very good source for the statement that's cited to it. The only straightforward statement about quality of research in the article comes from the NY Times, (if you wanted to cite that statement, why not cite the NY Times directly?) and quotes Otis, who isn't exactly one to talk about quality of research. So, thanks for giving me the hint I needed to be able to read the article, but I still don't think it's the best source for the assertion. Woonpton (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ospina Bond meta-analysis

Hi again. I've been reading more carefully through the TM talk page; I had missed some of the discussion and now am all caught up. I see you've been ahead of me all the way; I was trying to make the point today that the research section should be no more than a few sentences, and I see that earlier, you had even suggested a quite adequate mockup of what that paragraph might look like. And I also see that you've been way ahead of me in arguing for significant inclusion of the findings of the Ospina metastudy. I saw a reference back to a previous discussion about that study, so I went back and read that too. That discussion was painful and frustrating to read; the arguments were so inane and off the point and so obviously grasping at straws it was really annoying. I said in a post on the talk page today that I've been watching the article for 18 months, but I realize now that's not quite true; I got weary of the futility of watching something that it didn't seem as if I could do anything about, and took it off my watchlist for several months, so I missed that discussion. Had I been watching, I would have participated then, although you said everything I would have said. Thanks for paying attention to my comments and taking them into account. Woonpton (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Bleep, that was some experience; that's where I met these guys. The odd thing is that I think if TG had actually thought about it, or if he really understood how bad the Maharishi Effect research is, he wouldn't have meant to lure a statistician to the Maharishi articles. But I never would have had my curiosity piqued if he hadn't come to my talk page from Bleep to tell me that I should look at a MUM-generated "rebuttal" to Park's comments about the Maharishi Effect, after I said on the Bleep talk page (based on my own look at the data) that the ME, which is mentioned favorably in Bleep, was refuted by its own data; there's just nothing in those crime data to justify that claim. I don't know if you've looked at that Rainsforth rebuttal (if not I think the link is still on my talk page where TG left it more than a year ago); it's a terrible rebuttal, not really a rebuttal at all (it doesn't address the substance of the criticism, but is a lot of smoke and mirrors and posturing) but after reading it I went on to read Park, for which I should probably thank TG. I'd never heard of Park before (Voodoo Science), but it's a very good book, sensible and scientific and right on about several different fringe "science" topics while being eminently readable and entertaining at the same time. And then I read the original ME "study" which just about took my breath away (not in a good way).Woonpton (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on Fladrif's assertion that "ME research is utterly incompetent wishful thinking", here is what Bruce Russet, editor of the Journal of Conflict Resolution had to say about a ME study published in his journal: "... the hypothesis seems logically derived from the initial premises, and its empirical testing seems competently executed. These are the standards to which manuscripts submitted for publication in this journal are normally subjected. The manuscript, either in its initial version or as revised was read by four referees (to more than is typical with this journal): three psychologists and a political scientist." (Bruce Russet, editor, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32 (4), p. 773, 1988). --BwB (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't be so sure it's not already in there somewhere; the ME made Clinton's approval rating go up, after all. I notice you don't have email enabled; I'm curious whether that's a privacy concern or if you just prefer not to communicate off-wiki. Woonpton (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I did not know of the email option. I just wanted to comment that some journals editors do not think the ME research is all voodoo science. --BwB (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonder why this journal would publish voodoo science? --BwB (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) BWB, Please stop it. Since my message was posted 11 hours before yours was posted, it's silly to pretend that mine was an answer to yours; besides, the indentation should have made it clear, even if you didn't look at the timestamp. (Although that doesn't make any sense either; in order to post your message you would have had to insert it above mine, so there's no way you didn't know it was there when you posted the first message, so it obviously wasn't intended for you). I've answered the identical comment you left on my talk page; as should be clear from my answer there, the assertion that "some journal editors do not think the ME research is all voodoo science" is a red herring, not useful or helpful to judging the quality of the ME research. Yes, a lot of bad research is published, unfortunately. Nature itself has had egg on its face over publishing research that couldn't be replicated. It happens. The fact that it was published doesn't magically make it good research. Put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.

(added after ec): As to why that particular journal, or any journal, would publish bad science, there are dozens of reasons; it's not important what their reason was. Sometimes they, and the reviewers they pick, just don't have the right kind of expertise to judge the quality of the research. Sometimes there's political pressure to publish. Sometimes they have an undisclosed conflict of interest. There are all kinds of reasons why a journal would publish bad science, but as I've said, publishing bad science doesn't make it good science; that's not how the quality of research is judged. It's judged on its merits, and most of all on its being a solid enough finding that it can be reproduced by other scientists. Woonpton (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to Cease Personal Attacks

Another request to please participate in a civil manner on the talk page and to speak to all editors in a civil and respectful way. If you would like some specific examples of your most recent inappropriate comments, please check your talk page contributions on the TM talk page for August 6th. Thank you.--Kbob (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Fladrif, personal attacks such as these, which are only 2 days old (unlike the 6-month old thread you reported to me), will not be tolerated: [1], [2]. And if you're going to make accusations such as these, provide proof and/or enough evidence to file an SPI report: [3], [4]. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Just to mention Fladrif that you are now at 3RR.(olive (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

It is, on Wikipedia, a common courtesy to warn another editor in a edit dispute when they have approached the 3RR point. However, since this is something you don't want me to do I will note that for the record, and will be happy not to remind you the next time. Having my history removed was and is in response to harassment which I told you I had experienced. Your continued COI comments constitute harassment. There are no restriction on my editing. Such restrictions would have to come from arbitration. (olive (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Will Beback has no power to limit my editing ability. As I said such restrictions must come from arbitration. The COI Notice Board is a place for discussion. Will advised that I do not edit at the MUM site which I have not out of respect for another editor's advice, not because I was officially restricted from doing so.(olive (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll repeat. Will has no power to limit my editing abilities, but can offer advice. I was referencing the COI Notice board as were you. As well, Will, on the articles he edits , as he has on the TM articles, cannot use any of his admin tools, and is another editor just as we all are. Were he to use his "tools" he would seriously jeopardize his adminship. I notice the COI issue comes up again when you are in the middle of an edit conflict with several other editors who do not agree with your deletion of 7 1/2 paragraphs of sourced content. That smells a lot like harassment to me.(olive (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

and Fladrif . I don't like this back and forth accusatory style so from my side I will finish with this last comment. Believe what you want. I have no desire, need, or the time to defend myself against your accusations. Thanks(olive (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Fair Notice re: COI noticeboard

I wanted you to have fair notice that your editing history is being discussed on the COI noticeboard.[[5]]--Kbob (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Outing

Stop outing people by IDing their real life employer. You know exactly what I'm talking about. On related. Even if it's known, if the person has redacted it, you need to stop. See the ruling in WP:ARBMAC2. On a related note, I doubt your calling those you disagree with "TM-cabal" is helping. Would you like them to call you part of the anti-TM Cabal? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Fixed typing error — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Warnborough_College

Hi Fladrif, Please see the article talk page regarding this recent edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warnborough_College&diff=309124325&oldid=309110923 Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

As a courtesy: You are at 3RR on the Transcendental Meditation article. (olive (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)):

I consider them a courtesy would do the same for any editor, and would hope they would the same for me. But you have twice said you don't want the reminder so for the record I will not remind you again.(olive (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

I apologize. You are actually at two reverts. Two consecutive reverts without an intervening edit by another editor are counted as one revert.(olive (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Civility

It's just not appropriate to call someone a "pathological liar" on an article talk page. If you believe an editor is disrupting the project then please use one of the dispute resolution pages to deal with the problem. Please remove anything that could be construed as a personal attack from your comments.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Replacing "pathological liar" with "serial deceiver" and similar efforts to skirt Will's warning isn't going to cut it. 31 hour block. I warned you before. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Date Format

In the Chopra instance, I though it read better with the revised format. Sorry if it is the wrong thing to do. Please revert as you like. --BwB (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New Addition to TM Article

Flad, see you had added some referenced text to "Cult" section of TM site. Would you be able to provide page numbers for the D’Antonio book? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

File:WRCBarnstar.png		The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar
		For continuously rescuing the Ref list and summarizing Ref codes on the TM and related articles. Good work!} — Kbob • Talk • 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Civility 2

Keithbob has brought to my attention some of your recent comments:

• Your employers want these pages used as part of their PR campaigns, so what's holding you back?

Again, I strongly suggest that you avoid commeting on editors or speculating on their motives on article talk pages. If you have evidecne tof inappropriate editing then there are noticebaords for that, including COIN, AN, and even Arbitration, if necessary. Please just discuss content on article talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You were warned 4 days ago by Will for civility and personal attacks, User_talk:Fladrif#Civility_2. These edits, here and here, especially the Hanlon one that refers to someone being stupid, show you do not intend to heed the warnings. This behavior will not be tolerated. You are blocked 72 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Moscow International House of Music

On November 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moscow International House of Music, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fred LaBour

Great work on the Fred LaBour page. Just a thought... you might want to check on external links to YouTube in the guidelines. I think I read there once to not link there but can't remember for sure. Keep up the good work. Airproofing (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fred LaBour

On November 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fred LaBour, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:WTA

It's best to avoid using "claims" (except when referring to mining claims]]) because it's believed to connote skepticism. There's never a problem with using "says".   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warnborough ie logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warnborough ie logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack

This is an inappropriate personal attack, please discuss the article in a civil way.WP:NPA If you want to rant, you should probably get yourself a blog.[6]-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that remark but I'm not sure which part of it is a personal attack. It's best to simply refactor the part that is offensive and leave the rest.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a personal attack, and it is perfectly civil. It is a specific criticism of specific edits, to wit (i) edits to text without having read the source material, which then have the effect of changing the meaning and inaccurately reflecting the source material; (ii) edits to text which substitute disjointed out-of-context quotations for an neutral and accurate summary of the source material, which do nothing whatsoever to improved the accuracy of the summary, and which impair the readability of the text; (iii) edits which take half-a dozen tries to get to where the editor apparently wants to go, eating up valuable bandwidth at Wikipedia rather than the editor taking the time to read and preview his or her edits before hitting the "Save Page button. If you can't distinguish between constructive criticism of your edits with personal attacks, you should probably get a dog instead of editing Wikipedia.Fladrif (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may suggest, the complaint about the editing style (iii) would have been better placed on the editor's talk page, since it was personal to him. As for the other two complaints, I have learned that one way to avoid making these disputes personal is to avoid using the word "you" as much as possible. So instead of asking, "why did you write that" I might ask, "why are we saying this in the article", or "why did we add that poor source". That makes it less confrontational and keeps the focus on the problem. There certainly are many problems with the TM-related articles. Let's focus on being part of the solution. You don't have email activated, but if you'd like to chat perhaps an offline conversation might help.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer, but I do not wish to exchange correspondence with other Wikipedia editors offline.Fladrif (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your notice. I appreciate it. (olive (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Conflict

It's really counterproductive to engage in edit warring, negative personal remarks, and similarly combative behaviors. While doing so may be satisfying, it doesn't help and ultimately it hurts both you and the project. I strongly urge you to avoid conflict, even it it seems to allow POV or other inappropriate material to stand. Despite it's name, a slow approach is best on Wikipedia. This is a long-term project and we don't have to get everything right today.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Fladrif, thanks for the pointers and link to the MOS page on <ref=name>. It has been very helpful.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

incorrect

Fladrif, your comments on the COIN and the results there are are not accurate. I would suggest your continued attempts to discredit another editor with untrue statements is a concern, and you should stop. If you truly believe that I am in violation of some sanction real or imagined, I suggest you take it back to the COIN, but at this time your continued comments on this topic is harassment.(olive (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC))

COI conflict on TM entries

Fladrif, are you able to share who the COI conflicts are on the TM-related entries? If they are still editing, I'm surprised they've not been banned from the articles in question, since they've been quite compromised it would appear for quite some time.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's likely that this will get bumped up to some form of binding dispute resolution. That's why it's important that all parties be on their best behavior to avoid muddling the case with behavioral issues.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the ref for me Fladrif...I can never get those things right.--Uncreated (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

We had not interacted before, so I wondered why you suddenly appeared to my talk page. I appreciated your notification of the presence of the discussion on the source. However, your second visit puzzled me. You appear to be ignorant of the background, and history. The source of a "web cache" with no name, publication looked to me unreliable. Due to the "inconsistent Romanizations", I could not find the pertinent passage. You have no idea why he appeared as an IP editor to hanbok after he and another editor had long disputed for sources on Han Chinese clothing. I provided necessary links, sources, page numbers, quotations per LLTimes' request to end the two editor's dispute on the Chinese clothing article. Likewise, the "same" request was upon LLTimes's shoulder, and our discussion went well. An editor with about one and half year experience is long enough to know what is a reliable source, or not. Moreover, only "one" source was added to hanbok when the IP appeared to the article. If you want to lecture about me, please "check" the background and history first. I removed your pedantic sarcasm. Best regards.--Caspian blue 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you've been accused of incivility before, perhaps, you need to approach in less confrontational but appropriate ways. You see you don't earn my respect for your such lecturing. From my experience, when an editor wants to add some content likely to be rejected or reverted for its sensitivity, the editor has to prepare his edit with reliable sources in right format. If not, such contents are immediately challenged. The IP's edits to hanbok were a "tit-for-tat" after similar disputes over cited sources on Han Chinese clothing. The disputes spilled over the other article. The article of Hanbok has also unfortunately suffered the "similar" thing before aside for the recent incident. So I'm not sure why you're nitpicking from my "prove it" comment. The comment was used by LLTimes on Han Chinese clothing, and I see no problem listening to or saying myself. Book sources without page number or quotation on contentious contents that can be questioned all the time. We obviously have different perspectives, but please don't "push" your weird standard to other editors. --Caspian blue 17:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources

Thanks for adding material to Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources. Just a reminder to make sure that you're only posting excerpts. For copyright reasons we shouldn't post the full text of an article.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Took care of it. ThanksFladrif (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Who cou'd not win the Mistress, woo'd the Maid

Thanks for finding those sources. It's a curious topic, but the lack of sources is frustrating.   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There are two things that the AR group is primarily known for, so far as I can tell. One is that they used to advertise that they could change people from homosexuality by having them study poetry (or one particular poem). The other is their campaign against New York City newspapers who they believed were persecuting them by failing to cover their events (as alluded to in the VV article). They picketed outside the offices and homes of editors and publishers, and everywhere they went they wore buttons that said "the Right to Be Heard". Their efforts seem to have been counterproductive, making them even less likely to be mentioned in the press. While researching another topic I came across another mention of AR in the VV, circa 1973, in which the reporter complains about being buttonholed by an activist. So the VV may have been the last publication willing to talk about them, but even they were unsympathetic. The end result is that there are so few secondary sources that it's hard to write a neutral article.   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Papers

If you send me your email I can send you some papers. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a concern to you?

Ok, no problem. Thanks for the response. --BwB (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Warnborough College

I notice that you and TimidGuy are the two leading contributors to Warnborough College. Is there a TM-related angle? No big deal, I was just curious.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. Unaccredited colleges seem to require extra care. I've worked on a couple of them, including the problematic Columbia Pacific University.   Will Beback  talk  07:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

One of your comments

Looks like a simple mistake of copy/pasting, here [7] - this particular Proposed finding of fact I posited is not directly taken from the Scientology case, but rather from the sock investigation as related to this case. Therefore, you may wish to adjust your comment, and then also go back over all of your comments to make sure that they are each individually specifically applicable. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You're right Over-enthusiastic cut & paste. Will fix.Fladrif (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

TM Arbitration Case

Clerk Notice Please refactor your evidence so that it is less that 1000 words in length. This requirement is stated twice on the evidence page. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please reduce the size of your section to less than 1000 words. Evidence sections can be removed if the requirement isnt met. Please note that the evidence page is not for threaded discussion. Many Thanks Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Enable e-mail?

Can you enable e-mail? I have a question for you. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Now what would be the odds on that

I was editing this page Der Vampyr when I noticed your user name in the edit history. I have no idea what the odds would be but I assume slim. Perhaps Jung was not so mad after all. Synchronicity everywhere? Or maybe just blind chance? :-) Tucker ^talk 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif: Sometimes empiricist thinking just takes all the fun out of life :-)

[8]

Tucker ^talk 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Fladrif, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User talk:Fladrif. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence

As you've already received a warning about your evidence being too long, I've gone ahead and refactored your evidence as it was 500 words over the word count. If you readd the content or once again exceed the limit your whole section will be removed and you'll be banned from posting any evidence. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

PeterKlutz Sockpuppets

Long before I ever set eyes on Wikipedia, administrators determined that, after being blocked for edit-warring and other abuses (aside: undermining your assessment that pro-TM editors are invariably civil), PeterKlutz repeatedly and extensively used Anon IP edits as sockpuppets to circumvent the blocks. [9] It wasn't merely a matter of not logging in or dynamic IP assignment; it was a deliberate attempt to avoid admin-imposed sanctions. You might want to reconsider your late-filed "evidence", in light of that fact. Fladrif (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I will delete my "evidence" entry. But your citation really didn't include any information other than the list of IP addresses, which alone do not establish WP:SP, so your citation seems technically insufficient. David Spector 21:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point

Just looking at the list of PeterKlutz's suspected sockpuppets would not, in and of itself, tell anyone what had actually gone on with that user and his socks. One would have to look at the relevant userpages, talkpages and histories. Perhaps I should have linked to that instead or as well. But, such lists don't get established except in cases of actual sockpuppetry, so I didn't feel it necessary. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Fladrif (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page to keep discussion in one place. David Spector

DYK for J.W. Knapp Company Building

On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J.W. Knapp Company Building, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job on this article! Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An error in your evidence

Hi Fladrif - I'm working carefully through the evidence in the TM case (we do read that stuff, believe it or not), and I think you've made an error: you say that Keithbob Wikilawyered about citing Sklonick's article being a copyright violation, but in the link you include the allegations about copyright seem to be made entirely by Little Olive Oil. Steve Smith (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for pulling together the history of the tendentious editing on the meta-analysis. I really think it needed to be shown that it's a persistent editing pattern and not just a few isolated squabbles or misunderstandings. Thanks, and thanks also for your kind wishes on my talk page. Woonpton (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Surreal Barnstar
		A little chaos can often show a mirror to the truth. But I have no idea how you have managed to stay with "that" article for so long. The thing makes me feel tired just thinking about it

January 2009 block

I'm compiling evidence, and I came across your block in January 2009, on account of "outing". Apparently it concerned Talk:Warnborough College and User:Warnborough.[10] So far as I can tell, whatever you did has been oversighted because I can't find any trace of it. From what I can see, it looks like you may have asked that user a question about his identity. Did you mention a specific name, or just ask if he was a Warnborough employee or what?? Can you explain the circumstances?   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and clear explanation.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK

In particular, "CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate." Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Chill

Fladrif, chill out, see [11], [12], [13] — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal comments

It was appropriate and necessary to discussion persons and their outside connections in the ArbCom case. But it's inappropriate to do so on an article talk page. Please remember the difference.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

TMM source

Did you have a source for the Chopra-related material in this edit? [14] I haven't seen anything that covers it. If it's unsourced we should probably remove it.   Will Beback  talk  17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. there is a citation to that book, but when I looked in Google books I didn't get any hits for Chopra or "dome". Unfortunately, Google is like that... Anyway, I'll fix up the refs so it's clearer.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Surreal Barnstar
		A little chaos can often show a mirror to the truth. But I have no idea how you have managed to stay with "that" article for so long. The thing makes me feel tired just thinking about it

Apology

Please forgive my error. You've probably described your background before but I'd forgotten or simply missed it.   Will Beback  talk  20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- ????????? ??????? (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Photos of huts on Transcendental Meditation page have nothing to do with Maharishi or The Beatles

I have been to Rishikesh and saw no such huts. The photos is bogus, and has nothing to do with TM, Maharishi, or the Beatles. The girl friends of the Beatles would never get in such a bug filled hut. How could anyone meditate, having to swat bugs? It is ridiculous. The photo has no source. Think scientifically. The facilities of the TM movement are plush, if anything. Just look at the web site for www.MUM.edu/panorama.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicorp (talk • contribs) 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

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

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee ????????? ??????? (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Mail

I know you've declined to communicate off-Wiki before. Even so, I'm inviting you again to email me.[15]   Will Beback  talk  21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft sentences

Could you weigh in at Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Draft sentences? You seem to be more familiar with the studies and reviews than I am.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA

On the TM articles, I'm just another editor like you. If you have concerns about uncivil behavior, then the relevant noticeboard is WP:WQA.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Comments

Your comments in the past couple minutes are not helpful nor necessary. I recommend refactoring them or striking them altogether. We do not celebrate the retirement of any user, especially an admin who has done so much work as Dreadstar has. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're really on thin ice here Fladrif, especially considering your restriction: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Fladrif_strongly_admonished_and_restricted — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"a TM-Org affiliated IP Address"

The IPs mostly geolocate to Montreal,and I didn't see any special connection. Did I miss something?   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Apparently Primus bought Telegroup, which was founded by Fred Gratzon. Given those connections, I suppose that it'd be relatively easy for someone in Fairfield to be using a Canadian IP. Even so, we shouldn't assume too much. Primus is a big company with many customers.   Will Beback  talk  12:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes this is a point of history. But I think it is more like your good point that "Primus is a big company with many customers". --BwB (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Primus/Telegroup

FYI: Small Telephone Company Is Victim of Credit Squeeze   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are also various SEC filings.[16][17] It's interesting to see who was involved. Some names keep popping up.   Will Beback  talk  09:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, "ELLEN AKST JONES" is listed as the registration agent for MAHARISHI UNIVERSITY OF ENLIGHTENMENT/GLOBAL GOOD NEWS.[18] She was also the Vice President Administration of Telegroup.[19] She's also the Dean of Student Affairs at MUM.[20]   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Text from Inline Citation

In this recent edit you deleted text from an inline citation. [21] This was inappropriate, as text within a citation is permitted on Wiki and is offered as a convenience to other editors, particularly on contentious text or for sources that are not readily available to other editors. For instance here is an example of Will Beback [22] using the special tag to request specific text from the source be cited in the inline citation on the MMY article. You were probably unaware of this practice so I thought that I would let you know. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw this and will mention that the quote request tag can be fulfilled by adding the materil to the footnote, or to the talk page. Either one will do. Long quotes in footnotes can get in the way of editing, but otherwise they're harmless.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors

These are the main previous editors who promoted a "pro-" POV:

• Nima Baghaei
• Lumiere/-Lumière/Étincelle
• Peterklutz/85.30.186.206
• Maharishi International Publications Department/212.178.127.50
• Sparaig

Peterklutz was blocked, so if he returned it'd be a violation. None of the others are blocked, so it's not a violation if it's one of them. However -Lumière was a controversial editor and had an RFC so it'd be a bit dishonest if she returns to articles she's edited before while using a new name. As for the other editor, yes, it seems like one hand washing the other.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal mediation: TM lead

I will ask for formal mediation for, Lead (research content): Transcedental Meditation, in the next few days. Would you like to be included as an involved user. I’ll check back on your user page for an answer. Thanks.(olive (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

Sharing

Some things really are best discussed off-Wiki. However, if you think there's sufficient cause you could file an SPI request.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Edith Sirius Lee

[23] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor input requested

In trying to get a sense of where editors stand on the TM article split merge situation It would help to have a definitve statement from each editor. This is not as I see it, to determine a change but to determine whether we can agree on this important issue and if we can't to get outside help. Input here: [24](olive (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

Notice

I notified you as a courtesy as I did other editors who have been active on the TM article in case you wanted to be part of a discussion you weren't aware of. If you would prefer not to get such notices in the future please let me know.(olive (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Thanks

...for reverting the rest of that massive deletion. I missed the second block of text.(olive (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, Penbat. You have new messages at Talk:Bhagavad_Gita.
Message added 15:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RfC regarding Transcendental meditation

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I will be requesting formal mediation. Please let me know if you wish to be included or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thank you.(olive (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Michael Welner Edit

Please note that the Michael Welner page has been under dispute for some time. The paragraph that you have included as a tagteam with Mr.grantevan2 is irrelevant and only inserted to stir unsubstantiated controversy.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned to Mr.grantevans2, the edits that I have requested not be included or removed have been defamatory, factually inaccurate and unsubstantiated comments that only serve to create controversy on a tamed page. The Christopher Conrad quote, from a political opponent of the DA who had no connection and no awareness of Dr. Welner’s fees, is irrelevant, unreliable and placed here only to disparage by inference rather than fact. Please look closer at what is transpiring here. Your entanglement here with all edits being in opposition to myself an none against Mr.grantevan2 suggests that you have not approached this page objectively. I ask that you do so.Stewaj7 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I have brought the Fusion is the future/Arnold Reisman matter to AN/I. Your name is mentioned in passing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hat?

Hi. Thanks for helping out with the money multiplier dispute. I am curious as to the meaning of the word "hat" in the phrase "I'm sorely tempted to hat the above back-and-forth, but will refrain.". Cheers. Reissgo (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

-thanks for the answer to my hat question on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reissgo (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Tendatious

Hi, Fladrif. A silly little thing but I thought you'd like to know. I've noticed that you tend to use the word "tendatious." I wonder if you mean "tendentious." At AE you quoted Rumiton, using "tendatious" but he actually used "tendentious." TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion #5 in the TM article

There is a discussion about the interpretation of suggestion #5 in the TM article. Your input would be appreciated. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Returning user

There was another account that was blocked for username violations, but the editor himself is not blocked.   Will Beback  talk  09:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

It is not considered canvassing to tell a WikiProject that a source they use is being discussed as being reliable or not. They should be able to join in the discussion rather than it just be a bunch of users like yourself who have a very limitted view of what is and what is not a reliable source. In fact, what I have done is encouraged.—Ryulóng (??) 20:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Political science source about Spain-UK dispute over Gibraltar

Hi Fladrif!

Thank you very much for your comments on the source. I'm the guy who proposed it. I have added some more info to the discussion at the RSN and would be terribly thankful if you could add some comments. Sorry if I disturb you witth these details. Cheers! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Welner Career Section

fyi, I left this mention of you on Lawblogger's talk page. [25] Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif: We are seeking consensus on the version of the Professional Career section that Mr.grantevans2 proposed, pending work on a more detailed version which addresses some of your citation issues. I have posted (on the talk page) each of the issues you had on citations, and any otherviewpoints that other editors held in hopes that we can punch out these issues with your consensus. Could you please provide positive recommendations on how some of your issues can be cured; and assist in finding alternative forms of citations you think are better suited? Also, could you please confirm that Mr.grantevans2's version works for you as an interim step? Lawblogger18 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Warnborough College

Your comments here would be appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

.I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education," since we don;t seem to be able to resolve this issue on our own. Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Michael Welner

Fladrif: Lawblogger18 has proposed a section and to keep the peace, all are waiting patiently for your comments as all other parties have commented at this point. If you do not have anything to contribute or objections to raise please advise so that we can add Lawblogger18's paragraph and move on.Stewaj7 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WHY DON'T YOU GET A GOLD STAR AND A+ FOR BEING A WIKI DICTATOR AND AN IDIOT?

Yeah, that would be a good idea. This wasn't an article about someone's EPR, the EPR was a documented reference to accomplishments cited concerning the subject and his pioneering a new relevant and historical way of conducting air war. But, as stated already, most of what he did is WAY ABOVE YOUR PAY GRADE, and WAY BEYOND YOUR CLEARANCE, and WAY BEYOND YOUR KNOWLEDGE, and I would guess, more accomplished and a better person than you - which is why you choose to delete something legitimate, because it makes you look so small and worthless; due to the size of your over-inflated ego and desperate attempt to control something in life (i.e. - wikipedia controlling dictator)... you just delete someone's bio that is "bigger than yours" and clearly better. Why am I even trying to get something even remotely intelligent across to you? It's people like you that make important things look useless and useless things look important. Thanks for making the world a "better place" by just deleting something historical, instead of suggesting ways to improve upon the information. What a constuctive move; not even at all a violation of Wikipedia policy, which I have stated multiple times to GET THROUGH TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU, who have apparently allowed their skulls to thicken so much, that all brain matter has been destroyed. You didn't even look at the sources or references. How sad. Did you ever learn to read? No? Oh well.

I'm done arguing with morons like you, and done contributing to wikipedia permanently. What a waste of time. WP policy has been violated by your demeaning comment, but it doesn't change the size of your ego, or your inflated head. I am reporting all of you posers to someone with more power than you, thanks.KnightofZion (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

RE:

"Speedy Delete - Fails WP:GNG including the more specific WP:BIO. There is no substantial, independent, secondary coverage of this person in independent sources, other than two short notes in local papers: (i) a picture of him at the age of 6 months with his mother after his older brother died in a tornado, [3] and (ii) a nice note when he finished basic training in the Air Force.[4] The citations which are being claimed as a basis for notability is not a "widely known and significant award or honor" and the claimed accomplishments are not " widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - the latter guideline footnoted to clarify that, to meet that criteria, it would need to be something extensively written about by experts in the relevant field. The airman got a good performance report. Are we going to have a Wikipedia article on every kid who got a gold star and an A+ in red ink on a paper?Fladrif (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)"

Sinatra

• [26] Fladrif (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Yes, edits which inadvertently reveal private info can and should be removed. The editor can request "oversight" per the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Many thanks for both alerting me to the issue and chasing down a solution! I very much appreciate it. Lawblogger18 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Maxim

Instead of me following behind you cleaning up your edits, could you please go clean up your own Maxim related edits? Titles of magazines, such as Maxim, should be in italics. Also, none of the sentences that you added had periods at the end. (the period should go after the last word and before the ref tag) Could you please fix these? Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 01:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

answers.com is not a RS

Hi there. I notice you've been doing a series of edits like this. Did you have a look at the references, or simply delete them on the grounds that answers.com wasn't a RS? I ask because in this case, and several others, answers.com simply appears to be reprinting a print source. Where this is true, it would seem to me to be better to improve the reference to make clear that this is the case, rather than simply removing the ref. What do you think? Best, Dsp13 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Vernors article

You may wish to monitor the Vernors article more as someone is deleting factual info which I had to reinforce with additional citations regarding the former Vernor's shop in Flint MI which is now a Halo Burger restaurant. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum Keithbob • Talk

TimidGuy case

You've posted some draft findings of fact on the Workshop page. Could you post relevant facts/diffs as /Evidence first please so that the editor concerned has an opportunity to rebut/respond to them? Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

COIN

Please see my posting at User talk:Roger Davies#Fladrif's workshop on TimidGuy appeal.   Will Beback  talk  07:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Lundberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term flackweasel

Fladrif, My attention has been drawn to this edit where you use the term 'flackweasel' to describe TimidGuy. I am sure that you will agree with me that the point that you wish to get across can be made without resorting to such terms. Could you please rephrase? Thanks --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken link at ArbCom Evidence

Thanks for noting that and alerting me. I've fixed it.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I am sorry for the digression in the reliable sources noticeboard. I have been here long enough to know better, but such things tend to lock one in endless arguments. I am sincerely thankful that you stopped us. Hoverfish Talk 16:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Another editor removed your comment without explanation at ANI. I restored your comment, partly because the other editor gave no basis for the removal, and partly because your comment was legitimate. However, my advice would be to be a little less snarky in your comment and your edit summary. The use of "shovel" and the mildly sarcastic "don't be shy" were unnecessary to make your point and ask your question.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead link

Fladrif, thanks for fixing the deadlink issue and for pointing me to a appropriate guideline. --BwB (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kalchuri

Discussion of this source has spilled over onto the Meher Baba Talk Page. I have encouraged those concerned to continue the discussion on RS/N (where I fear it will soon be archived, btw). Simon Kidd (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Hermann-Bernhard Ramcke

Your recent edit to Hermann-Bernhard Ramcke stripped the article of references for some key claims as well as controversial criticisms of the subject. The political view statements are disputable - in fact if you check the talk page, some have been disputed. And the list of awards, making this individual one of the most highly decorated in German history, requires a source - even if its a web source. What ratonale did you employ in taking away the references that anyone questioning either the most positive or most negative statements in this article would logically follow in the course of additional research?--Rwberndt (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that SPS applies to those sources produced by the subject of the article, and only when that source is not also a generally recognized significant work (such as Einsteins theory of relativity). The web sources you cut are indeed not particularly scholarly and with regard to awards I actually removed the pilot-observer badge a while back on this page because the source was wrong. As the opponent of the "he was a Nazi" POV, I cannot challenge the other source however without an obvious COI. So with regard to that, all I can say is that the statements would need a CN, given that his other actions and the correspondence recorded between him and Middleton indicate that he was a patriot, but not much of a racist facist fanatic. With regard to the awards, which denote a truely unique military career, I have a source, but a photo of his medals case in his study is not exactly a valid source (though it is how I knew to delete the pilot-observer ref). I guess I would argue that citeweb is a valid wikipedia construct and (even when I disagree with the spin it suggests) a web ref is no less valid than some of the texts often cited and not sel published. The only self-published works are Ramcke's memoirs which wikipedia MOS recognizes as legitimate sources when ref'd purely as such. I think when one deletes a reference, one has an obligation to the integrity of the article to otherwise provide an alternate source, or show by sourced proof, that the claim was incorrect.--Rwberndt (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Penbat. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

re:List of scientists who believed in Biblical creation

Get off the fence, how do you really feel? :) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 01:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Peerage.com

I note that you have removed some, but not all, links to this website from several articles, including Montague Muir Mackenzie. I don't think it's acceptable to merely state in the edit summary: "This source has been discussed multiple times at RSN. Check the archives." It is incumbent on you to justify your actions by a link to the discussion about this website. It seems to me that you would rather leave an article with unreferenced information than link it to an external source, which may, or may not, be 100% reliable. I don't know the editor of the site (Darryl Lundy), but I see nothing to indicate that he is any less reliable than the editors of many books that I have referred to in my "researches". Best wishes. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment that some links would be helpful to editors like me who did not take part in the original discussions. They can be found here:

• WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_114#thepeerage.com
• WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_103#Self-published_royalty_websites

The issue in the first of these discussions regarding this source is that it is self-published, and there is no clear information on the site indicating that the compiler (Darryl Lundy) is a "published expert" (presumably with some kind of peer-review, if you'll forgive the pun).

However, the second discussion listed above focussed on living persons. "After over a week's debate, consensus is that these self-published ancestry sources should not be used as sources in biographies of living people." I am contacting Lundy through his website to determine (1) his professional status and (2) the integrity of the sources on the website. I feel it may be premature to delete sources from articles relating to long-deceased persons until these two issues with thepeerage.com are clarified. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the best way to use this resource (only if the original source is unavailable to the editor) is to state both the original source and the website as follows:

the peerage.com Extracted from: Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage and Baronetage, 106th edition, 2 volumes (Crans, Switzerland: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 1999), volume 1, page 8., and obviously the other citation information would be included in the ref tag. This would avoid any issue of circular references with Wikipedia. Wikiwayman (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - Darryl Lundy has emailed me to clarify the points above. He was unaware of the debates listed above. Here are two extracts from his email:

• I try to show the source for every single fact given on the website - although when I started creating the database around 2000, I didn't show sources, so now I am still going back and adding sources to everything - will be a year or two before that task is finished (88.5% of all facts currently are sourced). I try to primarily use sources which are printed reference books but if someone emails me something about their own family, I will use that as well.
• I'm not a professional genealogist - no formal qualifications in the area

So, I think that backs up the previous discussions, "thepeerage.com" website is effectively an SPS with regard to some family histories, which are accepted in good faith by the compiler, and should not be used here on WP. Where RS are used as source material, they should be cited directly if the contributor has access to them (n.b. some of these require expensive subscriptions). Only if there is no access to the original RS should the website be used and in those cases, I think it would be good practice for the original source to be cited as well, as per my last posting.

Any chance this could be moved to WP:RSN? Wikiwayman (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Raised at WP:RSN

Please see WP:RSN#User:Fladrif and blanket removal as "Not RS per RSN" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2012 (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 Blanket_removals_of_refs_as_.22Not_RS_per_RSN.22_.28Moved_from_WP:RS.2FN.29. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAIT

Thanks. Leaky Caldron 17:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Listen very carefully...

...I will say this only once. If you carry out one more removal of a source while leaving that edit summary, while the discussion is still going on at ANI, you will be blocked. The world will not end while you wait. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{stub}}

Hi, When adding a stub tag as you did at Mary Leigh, please remember to put it at the end after everything except inter-language links (per WP:ORDER), and also that stub tags don't take a date parameter. Thanks. PamD 22:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop stripping out the footnotes

I don't give two craps about the peerage site, but spartacus.schoolnet is basically accurate in the same way that Wikipedia is itself basically accurate. If you're on a quixotian mission to eliminate this source from WP, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. Put your BETTER SOURCE NEEDED flag up, that's fine but LEAVE THE ORIGINAL FOOTNOTES ALONE, do NOT strip them out and replace them with a flag — tag the flag BEHIND the footnote. Your disruption will end up back at ANI if you keep it up and this will end up at Arbcom for a real decision if the dramazombies are unwilling to put a stop to it... Carrite (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote annihilation

Your reading of the (first) ANI seems selective, at best, utterly erroneous I would argue. I expect an RFC on this question is the next step. Carrite (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unilateral changes to TM articles

Please discuss the changes you are making on both the TM and TM research articles. These are contentious articles, and you seem to misunderstand how the content was changed and added. (olive (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Penbat. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PumpkinSky.
Message added 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've asked for a few details there, if you don't mind. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks

Hi Fladrif and thank you for participating in the conversation and locating a relevant source. However, your comment directed at USER:TimidGuy: "Your mispresentations of the holding of this and related cases on these pages have gone on for so long, and so persistently, and in such defiance of the facts that it can hardly be excused as inadvertent" [27]. Per WP:TALK "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." is not only inappropriate for an article talk page per WP:TALK but violates WP:NPA which says: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Please limit your talk page comments to matters of content and if you have a concern about a persistent behavioral issue than please bring it to the editors talk page or to WP:ANI. This will be helpful to all. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Welner Page

Hey Fladrif,

Any chance you'd like to rejoin the re-engerized "debate" over on the Welner page?

I know it's equivalent to pissing in the wind, but there is some entertainment value to it.--Jcally66 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gomez Addams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Levy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Welner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law and Order (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Brian David Mitchell article

If you disagree with a sourced edit I think and suggest you could open a discussion on the articles Talk page rather than just edit out sourced text. A discussing in the Talk pages allows the community to find consensus before any edit wars startWombat24 (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

COI questions

Hey Fladrif, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently we're the same user

Hi Fladrif, as the nimble 99 IP who ventured to post an opinion here [28], and have since been accused of being, er, you, I thought you'd be interested in the continuing drama. I initially dropped by the article's talk page to leave two cents, and otherwise have no dog in the fight. I've now requested an administrator's advice. Cheers, 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow up: [29]. 99.137.210.244 (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The Question

Re "Take it to WP:ANI" Ok will read up on that. But why in heavens name couldn't you have just written this over in that Editing questions board? Wombat24 (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I noticed that you have been deleting material and references that relate either to certain books or particular publishers because they allow authors to self-publish. How does this make the information contained in these books automatically suspect? You also did this for a primary source (a court document), if its used to substantiate a material fact, why would you delete it? Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Not the intended use of this star, but I thank you for educating me about reference sources and making me a better editor as a result. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sjones

And I think stalking me continously for nearly a year now and constantly trying to recruit people into his obsessive crusade is "completely out of bounds and a personal attack" (also: it's hardly the first time I've caught him telling such blatant untruths in relation to me, and I'm even actively trying not to read anything that he writes - what I'm doing is a complete opposite of his neveredning harrassment, as I'm staying away and trying to ignore him as much as it's possible, and he only rarely manages to troll me into reacting like that). --Niemti (talk) 14:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

RSN

Thanks for your note. I'll take a look at it early tomorrow morning. TimidGuy (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

about Structural abuse

Hi Fladrif. I see that you re-inserted the template {{stub}} in the article Structural abuse. Well, the fact is that it already has a stub template, {{Psychology-stub}} - that is enough to mark it as a stub. On the other hand, the {{stub}} is too general, it is always advisable to use more specific stub templates. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

WBB unban "pseudo RfC"

I don't know where you came from but I am sure glad you showed up. ```Buster Seven Talk 05:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you were previously involved in dealing with this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U notification to Niemti

This edit does not take into account that Niemti is blocked until April 1. You may wish to revise your statement of where he should comment. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would presume that the only place he can comment is his talk page, being blocked, so that's what I would suggest changing your statement to say. --Izno (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

SJones

He may have his shortcomings, but that sort of condescending commentary isn't helping anyone. Please refrain from that sort of advice, if you're going to lace it with that sort of negativity, the meaning is lost, and everyone's time is wasted. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches 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/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches 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. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Penbat. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 18:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You may be right

If so [30]. Dreadstar ? 02:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This in no way 'concedes' the transclusion was proper, [31] that's your own misinterpretation of my taking your irresponsible and unauthorized action to AN. Dreadstar ? 03:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical issues are in the past

Let's just move forward and build a useful consensus on that template. Provided no views are entrenched we stand a chance. I'm not much interested in the history of it, just the future. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Fladrif, you are doing yourself no favours being seen to align yourself with now banned sockpuppet User:Star767's work. He/she is in my view almost certainly the permanently banned and highly dysfunctional User:Zeraeph. Not everything that User:Star767 was bad, in my view, but most was. The default position should be that his/her work should be totally reverted unless a case in individual cases can be made otherwise.

It is also unhelpful that you immediately delete any comments on your talk page which makes scrutiny of your past activities less obvious and makes it more difficult to conduct a current discussion about your activities. That can be seen as obstructive.--Penbat (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

File:WRCBarnstar.png		The Wikipedian Red Cross Barnstar
		For continuously rescuing the Ref list and summarizing Ref codes on the TM and related articles. Good work!} — Kbob • Talk • 20:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Final and Only Warning

Fladrif. I hope you view me as someone who has agreed with you in the past, and I have. However, I have seen violation after violation of our WP:NPA policy with some of your comments regarding Rlevse/Pumpkinsky, and said nothing because I figured the Arbs could handle it. I now see further violations of WP:NPA like this. That is beyond the pale, and I personally will NOT tolerate editing in an environment that permits that kind of thing. I also know that you have been warned and sanctioned for this type of behavior before. I STRONGLY suggest that you step away from the keyboard until you are able to edit in a less emotional fashion. I understand you are passionate about the topic, but WP:FOC. Let me be clear. If I see ANY more posts like this then I will block you without another warning, and without a moment's hesitation. — Ched :  ?  23:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

On the management of your talkpage

Hi, Fladrif. You don't know me, but I read this post of yours on the BASC talkpage and came here to protest against its nastiness. I suppose you were angry and upset, but still. Anyway, I saw Ched had got here before me, and you had promptly removed his warning. You're formally perfectly entitled to do that, but don't you think it's a little embarrassing, for somebody so strong on openness and transparency, to be so quick to hide criticism of yourself? It struck me as contradictory. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC).

Personal attack

Hallo. I've undone your edits (restored the redirect to Ad hominem) for two reasons: 1. namespace redirects shouldn't point to WP-space (as implied at WP:R#DELETE) and 2. a Google search for "ad hominem personal attack -wikipedia" returns >340,000 results, mostly agreeing. I do understand that a personal attack is not the same as an ad-hominem attack (an ad hominem is a subset, yes?), but the talk page implies Personal attack had some major issues—it seems the current setup is best. Ad hominem has a WP:HATNOTE to WP:NPA anyway, so I think it's fine. Thanks, and happy editing! —Ignatzmice^talk_contribs 17:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Commendation

I commend you on your efficient talk page archiving, reminds me of how Townlake did it. PumpkinSky talk 21:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dude, please take a break

I don't want to see you get blocked. Cardamon (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

re: what?

Every editor is a human being,
and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not. (Geometry guy 28 February 2012)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The "what?" referred to this, added for context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not doing any more tonight

But you may have to explain word order to me :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cracked

Hi. I am curious why you closed the discussion on Cracked.com. Yes, many editors opposed using it as a reference, but none of them were able to back up their viewpoint with accurate reasoning. Are we just going to decide that sources are unreliable, because certain people don't like them? Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says that for a source to be considered reliable it needs to have "a repuatation for fact-checking and accuracy". As I have pointed out, articles on Cracked are accurate and often provide sources for the verification of their claims. Isn't this more relevant than the opinions of a few editors?

Would you be willing to re-open the dicussion? If the final consensus still comes out to be that Cracked is unreliable, than I am willing to accept that. However, I would prefer the decision to be based on firm reasoning, rather than simply majority opinion. --Jpcase (talk) 14:34, 18 April

Cracked

Why did you delete my question? I am not looking to cause trouble or start an argument. I was simply making a request. Couldn't you have at least shown me enough respect to reply? --Jpcase (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I have left a reply to your post over at my talk page and would be interested in hearing your further thoughts on the matter. Thank you for your time. --Jpcase (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How would you suggest I proceed from here?

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply. Thank you.

I sort of agree with you about the manner in which these publications are citing Cracked, but this article [32] from the LA Times cites it as a reference for a story about the Michael Jackson song Billie Jean and one of the members of this discussion [33] at USA Today cites it as a reference for a story about former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Most of the other articles are citing opinion pieces from Cracked, which I believe shows that they recognize the website as a respectable source for pop-culture commentary. Again, pop-culture is the only topic that I would support using Cracked as a reference for.

Would you be willing to re-open the discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so that other editors could weigh-in on whether they believe that the use of Cracked by these publications would make it a reliable source? If not, what do you still need to see before you would consider re-opening the discussion? --Jpcase (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nelles

I cannot find the reference to a real estate company at all. Please enlighten me as you are also eliminating relevant history. I grew up down the street from Nelles, driving by it most days and still live nearby. Having not looked at the article for some time , it is unrecognizable from the article I wrote with a tremendous amount of research. be that as it may please show me the ref! Thank you. Namaste! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 04:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

NPA

I have reverted your edits to User talk:Dreadstar. Given how you do maintenance to your talk page, I'm sure you don't mind if your comments on others' talk pages are summarily reverted. Also, I couldn't rightly decide between calling it trolling and personal attack, so I'll leave that to you. Do consider this a warning--let's say level-3 NPA. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of user pages

Please feel free to notify me next time you have concerns about my user pages. These pages were left form an arbitration and I am happy to remove them myself since they are no longer in use. Thank you.(olive (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

add

I am very busy in RL but will probably delete these pages myself in the next few days. Thanks.(olive (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

G10 nominations

I have reverted your recent mass-tagging of various userspace pages as {{db-attack}}, which does not apply to those pages. If you want them deleted, take them to WP:MFD as per WP:POLEMIC or as abandoned drafts of RFCs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of source for History of Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi Fladrif, I noticed your deletion of Tony Wills' A People For His Name as a source at the History of Jehovah's Witnesses article on the grounds that it's a self-published source. I've raised a couple of objections to this at the talk page and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks. BlackCab (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked: April 2013

I've thought about this for some time, .... and no. Your editing here is not conducive to a collaborative environment. You have been sanctioned in the past for your approach by the arbitration committee, and you continue to attack editors in an unacceptable manner. No Fladrif, enough is enough. If you want some "unblock me" template, .. ask. But your behavior is far beyond acceptable. — Ched :  ?  05:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI, this issue has been raised at User talk:Ched#Your indef-block of Fladrif, and also at WP:ANI#User:Fladrif with their finger on the trigger. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Page achiving

Hey Fladrif. It would be much easier to follow things if you left content a little longer on your talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocking

You have been blocked for 72 hours for making uncivil comments as per here evidence provided here [34]. When you return to editing please interact more professionally and concentrate on content rather than contributors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Several editors at the ANI have commented that you are not an appropriate person to adjudicate on this because of your past involvement with him. Anyway personally I think that Fladrifs behaviour is so gross over a period of years that only an indefinite ban suffices, a 72 hour ban just trivializes things. He has been blocked several times before already. --Penbat (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

While feel free to put together a RfC User or request a indefinite ban at ANI. I still consider it inappropriate for a single admin to indefinitely ban a long time editor while providing zero evidence as justification. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What? Ched has posted twice today at AN/I saying he/she is working on a comprehensive report and several other editors including myself have provided dozens of diffs showing chronic problematic editing. What you should be doing Doc James is undoing your reversal of the indef block by Ched and waiting for the community to complete its evaluation. Instead you are supporting and perpetuating the chronic disruptive behavior of an editor with whom you have a long term connection. That is very troubling. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be blind to the fact that the ANI is now getting very long, around 10 editors have made critical comments about Fladrif and hardly anybody supporting him. Most people would call that a consensus. Anyway it isnt fair that you who controversially did the unblock adjudicate on this ANI.--Penbat (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No I am not blind to the fact that there is now nearly support at ANI for an indef ban. This is what should have occured before an indef ban and in fact was all that I requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack today

Fladrif, this comment, you made today, after being blocked by Ched and unblocked by Doc James, is a blatant personal attack. An attack you made without provocation, in the middle of civil discussion on content, and part of a long series of abusive comments you have directed towards User:TimidGuy over the past few years. You have been repeatedly warned by me [35][36] and numerous others that this kind of behavior is unacceptable[37] [38][39] and yet you continue again and again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You call this a personal attack? "This has been a persistent pattern with TimidGuy, blatantly misrepresenting sources on TM research when he can't get away with excluding them. MastCell is 110% correct - Wikipedia does not cherry pick out of context statements from the body of a WP:MEDRS compliant source to contradict the author's summary conclusions. TimidGuy has been repeatedly sanctioned for this kind of conduct following the TM ArbCom. Continuing to argue for such misrepresentation of sources is clearly sanctionable and needs to stop, now. It hardly improves things to have EMP and Spairig (resurrected from the dead, it would seem) forming a Greek chorus to urge him on. " Which part exactly? Maybe Fladrif could provide difs to support each bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly DocJames it looks like we may have to start an ANI on you as well. You should step away from this dispute with Fladrif as you have had various involvements with him in the past. --Penbat (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I have just started that ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Questionable involvement by DocJames on Fladrif dispute--Penbat (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The diff is from yesterday, before the block by Ched. NE Ent 21:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NE Ent, my mistake, I've stricken that part of my statement. Cheers. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Doc James, you are an admin, but if you don't know the basic policies I'll list them here for you:

WP:TALK says: "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor."

WP:NPA says a personal attack includes: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

This is chronic disruptive behavior from Fladrif not only across the board on WP but also specifically in regards to User:TimidGuy [40] [41] (there are more TG related diffs but I don't have time to collect them today). In the meantime your continued efforts to undermine the authority of another Admin (Ched), circumvent community process (ANI) and defend the misbehavior of a chronically disruptive editor is deeply troubling. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Keith I asked for two things. 1) Evidence for the block in question 2) Community consensus for a indef ban. Community consensus is now developing for this. I am not sure how that "circumvent cummunity process" by asking that the community weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Indef block

You have been blocked indefinitely per the consensus forming here [42] Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)