Jump to content

User talk:Civilizededucation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck

Hi, I undid ([1]) your edit ([2]) to the article Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. Providing the name of an article's subject in its native language is customary, particularly if the language uses a different writing system from English. And if the Dzongkha language showed up as empty boxes for you, you need to read Help:Special characters. You are probably using the Internet Explorer browser?—that would be your first mistake, Maedin\talk 22:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maedin\talk. Thanks for reverting my edit, obviously it was a mistake. Anyway, which browser would you suggest?Civilizededucation (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hallo, I suggest Firefox. It's a clean, safe, fast browser, and there are loads of add-ons if you want more functionality or fun. Beefed up support for fonts and unicode, and "round corners" are some of the pleasures that await you, ;) (to know what I mean by rounded corners, open my user page (as an example) in both Firefox and IE. I think you'll like Firefox's version better!) Maedin\talk 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, I will certainly go for it.Civilizededucation (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First Covenant

I changed the title of this article to Covenant of circumcision, which is more accurate and neutral. But now I see that there is, in fact, an article called Brit milah, which has to do with how the covenant is remembered/observed in Judaism. It seems to me you were hoping for an article that is broader than this. Do you perhaps want to put all of this in an article on Abrahamic covenant (which currently is a redirect)? It certainly deserve an article on its own. Though one of the issues the scholars debate is whether it should be "covenant" or "covenants". StAnselm (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi StAnselm. Although I prefer "First Covenant", I have no strong reservations about the new name too, so let us keep it as it is now. The articles you refer to appear to have a different scope and I prefer to have an article on this present subject. Thanks for chipping in. Looking forward to more input from you..--Civilizededucationtalk 08:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Full Protection

I've started a thread on the talk page of Historicity of Jesus regarding my second recent full protection of the page. Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Please dont consider it as an issue

Sir, I also agreed that there is no need of long list, but I did it for some generous ones, but you made it issue, I never try to raise an issue in this connection, I feel pity that due to my some positive efforts many Notables have lost their name from the Notable list in the Article, I am sorry for that.--Rind Baloch 06:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rind Baloch (talk • contribs)

Hi Rind Baloch. There is no need for a sorry or "Sir". I think that as Wikipedians, we should only try to keep the well-being of the articles in mind. It is not that some notables have lost a name. If you want, you can always create lists on notable people (if they are notable) as I have suggested on the talk page of the relevant article. But I don't think that lists of notable people are needed in articles on places. I see it as a problem. It destroys the encyclopedic nature of the article. We cannot have haphazard articles. Context and form have to be kept in mind. And please sign your posts with the four tildes like this~~~~. It should be near the upper left corner of the keyboard just below the escape button.-Civilizededucationtalk 07:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi okay I get back my words 'sorry and Sir, as you said, and i will try my level best to create the deserving Notables related to the Article, some time it is good for readers to have knowledge about the area related, i knew the key where is it but anyway its good to remind me:Rind Baloch 07:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rind Baloch (talk • contribs)
Hi, the Trafford09 has created sand box for me User:Rind Baloch/RBsOwnSandox and I have tried many time but is not work to be appear in red: its my pleasure if you help me in this matter: Rind Baloch 08:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rind Baloch (talk • contribs)
Fine and thanks for your assistance Rind Baloch 06:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rind Baloch (talk • contribs)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Historicity of Jesus talk

I agree with you that archiving is occuring too quickly. But when you reverted the bot, why did you skip extensive comments by John cart4er, myself, and Bruce Grugg? In effect you deleted their comments. I think I fixed it, but please review your revert. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete their comments on purpose. Actually i did not realize that I had deleted other people's comments. I am grateful that you have fixed it and brought my mistake to my notice. I will be more careful if I do anything like this next time. I will review the talk page to see what I did wrong.-Civilizededucationtalk 10:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Historicity of Jesus

Hi there

I am actually quite happy with the current content of the lead section, although I think it could be better polished. I think this says, clearly enough, that the gospels cannot be trusted word for word, and it also states quite clearly which (very major) elements are contested. If this material stays in then I am happy, but if its cut down to say "the gospels are very useful when analyzed critically" then I will have a problem. Wdford (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, C. Saw your note in passing on another page as to Elaine Pagels material. In my experience it pays to search both Google and Google Scholar as a first resort. The latter often has multiple versions of the same article or book, some of which are much better than others. For Google books, you may be able to do word or phrase searches in the left-side search window for "snippets" which you might follow up on in a hard copy if necessary. --19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Quest for the historical Jesus

Hi, I'm never quite sure how to hold these talk page conversations: by keeping on one page, or by bouncing back and forth between talk pages.

Anyhow, thanks for your post on my talk page! Here's my response:

Actually SlRubenstein opposed the merger: "I think this article should be built up, and not deleted or merged!" Also, there had been no discussion on the Quest... page for more than a year at the time of the merger. I didn't see any discussion on the HoJ page--I'll look for it--but shouldn't there be a banner placed on both pages if a merger is being considered?

Webbbbbbber (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

PS I finally did find some discussion on the HoJ page, but it seemed to be mostly concerned with a general problem of forking than specifically about overlap between the HoJ and Quest articles. In any case, I did not see any input from editors of the Quest page.

Thanks for your reply! You're right: that debate *is* long! *whew* It'll take me a while to read it. Meanwhile, here are my thoughts on why we should consider keeping these articles separate:
1. As I understand it, the two articles have slightly different subjects. HoJ (which I am not terribly familiar with) appears to compare and evaluate the various opinions on the Historicity of Jesus today (and borders on OR); whereas the Quest article is concerned with the history and origins of the debate.
2. The term "Quest for the Historic Jesus" as you probably know comes from the title of Albert Schweitzer's book "The Quest of the Historic Jesus. It has since entered the vocabulary of theology, and is something a student or lay reader may come across. If such a reader searches using "for" rather than "of", an understandable mistake, s/he will be dumped in the HoJ article and would most likely never notice the reference to Schweitzer's book.
3. The HoJ article is getting a bit long for WP guidelines. See Wikipedia:Splitting#Article_size
Webbbbbbber (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Donald Guthrie

In an edit summary you mention that Donald Guthrie is not a reliable source for textual discussions. Can you offer some direction to where that was discussed and decided? JodyB talk 12:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is only my opinion. My opinion is that he is a WP:QS and does not have too great an academic reputation as seen from the publishers of his books which are non academic. Surely we value academic sources?-Civilizededucationtalk 14:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John

Hello. RH and another editor keep changing "currently most critical scholars dispute the traditional authorship" to "critical scholars such as Harris and Anderson dispute the traditional authorship". I keep explaining that the sources state the scholarly opinions not the opinions of the authors and yet they keep methodically reverting them with no reason other them "biased wording". 24.180.173.157 (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You could be more productive if you used the talk page more often. Secondly, it is not helpful to violate 3RR. 3RR is no joke. I am with you on most of what you say. I also want to investigate the publishers of RH's sources. Are they academic publishers? RH has almost invariably tended to produce unacceptable, non academic publishers as sources. His ideas on sourcing are pretty weird. For example, he thinks that Vermes is anti christian and the JS is fringe or something. And so is everyone associated with it. The JS is one of the most influential studies of the present quest and incorporated the leading scholars of our times. You could have pursued RH on uncivility because he has tried to paint you as a vandal. Which you are not. You are having a content dispute. It is uncivil to describe a content dispute as vandalism. But it does not help much if both of you are violating 3RR. At present 3RR looks like a joke. It is not necessary to violate 3RR. It is better to take things to the talk page and let others look at it for some time. What's the hurry? Please try to pursue your points on the talk page more and refer to the points you have made on the talk page in your edit summaries of article edits.-Civilizededucationtalk 11:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

User Talk Pages

Hi, Civilizededucation! I am not going to undo your edit[3] to RomanHistorian's talk page, but you should read WP:BLANKING carefully, as it clearly allows editors to remove a great deal of content from their own talk page, including what he removed. Blanking a page does not hide the edit history of the page, and those diffs can always be used as proof of the warning should the need arise. He can tend his talk page, and you are free to do so with your own, so if he decides to undo your edit: it's allowed. Cheers, and Happy Editing! :> Doc talk 09:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will self rev. Regards.-Civilizededucationtalk 09:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
NP :> I personally hate when editors do that as well, and I've told him so in the past (you'll have to check the edit history of his page for it, as that has also been blanked). Cheers :> Doc talk 09:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind: here[4] it is ;> Doc talk 09:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
If you'll pardon my butting in here, I'd like to point out that a foreseeable consequence of frequent blanking is precisely the fact that it makes it harder to find references. In other words, for someone with a guilty conscience, it's a way to wipe the slate clean so that a pattern of behavior is less visible.
The few times I've (partially) blanked my own talk page, it's either been to remove a "come read this other page" notice or when someone drops a warning that is clearly and obviously illegitimate, to the point that it's simply bullying. At risk of projecting my own thought processes onto Roman, I wonder if his blanking means he considers all of these warning illegitimate. This is not an unreasonable interpretation, and he's certainly ignored many repeated requests, such as the ones about canvassing.
I'm not happy sitting here and speculating. I would rather just ask Roman, but I suspect he'd blank the page in response. In the end, he has the right to do this, though I wouldn't say it was the right thing to do. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

wany

Typo on your user page, ".. that you may wany me to see". Slightsmile (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

February 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mithraic mysteries. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello! I am Lord Roem and I have volunteered to mediate a case which lists you as a party. Please write an opening statement and add to your watchlist this page. In your opening statement, as a way to help me with the issues at hand, list your summary of the case, your preferred outcome, and potential areas of compromise. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello CE! As the mediation gets underway, I have laid out some guidelines here. Please sign your name there to indicate your agreement to the guidelines, as a showing of good faith for the process. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Sadiqabad‎

Ah, wonderful. Someone else is tackling that article. Its in very rough shape, kudos to you for working on it. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 07:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Mithraic mysteries

Hello Civilizededucation

You wrote: >Hi Kalidasa 777. I just found what seems to be Marvin Meyer describing his encounter with a mithraist and how he got himself initiated into the mysteries.[1] p203-205. I wanted to know what you make of it.

I hadn't seen this before... Interesting text... On page 203, the name of the person being initiated is given as "Menippus", not "Meyer". This suggests to me that it isn't Meyer describing his own encounter with a mithraist, it is Meyer's translation of an old Roman work.

>Besides, I have been tweaking with the article and added a few refs. I have also tried to take up some issues brought up by you. But I am not sure if I was able to do it in the way you suggested. I would like to get some comments from you there. Perhaps you would like to take a jab there? I think highly of your suggestions and would like them to be taken up.

I'm glad you like my suggestions about the article. I have been preoccupied with other matters the last few days. But tomorrow I intend to have another look at the article. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

The Signpost: 11 April 2011

The Signpost: 18 April 2011

Mithraic mysteries

Hello Civ. Thought I should let you know that Roger Pearce has returned from his self-imposed exile to make some edits and add comments to the talk page. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kalidasa 777. Thanks for informing me about Roger Pearse's activities. I have gone through the talk page and recent edits in the article. I see that Roger Pearse is again censoring valid, referenced material and is continuing to insert false refs and continues to make definitive claims for points which are debated. However, want as much as I do, some real world situation prevents me from participating on WP presently. However, I will be returning in a few days. Until then...Regards.-Civilizededucationtalk 04:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011

The Signpost: 2 May 2011

Mithraic mysteries

This morning I noticed a series very extensive deletions that had been made to the article — deletions which actually reduced its length from over 120,000 bytes to around 70,000. The deletions were made anonymously, from an IP number, and there were some carefully worded "explanations" given on the history page, which made me think it was not just the work of some naughty kid... I have reversed those deletions, and have also requested SPI re Roger Pearse. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011

May 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User:Roger Pearse. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Just because he has made derogatory statements about other users in general, and has engaged in sockpuppetry, does not mean you should be responding at the same level. We do not "taunt the blocked". Nor should you be editing his userpage to give your opinion on him and his opinions - if you have an issue with what is on his userpage, which does not mention you specifically, then there are other ways of dealing with it. While I don't share or encourage the sentiments, there are many other editors and ex-editors who feel that qualified "experts" have little voice on Wikipedia, and they are entitled to state their own views about that on their user pages. I really strongly suggest you just avoid him as far as you are able. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not as if I enjoy interacting with RP and if you research the history of my dealings with him, you would have found that initially I was willing to AGF on him even if I disagreed with him on some issues. The main issue seems to have been that he was inserting his own name and links to his personal blogs into mainspace as if he was an RS . I had politely indicated to him that this is not OK. However, he chose to ignore my protestations despite having ample opportunity to respond in an honourable fashion. I had removed his name and links after more than a week of informing him of the issue. However, after I performed the edit, he responded with venomous, uncivil attacks on me which spread on to several talk pages possibly including your own. He was basically trying to perform a character assassination on me and thus prevent me from editing the article (and continue his ownership of the same). If you research his editing history, you would find that he has been behaving in an uncivil fashion with several eds and has mostly managed to drive them away. I don't think he should be allowed to own articles because he has a talent for extreme incivility.
As for the issue of him being a qualified "expert", he isn't one. It is utterly naive to think that he is one. Please research his background more before making that suggestion. The crux of the issue is that he comes across as a scholar, but isn't one. I don't think this is OK. I could have valued his sentiments if he had expressed them in a civil fashion and without presenting himself as something he is not.
I fully agree with your issue that personal attacks damage the community. Perhaps you would be willing to say something to RP next time he indulges in vitriolic attacks? He has a penchant for words like "moron", "scumbag", "troll", "rape of article", ....and for claiming others to be sockpuppeteers when they are not, and for repetedly claiming them as having done/said things which they never did. And he continues even when he has been admonished repeatedly for such behaviour. You can see it all and more in his editing history. I would love to avoid having to interact with him, but this would not be at the cost of letting him own articles.-Civilizededucationtalk 12:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI, RP has another sock as User:Roger pearse. If one were to research his edits and comments in this account, one could not fail to notice the same pattern of dreamed up claims about others and also of extreme incivility etc.-Civilizededucationtalk 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I am aware of most of the background of the issue. It was me that asked you, Roger and others to agree to mediation on the disagreements over the Mithras article - a process which he initially took part in, then later withdrew from. I also did indeed say something to Roger about some of his more questionable remarks at that time. That was criticism he agreed with, and he suggested he would change his approach. The changes either haven't been substantial, or haven't been permanent.
Much to the disgust of some, Wikipedia does not care whether Roger is an expert in the field, or a "scholar", or what. Nor should you care if his comments repeatedly seek to present himself as on a different level from other editors. Do you feel that such comments are effective in gaining an unfair advantage over editors who do not present themselves in such a manner? I really can't see why you would think so, judging by the results in this particular case at least.
I think that you saw Roger's comments on his user page and were very angry about them, which is understandable. You felt they couldn't be allowed to stand without some form of reply. But if you try to consider it as just being his opinion... ask yourself if you value his opinion very much?
Stating that someone with Roger's temperament should not be allowed to own articles, is superfluous. No-one is allowed to own articles on Wikipedia. Roger feels very strongly that he needs to prevent what he sees as misinformation being put into certain articles, and this has repeatedly brought him into conflict with Wikipedia editorial practices and standards of civility. But there has been some incivility and problematic editing on the other side too.
Making the comments that you did on Roger's user page was the wrong thing to do. Doing so while he was blocked, which meant that he would be unable to remove your comments as he could have done if they had been made on his talk page, was doubly the wrong thing to do.
Roger has indicated that he does not intend to contribute further. He may change his mind on that, but really it would be nice if the entire issue could be allowed to die down. Continuing the back-and-forth exchange of views about who is and is not a scumbag, scholar, liar etc., is only going to end badly.
I wasn't previously aware of the Roger pearse account as a separate one to Roger Pearse, however I don't think there is anything to be gained by raising that as (another) breach of Wikipedia policy. It is also a borderline case to say the very least; no-one could suggest that there is an intent to avoid the two accounts being identified as the same person, nor any apparent illegitimate use of the account. (If he'd used Roger pearse to edit while Roger Pearse was blocked, then that would be a different matter.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that you had urged RP to reconsider his behavior. During the period when he was making vitriolic attacks on me, I had read parts of some of his comments on some of the pages which he visited, and then ignored bothering with the rest because they were extremely nauseating. As such, I must have missed your words to Roger. Although I value your effort, it did not seem to have any effect on RP during the mediation process and he proceeded with his pioneering efforts in the field of incivility. You may note that during the mediation process, he was being uncivil from the start itself, and this must have happened immediately after your conversation with RP. Being unable to tolerate such insults, which were invariably based on imaginary facts, I too let him have some words. I could not tolerate his behavior because of the reason that it was intolerable. So, your efforts (which I value regardless of whether they were fruitful or not), and his promise to change his behavior were futile.
I wouldn't much care even if he presented himself as Einstien or Newton as long as he would not urge others to go away by claiming that they are ignorant. Although this formula has not worked in the present case, he did drive away more than one ed previously.
Although I do not value Roger's opinions presently, it is not because of lack of trying on my part. As I already said, I was willing to AGF on him initially. But he would not let me to do so. There are limits to AGF. It's not my fault.
I think there is some misunderstanding here. I am not saying that "someone like RP should not be allowed to own articles". What I am saying is that "RP should not be allowed to own articles as a way of avoiding the nuisance that he would create otherwise". He had successfully owned the articles for years in this way. If he is going to be inordinately uncivil, it is unavoidable that he would also get some amount of due respect. If preventing someone from owning article involves dealing with an ugly situation, so be it. As for editing issues, they are always there, and they can and should be solved in a collaborative manner. Not in a dictatorial manner. And not like a censor board.
As for making a comment on his user page while he was blocked, was he blocked when I made that comment? Am I mistaken in thinking that the block had already expired? If it had expired, this should be a non issue. So, my comment would not be "doubly wrong" at least? Please correct me if I am wrong, but your concern may be somewhat misplaced. And I would not have edited his user page if he had used it only to say things about himself. I don't think it is meant for the purpose it is being used for presently. At least, I did not modify his comments.
I would be the happiest person if this incivility could end. I did not start it, and I do not see how I could end it unilaterally. Am I expected to take insults and keep mum? Am I expected to ignore false claims of socking on my part? That's not going to happen even if you think so. I think things are already bad as they are. I appreciate that you are making efforts to resolve the situation. I assure you that I too want to see it resolved, let's hope it would take a turn for the better now.
I wasn't pointing to RP's other sock account because it is in breach of some WP policy. It doesn't matter, does it? I had pointed towards it due to some other reason already mentioned in my previous comment.
I do appreciate your efforts to contain this situation. Thanks.-Civilizededucationtalk 18:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right, the block had expired (by half a day or so) when you made the edit to his userpage.
User pages are for material intended to facilitate the project. Rightly or wrongly, someone who believes that academics are driven away from Wikipedia by trolls, could imagine that raising this issue on their userpage facilitates the project.
The SPI request that Roger raised was in good faith, if one ignores the irony of him using a sockpuppet himself at the same time. So it was a perfectly reasonable thing for him to do. He genuinely believed that the other account was you - just he happened to be wrong.
Can't really disagree with the rest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean it is OK for an amateur to describe himself as a scholar and claim a grievance on this score?
Although RS had already exhausted his quota of AGF with scores of false claims and misrepresentations etc. the SPI request is easily acceptable. I do not see the request itself as a problem (this is the opposite of the view taken by RP when K7 requested an SPI on him, RP resorted to making legal threats). Do you think it is OK for him to describe me as a sock puppeteer after the SPI found his suspicions to be false? And I see no reason to ignore the particular irony that someone should make false claims of sockpuppetry on others while he himself is one.--Civilizededucationtalk 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011

The Signpost: 23 May 2011

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

The Signpost: 6 June 2011

The Signpost: 13 June 2011

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

Mithraic Mysteries – New SPI

Hi Civ. I've opened a new sock puppet investigation in relation to recent activity re the Mithraic Mysteries page. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roger_Pearse Thought I should let you know. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

The Signpost: 26 September 2011


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

The Signpost: 7 November2011

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Civilizededucation. 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! 23:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Civilizededucation/Archive_1&oldid=1139309088"