Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

Best of luck, and have fun! – Clockwork Soul 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV BRICK

Hi excellent tone, I think you are doing a great job in clarifying what I could not, which is what is POV. I wonder if you can also steer towards a coherent article? In the past with so many compromises the article ended up being rather clumsy. If I can be of any help I am happy to do that but I would prefer not to contribute directly to the NKT article because after a lot of time I found the enterprise to be fruitless! I ended up thinking of Geshe Langri Tangpa who didn't care what people said about him and I believe this is also true for Geshe Kelsang and NKT, so I left it for people to write whatever they wanted to. However you have a different approach to me so I think you may produce more constructive results. Also if you wish, you can always e.mail me directly using the e.mail this user link on the right of my user page. BTW - I think Marpa is correct to ask KT to step down as an editor of this article, he certainly has a view he wants to express and it makes it difficult to actually produce a good article. Marpa's point re reliance on Kay is interesting, because I then ask if Kt wrote a book on the NKT should that be considered a neutral or reliable source? Robertect 09:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AMA request

You will need to provide the AMA with a summary of why you need advocacy under the summary section. It helps us find the right advocate for you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why don't we propose the article for deletion? :-) Seriously. NPOV cannot be achieved by quarreling parties as Jimmy Wales suggests. 180 pages (I copied all talk pages into Word.) of discussion is sufficient proof that people have genuinely tried! I'm intrigued to see what the advocate will say. Marpa 21:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AMA request

Hello, thanks for your patience. I've looked over the article and the last two of the archives, and I commend all participants for keeping things civil. The article itself, both in subject matter and editorial style, is extremely difficult for me as a layperson to understand. I would recommend nominating the article for deletion, however I think the final decision would be to keep as the archives themselves seem to suggest there is something of substance to be negociated in this article, that the subject of the article itself can be salvaged. From what I understand, Excellentone and others believe Kt66's extensive use of David Kay references constitute bias against the subject. I ask, are there any other scholastic references that can be used to refute or contextualize David Kay's factual claims? Kt66, upon a cursory review of his last 50 contributions to the article before Oct 1, has apparantly not engaged in edit warring nor has he attempted to assert ownership of the article. He has extensively authored it, but upon my immediate review he does not seem to have violated any WP conduct policies in doing so. While his referenced contributions do cast the subject in an extremely critical light, to me the question in terms of the NPOV policy is whether the extensive use of David Kay as a reference consitutes undue weight, if David Kay represents a minority or majority opinion of authorities familiar with NKT or with extended categories of Buddhism. On this matter I have no idea. However, I think the arguments themselves present a good case for formal or informal mediation once Kt66 returns from his wikibreak. I would be happy to advocate that extensive use of David Kay constitutes undue weight should all parties agree to undergo some form of mediation. Thank you,--Amerique 03:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you want to go ahead and nominate the article for deletion I can do that too, but I don't think the outcome would be sucessfull. I advise waiting for Kt66 to show up again in any case, though. Best--Amerique 09:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you let me know what you want to do with this? Kt66 has acknoledged that the history section may be overly critical and has expressed willingness to undergo mediation to resolve these issues. As this seems to be a low-intensity conflict I think informal mediaiton via WP:MEDCAB would be the best option within the WP:DR process, however a better option would simply be to supply other reliable references and just edit to improve the article. Please let me know if my take on this seems at all simplistic or naive. Anyone concerned with this article may contact me. Best Regards,--Amerique 20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you want me to, I will inform Kt66 of this and nominate the article for deletion Monday. From my experience in AfD debates on articles that are obviously hit-pieces, this isn't likely to work.--Amerique ^dialectics 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Excellentone,

Boboluna left a message on my user page requesting me not to nominate the article for deletion. I told him I would request you to review the message and again propose mediation over an AfD nomination. Seriously, I think the best option would be to extensively edit the article as opposed to any option within WP:DR or an AfD debate, as the NPOV/undue weight concern steming from heavy reliance on David Kay references is probably not going to be enough to get this article deleted. I could try to mediate the negociation of a joint-plan for further editing this article, which would be a nicer approach, if you want me to try that, or I could still initiate an AfD. I leave this decision to you.--Amerique ^dialectics 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about a straw poll at WP:POLLS or an article content WP:RFC? These could be initiated as a means of gauging likely community support for an AfD vote, and would be a more low-key way of approaching and possibly resolving the issue without the dramatic possibility of failure an AfD debate presents. These are the only other options I think could possibly assuage the issue within WP:DR. If you reject this I'll still nom the article for AfD, but your case for deletion would look a lot better if you tried some other routes before this.--Amerique ^dialectics 23:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was going to propose this for RFC wording (heavily borrowed from your AMA case description):

The NKT article may violate WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the views and opinions of one author, David Kay, who is extremely critical of the subject. The piece as a whole seems lacking in coherence as well as citations and presents opinion as fact. The discussion of this article is interminable...would it be better to delete it altogether?

I guess you already tried gathering some third party input through the NPOV check and want to go ahead with the all or nothing proposition. So, AfD it is then. I can just use this text for the opening rationale unless you want to edit it in some other way.--Amerique ^dialectics 00:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. It's out of my hands now. I won't be responding to individual comments but will try to summarize the case for deletion on the fifth day. Best of luck with this!--Amerique ^dialectics 08:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Excellentone,

Marpa made the final case for deletion better than I could have. Unless there is anything else you want me to do, I'll consider this AMA request closed.--Amerique ^dialectics 11:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NKT

Hullo, if you need to access the BBC article on the NKT you can find it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/subdivisions/kadampa.shtml Regards, Magic Pickle 18:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. If you have some time I am happy if you can leave your comment/critics or further suggestion how to improve or correct the NKT article. Thank you very much. --Kt66 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Excellentone, to be frank as well: I have no agenda against NKT. The only interest I have regarding NKT is to have a proper an fair article which offers unbiased and reliable information on NKT. You and all the others were and are always welcomed to improve, critisize and debate that article. As you can see I welcomed also user:Marpa at his own talkpage and also other NKT editors and we could talk well and find solutions in the past. To have the feeling of responsibility to stop the trials of NKT on spreading contorted and wrong information, repressing the history in the whole internet and starting this as well in Wikipedia and out of that feeling getting active is not on his own biased. Biased for me is when I am closed to other views and opinions or activley neglecting them. This is not the case. I have a lot of knowledge because I know many different perpectives on NKT. You can see my talk page information as my trial to be always honest and transparent in what I do. If I would have an agenda against NKT then surely I would have write there something different. So please stop accusing me of being biased, running an agenda and the like especially as long as you may have an agenta against me...The article is not a battleground in my view. But it is surely not wished by NKT. So what is your agenda? Although I have an opinion on NKT the point is: am I able to relax that and allow different views on the subject as well? This is a work every WP editor has to do and being biased is a natural thing but can be worked at. Once more my only agenda is: to have a proper, well informed and fair article on NKT for the interest of the reader according to WP guidelines. I tried to follow Jimmy Wales suggestion: "What is preferred, of course, is that thoughtful, reasonable people who know something about the subject interact in a helpful way to seek common ground." Maybe you can support the article and discussions in that way too? Thank you very much for your work, I picked up some of youre suggestions, see tp and article, Regards --Kt66 08:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Excellentone, please don't forget to also leave your excellent reasoning for deletion, which I read on the NKT talk page and on Amerique's talk page, here: this article's entry before the end Friday! Thanks. Marpa 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Excellentone, you don't speak for the NKT??? And you are still getting involved in this mess?! Wow! You are either completely mad or a holy being! I choose to discriminate the latter and prostrate myself fully before you. :-) I really appreciate your efforts because I too believe that this article is full of propaganda against the NKT. As you can see from your own experience it's very difficult if not impossible to edit this article. These editors have so much aversion against the NKT. I think they have taken ownership of this article and won't even let you change a single comma. One NKT editor after another has given up. Lack of sources is another reason for this. Could you please remind me of the "other avenues suggested by Amerique-Rfc"? How do you want to get the article back to the facts? Non-facts have been published and are allowed to be quoted in the article. How do you want to elimitate false information that has been published? If we had suitable sources we could at least include the other side of the story in the article but we don't have any. So far I haven't made any changes to the article and I don't really feel like doing so. Kt66 will just provoke an edit war. He will be the good boy protecting the article from vanadalism, with all these dubious sources backing him. The NKT editors will be the bad guys without any sources backing them. It happened before but maybe I'm a bit pessimistic. If you manage to help kt66 to let go of attachment to his opinion I will be more than impressed! Very kind intention though. If you have any ideas how to proceed please let me know. I'm happy to help in any way I can. If there is anything you would like to discuss privately please send an email to marpa62@yahoo.de Thank you very much for your efforts. Marpa 00:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Excellentone,

Sorry for how the AfD turned out, but I couldn't argue against it like I have against, for instance, Third holiest site in Islam because Kay, as far as I can tell, is taken as a reliable reference in the literature in this field. Kt66 has requested me to propose mediation again, but I thought I would consult with you before responding. Personally, I don't know if I could mediate this case, as I anticipate being very busy in the near future, but here is how I handled my first righteous campaign for NPOV in WP after the first RfARB I submitted ended in failure (check University of California, Riverside):

Develop a straw poll (an article RFC would also work, is considered more "official") requesting outside opinion on all contested areas of the article.
Request an advocate for assistance in negotiating content compromises based on the results of the straw poll or RFC. (This is what I did, but in my situation my advocate mostly stood back while the other guy's advocate tried to mediate a resolution, which was fine by me.) Or, you could propose informal mediation for interpreting the results of the RFC with or without an advocate. If you propose formal mediation, you probably would want an advocate.
The only way to take it further than that in WP:DR would be if your opposition leaves a pattern of personal conduct violations that would result in grounds for a personal conduct RFC. Once that is in place, an ArbCom would be the next step in getting sanctions placed against the editors in question.

An article content RFC followed by (informal) mediation I think would be the best way of dealing with the situation within WP:DR. Best,--Amerique ^dialectics 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: editing while an AfD or RfC is in progress, there is no special WP prohibition or rule against it. If editors seem to be changing things in accomidation of your remarks and criticisms, it is typically taken as a good thing. What I would do is propose changes to the talk page and see if they contest them. If not, go ahead and implement them. If so, make the contested sections the subject of an WP:RFC or WP:Poll.--Amerique ^dialectics 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about committing myself to this case at the moment. If you don't mind, I would like to work informally for the time being.--Amerique ^dialectics 03:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the proposed RFC wording, and I think continuing to focus on NPOV concerns in relation to David Kay is not going to be the best way of getting productive comments on the article. I was thinking, it might be best to go outside of the WP:DR system and instead list the article for WP:Peer review, which would get outside editors to address those concerns along with ways of improving the whole article. The whole article I think could benefit from significant outside input as to ways of improving its structure, phrasing, and general readability. Best,--Amerique ^dialectics 03:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geshe Kelsang Gyatso article

Hi e1, maybe you can help improving the article of GKG, someones whished for and I feel not able to contribute much at that time. Please see the Talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelsang_Gyatso#POV_.22One_of_the_strongest_tenants_of_Buddhism_is_to_never_forsake_your_teachers_teachings..22 thank you very much. Regards kt66

Ewan Pearson

So in essence we can't use the copyrighted photos, and the most common way to get a picture is to find someone who took a picture of him who will release it freely (not just for use on Wikipedia). Flickr is usually an amazing resource for this since they have options for people to select Creative Comons licenses and an accompanying search feature. I did a search and there aren't any free pictures of him, but I'll see if the person who took this picture might release it for commercial use. ShadowHalo 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template deletions

Hi cattlegirl,

I admit to being slightly bewildered by the deletion of the templates for settlements on the River Stour and settlements on the Staffordshire and Worcester Canal - in particular as they seem to me to have conveyed useful information about the local geography and to contextualise small villages by showing how they connect and relate to each other. Is there a general debate about templates that I have missed, or is each template judged on its own merits? Excellentone 16:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how are you?

I deleted these as per a Templates for Deletion discussion (found [[1]], basically for the reasons listed there.

If you want, you could have a look at the deletion review page and list them there if you believe that they should be restored.

Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cattlegirl

I'm still confused (forgive me, the intricacies of policy elude me somewhat) were these templates deleted because someone suggested them on the basis that they started with Settlements on? was there a deletion discussion specifically for these templates? on what basis specifically were they deleted? (I can find only vague reasons which don't seem to correspond to the deletion policy at all). You'll have gathered that I'd like them to be restored or at least for a discussion to be held specifically over them before they are deleted. Best regards Excellentone 19:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Excelletone, how are you?

I didn't delete the templates because they all started with "settlements on"- the reason they were grouped in one deletion debate was that they were relatively similar templates, serving the same purpose (but of course on different articles), and the reasons for deleting were the same. Sorry I didn't clarify that earlier :).

The reason I deleted the templates was that the specifications of what would be in each template were not clear, and would prove to be unmaintainable. Probably to sum up my reason for deletion nicely would be what ChoChoPK said in the debate, that what if we had a template for every highway/expressway for major cities?

If you'd like, you can list the templates on Deletion review, where another discussion can take place as to whether the templates can be recreated.

I'm pretty sure that answered your questions, if not, you know where to contact me. :) Cheers- CattleGirl ^talk 09:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Price

I left a few notes on Talk:Nancy Price on possible updates to the article. SkierRMH (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me about your article on Nancy Price, which I first noticed some months ago. I have an interest in the lady, but regret to say that I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about her to comment on your work.

It may interest you to know that her entry in my list of dream diaries used to read as follows. As it was written before Wikipedia had an article on her, I thought it necessary to explain who she was.

Nancy Price (1880-1970), Acquainted with the Night: A Book of Dreams (n.d.; 1949 according to the British Library catalogue). Illustrated by Michael Rothenstein. One of the best dream diaries, written by a distinguished actress of stage and screen, who also made a name for herself as a naturalist and campaigner for animal rights.

Subsequently some meddling type removed what he termed "subjective statements".

alderbourne (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Photo

That should be {{PD-old-70}}, given the author died more than 70 years ago. Megapixie (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jack1956 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Excellentone. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Nancy Price

Excellentone, please go to File:3weirdsistersfilm.jpg, and fill out the template Template:Non-free use rationale to justify that copyrighted image's presence at Nancy Price. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Excellentone. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]