User talk:Candorwien

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. You may also be interested in reading The five pillars of Wikipedia, our Help pages, the Tutorial, the policy on citing sources, and our Manual of Style.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Paul Cyr 22:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have notice that you have changed my edition on IBO very quickly and i appriciate it. I was wondering why you did this. You see, i made those errors to test out the response time of Wikipedia (i am currently doing an extend essay over Wikipedia and how accurate it is). Please if you would like to help me on my investigation you can contact me through [email protected]. Thx IBSTu

heres the poll: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?CI=14107

Wyatt 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton

You should take a look at Chaucer--hardly anything there is spelled right! Beowulf is even worse. Nareek 14:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would put "right" in quotes.--Filll 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter - Issue II - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the WikiProject Guitarists newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Aguerriero (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential infoboxes for fact vs. theory

Some rough draft versions of infobox type tables on this subject are available for your inspection at Talk:Evolution/FactvsTheory.--Filll 16:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch!

I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Evolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Creationism

Take a look at Creationism and the venting in the reasons for edits.--Filll 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whale fossils?

a plethora?

please show me a link or whatever.

to my knowledge there is like 10 bones that are the transistional fossils

show me please

Use [1]. Try entering some key words which you can figure out for yourself. Try not to be lazy. Also sign your name. Candy 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i have spent many hours of research on this and to the best of my knowledge there are just maybe 20 bones that are used to show the evolution of whales

why dont you not be lazy and show me how i am incorrect.

No. Candy 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i didnt sign my name

raspor 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) raspor 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) raspor 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remingtonocetidae: very cute pics. where did they get those wonderful snapshots of those creatures?

Remingtonocetidae

how many bones were found for this so cute creature swimming in the pond? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How come you don't sign your posts? As you don't have any specifics of what you refer to (that is you are vague and need more precison) I have to hazard a guess. If you mean on [2] and you mean the bottom drawing (artist's impression) then they got it from Carl Buell. (It says in the accompanying text "Illustration by Carl Buell".) Candy 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you claimed there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils. i have search for hours and never have seen them. i you have the info share it with the world thanks

raspor 15:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol Candy 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is funny. there is no plethora. just show me!

raspor 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admirable response, Candy. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Raspor#Educating raspor. .. dave souza, talk 10:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand more about raspor now. Thanks Dave! Now back to serious editing......

NPOV warning

I just put up a new article at Support for evolution summarizing the scientific, religious etc support for evolution. I realized that although there are many creationist articles, evolution mainly has science articles, or an article or two about the history of various parts of the dispute. I am told that summarizing the support that exists on one side is nonneutral (although I do include a section describing support for the creationist side). How is it nonneutral to give the objective information? I am not saying who is right. But it is a bit hard to deny that support exists. See below: --Filll 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am in support of evolution, I do find that this article is difficult to put into the light of a neutral point of view. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 03:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute this. The topic is that support exists. Whether that support is justified or not is another issue. I have copious references from both sides and it is a bit hard to deny that support exists in the scientific, religious and other communities. How is that being biased to summarize the support that exists?--Filll 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I think what you have done -Filll is an admirable piece of publishing and I'm pretty awed by it, I have to say I'm keeping out of the debate. I think over the past few years I've had it ad nauseum with the ignorant militant creationists. I've taught creationists (who were adventists or evangelicals) who were pretty smart kids and I enjoyed many of the discussions with them but they were far different so some of the "discussions" I've had in Wikipedia. I came to understand that when there is a strong belief system which relies on dogma and appeals are made to the preternatural/supernatural then the discussions were always irrational. Added to that I feel many of the creationists/trolls editing here regurgitating arguments they are indoctrinated with. There seems to be a wide-spread belief of those without good science training that evolution is easy to understand. It is not. This also shows in the comments made. I think that Intelligent Design is a threat to evolution not in a scientific sense but as a destructive, unsubstantiated belief system trying to politicise and control people.

I should add that I don't believe in evolution. As a rational scientist I accept that much of the current neo-Darwinist theory is the current best possible match to the evidence. I continue to study developments in evolution. Some parts are still hard for me to fully comprehend yet I continue to try to do so. I support evolution as a fact because of my first hand experimental studies, the vast amount of peer reviewed experimental evidence and supoorting evidence from other areas of science (geophysics, physics, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology etc). If at some point I find there is a better theory to support the evidence I will accept that. Intelligent Design and its legion do not present an alternative to evolution which can be taken seriously; nor are they science.

Furthermore, I articulate a broader the definition of scientist - far more than is usually understood in some of the trivial bickering that goes on in the evolution talk pages. Scientists include students in school studying science as well as those with multiple degrees. Science can be learned auto-didactically and many people have done so and become well-known in their fields. Scientists are not the font of all knowledge they are fallible too. Qualifications, by themselves, do not necessarily make one's views anymore valid than anothers. However, I totally believe there are good practitioners of science and poor ones (although either of these labels do not necessarily apply all the time to an individual). Scientists are also athletes, playboys, famous people, rock stars, collect stamps, parachute, couch potatoes and all the other things that all other people are too. And you know what? I don't care. It still means that excellent science is going on. It also means you can believe in Astrology and be a good scientist. A scientist doesn't have to be rational all the time! Newton was the last of the alchemists as well as (debatably) the first of the scientists. It doesn't mean calculus is flawed because alchemy is!

I came to Wikipedia to assist in writing articles that I felt I had some expert knowledge in creating, experience in helping to write and edit (that is help grammatically in material that I was interested in but was no expert) and discuss in a profitable way (that is I may learn something interesting or find a new perspective) something meaningful. I feel I have been distracted somewhat. Despite my irritation I am getting back to editing the article. I, wrongly, thought that education would be the best way to deal with the irrational behaviour of some of the detractors of evolution. I think I was wrong. I see that some of them do not understand enough science and do not wish to. Their agendas are political and irrational. Their responses are often at the level of an angry three year old.

There is no room for creationism imho in a biological article about evolution except to link to creationism as an alternative explanation to evolution or (depending on the scope of the article), link to any ID or link to historical perspectives (eg Scope's Trial or abuse of Darwin by the media of the day) etc under the umbrella that this is relevent to a reader under the context of science in society. Now excuse me, I have an article to read. Candy 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. I appreciate the kind words. I was accused of being biased, and not presenting the creationism side, so I rewrote it and shortened it a lot. I do not want to get deleted. Is there no way I could ask you to put in a kind word for my article at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for evolution?--Filll 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Candorwein, we are under FA review for, among other things, violation of WP:LEAD. Restoring to a version that's going to lose us FA doesn't help. The head of FA said we need to define terms, so I restored to a version from a week ago that did: Between then, it was replaced with one from back in October that does not define terms. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candorwein, I was just restoring to a version of a few days ago, because I discovered it had been reverted to one from October, and it was being heavily criticised in the FAR. That said, I see you have an improved version here from the one I used, so I'll re-restore to that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution (2)

I apologise if I was rude the other day. I hope I wasn't. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken at all. Candy 00:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just glad to see things are progressing in a positive direction.--Filll 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too 8) Candy 00:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WatchlistBot

I'm sorry. I made a mistake, and ran the bot without checking the talk page first (which I usually do). There is an exclusion list, which will keep the bot from retagging a page. For the baseball project, it is located at User:WatchlistBot/Baseball. I have just added All Along the Watchtower to that list. I truly am sorry for the inconvenience. Ingrid 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KK. Problem seems to be solveed now. We all make mistakes. Candy 07:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Page revert

I had no issue with your citation edits, but somewhere along the line you severely broke the page format, see [3], and while I couldn't track down the problem I just reverted it. IrisKawling 07:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Ok. I understand. Thanks. I guess I should try to be more dextrous and check the page more thoroughly. Candy 07:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REGARDING YOUR UNNECESSARY RUDENESS AND ATTACKS ON OTHER WIKIPEDIA USERS ON JIMMY PAGE DISCUSSION PAGE

Why did you respond so rudely to my question regarding Jaco Pastorius jamming with Jimmy Page? Of course I've googled that information, I am not an idiot. The info just seems slightly implausible, so I was wondering if anyone had actually verified that the rumors. There was no need to link to one of the many sites "reporting" that jam session as fact (that was really obnoxious). Or, I suppose you're suggesting that I should believe everything I read as a result of a google search? I pity you. There's no need to be rude to someone asking a question before posting an edit...for crying out loud, if only everyone asked before editing Wikipedia pages!

Thank you for your anonymous comment anonymous. I believe you are referring to the comment,

"I read somewhere recently that Page collaborated (or at least jammed) with the amazing jazz bassist Jaco Pastorius. Does anyone more knowledgable about Page know if there is any truth to this? If so, it would definitely be a candidate for inclusion in the Post-Zep section...that would demonstrate a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities (jazz fusion). I hope someone can help..."

I responded with a point that perhaps you should use google to locate such a reference and the very cruel remark that if you did not know how to use google you should get a friend to help.

Perhaps you don't like using your name and like anonymous comment? Perhaps you don't like citing sources? Perhaps you like to actually refer to anything specifically? Well, as you don't seem actually bothered to be specific I assume you are not bothered about being serious. I don't think you should be bothered about my rudeness but think about your lack of specificity and the fact YOU can't be BOTHERED. And no, imho it doesn't show a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities. Perjaps YOU can help us by EXPLAINING what YOU mean. Candy 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A RESPONSE:

You said: Perhaps you don't like using your name and like anonymous comment?

-I asked a question before adding to an article. That's proper protocol. I'd seen rumors and all sorts of webpage/bootleg claims that Jimmy Page performed with Jaco...nothing credible and nothing actionable.

You said: Perhaps you don't like citing sources?

-I like citing sources. That's why I asked the question. You googled and linked to a non-reputable webpage, not a credible source. I had already done that myself, prior to your rude comment, many times. I was asking for credible information. That was clear.

You said: Perhaps you like to actually refer to anything specifically?

-This question does not make syntactical sense in English.

You said: Well, as you don't seem actually bothered to be specific I assume you are not bothered about being serious.

-I have no idea what this sentence is referencing. I have been very specific with my question and also very specific in addressing your unwarranted rudeness. My effort was to not add heresay to Page's website; you googled and linked to a non-credible source and rudely dismissed my comment on the Page Discussion page. You were rude, not me.

You said: I don't think you should be bothered about my rudeness but think about your lack of specificity and the fact YOU can't be BOTHERED.

-I have no idea what you are talking about. It seems that you are responding to your previous sentence, which didn't make any sense, so is this meant to create a conversation with yourself?

You said: And no, imho it doesn't show a dynamically different side of Page's musical abilities.

-To suggest that Jaco Pastorius is akin to any type/genre of music that Jimmy Page previously played or currently plays is a completely idiotic statement. You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is wrong and very uneducated. Jaco completely revolutionized the jazz world; he invented his own instrument by reformatting the existing model of the electric bass to generate a new tone...and his playing with Pat Metheney and with Weather Report ushered in a totally new type of jazz...dubbed "fusion". Jimmy Page has never been associated with any type of jazz, and, if you consider his work in the blues to be in the same ballpark as jazz, you've obviously never heard any of the mid-1970s through mid-1980s fusion that Jaco created...Page's ability to musically jam/communicate with Jaco in a live, or otherwise, setting highlights a different style for certain.

You said: Perjaps YOU can help us by EXPLAINING what YOU mean.

-(Presumably you mean "Perhaps"?) I've already explained pretty accurately with my question on the Page Discussion page; you might have convoluted things by being rude and by googling a non-credible site. Google is obviously not the best way to research or to find credible information. You suggested that I either (1) use google to "research" Page and Jaco (I already had, which is why I was asking for more of an "expert" opinion from someone who might have already researched the rumors, the different non-credible websites) OR (2) find a friend to show me how to use google (which was rude and unnecessary). Your suggestion that google be used at all implies that you believe that google should be used to locate credible citations for Wikipedia edits...anyone who uses google knows that alongside useful information a TON of absolute crap comes up in response to any search...

The suggestion that Google is a viable source of credible information to support citations is a flawed statement. As this is the supporting statement for your rude comment, your comment is easily dismissable...you have made a very silly and very uneducated assertion that google be used and be trusted to deliver factual information. Perhaps it is you who needs help from a friend in conducting research.

It shouldn't matter that I am anonymous...YOU MADE A PERSONAL ATTACK AGAINST MY INTELLIGENCE WITH YOUR COMMENTS. SHAME ON YOU! 72.84.195.236 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address appears to have been blocked due to repeated vandalism. If you wish to discuss this further than please contact me when you have access to Wikipidia again. Candy 06:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use a shared IP address. I had nothing to do with the vandalism, which, by the way, seems to have ceased and (knock on wood) not started again in 2007. A quick review of all of the 2007 contributions from this IP address, most of which were mine, confirms this fact. I'm not sure what else there is to discuss. You were unnecessarily rude, and I called you out on it and pretty much entirely dismantled your attempt at a response. We can keep on going on like this, or you can admit your fault and an apology might be a keen idea...

72.84.195.236 21:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for any rudeness I have causedd. Perhaps you would care to apologise for your shouting as well and lack of willingness to understandiand in addition, your attacks on me. I would suggest you register as well to prevent misunderstandings in future. Candy 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not shout (how can one shout in typeface?). I used capital letters to be firm. I am not pleased at all with the way you have treated me (as a fellow member of the Wikipedia community), and I have every right to voice that displeasure. I have not attacked you whatsoever, nor have I expressed any lack of willingness to understand...your initial comments were unreasonably rude and did not assume any sort of good faith, your response was aggressive and mean-spirited, and my line-by-line response to your comments was meant only to demonstrate how seriously I am taking your ill-advised behavior. Any claim that I have made against you, "uneducated", for example, I have supported by demonstrating how, using your exact words, you have expressed an "uneducated" opinion...that is not meant as an insult, simply as a statement of fact. It has been difficult to understand many of your responses simply because you type them so rapidly and so devoid of any copyediting that many of your statements don't make sense at all. It probably would have been best for you to not try to belittle me with your remarks in response to my initial question on the Page Discussion page...you should have assumed good faith and let an expert on Page and/or Jaco offer a confirmation/rebuttal of the numerous google-references to that alleged jam. You jumped in, seeing a chance to anonymously belittle someone, and you've gotten a little bit more in response than you planned. It's too late for you to try to save face, so rather than dig a deeper hole for yourself, why not just apologize and move on...no apologies with "but I want the last word, too". 72.84.195.236 01:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No actually I find you to be an obnoxious, arrogant bully. Someone who shouts (that's the accepted use of capitalisation) and explodes. somone who hides behind anonymity and makes wild speculations to try to belittle me. In turn, you defend yourself my using the phrase, "statement of fact". Well, that's not supported and either you know that or simply want to pretend otherwise.

I have never been anonymous on that page so I do not know how I could "anonymously belittle you". It's actually the other way around. Futhermore, I am an expert on Page. I also know about Pastorius and despite your assertion that I do not know who he is. You seem to lack understanding about the difference between fact and PoV. You believe I am uneducated but claim it is a fact. Go back and reread what I wrote and what you wrote. I think then you will see that perhaps you have jumped in with two feet and no foresight. Candy 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Candy and User choosing to remaing anonymous. I have been a Wikipedia user for several years now, and I ordinarily use my user name, but for now I'm staying signed off because I don't want to be dragged into this fray.

I'm writing now only to make an effort at unbiased third-party observation. I'm interested very much in Jimmy Page and in the often under-appreciate aspects of his musical diversity, his musical production projects (his lesser-known but very worthwhile contributions). This is how I've come in contact with your argument (first on the Page Discussion, then here).

Candy, as I am sure you are aware, Wikipedia is based upon the following tenets : (1) Be polite, (2) Assume good faith, (3) No personal attacks, and (4) Be welcoming. These are printed at the top of the Page Discussion for your review. Candy, you violated all of these tenets with your response to the anonymous question about Jaco/Page. The tenets are not listed as applying only to those with user names, they apply to the community of Wikipedia as a whole. In fact, you are very lucky that the User choosing to remain anonymous did not log in with a user name, as your actions (both with your initial response and in the aftermath) would give her/him excellent grounds for protesting your behavior and seeking your ban from active editing. You certainly owe the Anonymous User and the entire Page Discussion an apology for your behavior.

I've read the entire conversation, and I don't feel that the Anonymous User has been arrogant or a bully. In fact, the only comments verging on arrogance or bullying are written in response to your own mean-spirited remarks. Surely the Anonymous User has every opportunity to defend her/himself against your actions, especially considering that you began this quarrel with actions in strict violation of Wikipedia policy.

Perhaps the "uneducated" comment is over the line, but in all fairness, Candy, you were very direct and mean-spirited in suggesting (1) that google be used to gather information and (2) that Pastorius's collaboration with Page is unworthy of attention--the reason you give, using the words "in my opinion", does, in all fairness, seem less-than-educated as an opinion, considering what that collaboration means (huge figures in contemporary jazz and in rock coming together). For that matter, it is even significant that Page allegedly attended a Pastorius show, whether the jam actually occurred or not! It seems to me that the Anonymous User is suggesting that your dismissal of her/his suggestions, that your act of dismissal is "uneducated." That's a bit harsh, in terms of phrasing, but I think that your dismissal of her/his suggestions is, to say the least, irresponsible and unfriendly.

In my opinion, the Anonymous User suggested a reasonable addition to the Jimmy Page article, and, assuming good faith, was asking for an expert opinion to confirm the information before simply adding it. As you yourself claim to be an "expert" on Page, it probably would have been best to treat the question/request with respect, or to allow another editor/Page-expert to investigate and/or add the information to the page in an appropriate context. Your actions against this Anonymous User would likely discourage Wikipedia Users from asking questions before making edits; unwarranted edits and vandalism, as you know, occupy most of our time as Wikipedia editors. Surely you don't want to discourage pre-edit queries!

Possibly my comments are falling on deaf ears, you both seem quite angry. For the Anonymous User: I encourage you to continue querying before making edits, that is a useful skill and one that should be more frequently employed by Wikipedia users in general. I also encourage you to sign in with a User Name; that will give you a better leg to stand on when something like this dispute comes up (you will have more opportunity to seek mediation/arbitration). For Candy: I think, sincerely, that you need to take your own advice and re-read the entire conversation. You've violated the main tenets of Wikipedia Discussion forums and then continued to criticize an Anonymous User for responding to your unequivocably mean-spirited remarks and attacks. You need to apologize and move on. You, Candy, are in the wrong. Just accept that, apologize, and move on.

I'm not planning to bring this dispute to the attention of any Administrators, but I'd expect for both of you to heed these words carefully and to bury the hatchet.

For now, I'll sign with my IP address only. 128.172.155.80 15:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To second anonymous user,

I have reread. I don't see your point of view. If you feel taht strongly that you must interfere then report me to an admin. Candy 00:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP

Hi Candy,

I'm sorry you don't think that parapsychological peer-reviewed journals are science. They do, however, meet WP:V, and parapsychology is a field of science. If science has not considered a thing, then it is our responsibility to say so. Science can conditionally rejected something by doing experiments which, while meeting all requirements which those who say the experiment is reproducible have set forth, fail to reproduce the phenomena. If this is the situation, then it is our responsibility to communicate that also. However, science has not done this with EVP. The EVP introduction accurately states the situation -or it did the last time I reverted it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martinphi (or is that Martinpsi) ;=) .

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate what you say. However, being published in a peer reviewed journal does not necessarily make it science (and that doesn't just go for parapsychology). On the other hand, I am a scientist and I'm open to possibilities.

My problem with the EVP article (apart from the strange way that the discussion is made - I've found it strange that my comments are discussed in the third person rather than directed at me and the fact one contributer referred to my comment on their user page as "shite" and deleted it without a response) is that it is written in a way to suggest these are phenomena that are scientifically valid. The proponent/skeptic angle is particularly confusing to me as it seem to make the article a battleground and therefore itself controversial. The article is written in a very sly way imho to boost EVP as being "a fact" and sideline controversy. I think arguing about the scientific validity of EVP is fine and wholesome. I think the way the article is written is weasly though. Now, you may disagree with my statement that there is no scientific evidence for these being paranormal phenomena (I added and it was wiped but I haven't gone to a revert as I need to consider some opinions). I will discuss that if you wish. The article itself imho simply needs a substantial rewrite. I think it is just badly written. I'll get back to the EVP discussion page at some time and may even attenpt a substantial restructuring myself. (After all, it can be reverted.) Candy 20:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this till now, because you responded here. The problem with a lot of paranormal articles is simply that those who are skeptical haven't really examined the evidence. I'm not saying that EVP or anything else is science. I'm just saying that it is a very deep field of study. And what happens is that people come along and believe the claims of CSI or other skeptical organizations, which is that they are defenders of science. They're not. They are just trying to debunk, not consider scientifically.

Whey you state that there "is no scientific evidence," that is not a strictly scientific thing to say. We don't know if there is. There might be someone who has absolutely proven it. Maybe they even did a study. If they sent the study to a peer-reviewed journal whose editors happened to be members of CSI- it would never have been published. The problem with the article is that we can't just state things like "It hasn't been considered." People who call themselves defenders of science, but are really pseudoskeptics, want to say it as if there is evidence against, which there isn't, of course. Anyway, there wouldn't be a problem if everything were stated in a strictly scientific manner (and if we left out partisan sources). Please if you respond, do so on the bottom of my talk page- thanks (: Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For response see _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} Candy 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Candy. I read your description of the EVP article (above) and must say I feel the same way. The article is (still) subtly written to suggest that "the jury's out" on the scientific validity of EVP because science hasn't examined it or commented on it specifically. You know that the scientific community does not bother commenting on fringe-y paranormal claims for which there are obvious non-paranormal explanations. IMO, this lack of comment should not be used as a loophole to make EVP seem as if it's one side of a legitimate scientific controversy, and give the work of pseudoscientists undue weight in the article. As you also know, WP:FRINGE tells us that the lack of peer-reviewed criticism on a subject should not be used as a justification for marginalizing (or removing) scientific criticism. And I disagree with Martin: it is not up to those who edit paranormal articles to study the work of fringe scientists in order to discover the "depth" of the subject. Lastly, the WP article should not be used as a platform for EVP proponents to make their case to the public that science has short-changed them and EVP needs further study. That's the job of Tom Butler and the AA-EVP site.--- LuckyLouie 06:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI LuckyLouie. Thanks for your comment. I was feeling rather alone in persuing EVP. I agree with what you say. There are a number of editors on that site who have decided to hijack the article in that they continually apply their own PoV hidden behind immediate and uncritical editing. I'm at a loss rather how to continue. I do feel though that the article would best be rewritten rather than minor changes especially this skeptic angle on it which as a scientist I don't feel familiar with. Science doesn't argue that EVP does or does not exist, it relies on evidence that it does exist. Candy 12:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with both of you that the article has undergone a large amount of POV pushing. At this point, I think bringing in more editors to get a wider consensus would be a good idea. I'm not sure if an article RfC would be the best, there has been similar pushing at many articles such as Psychic, Remote viewing, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, now even things like Society for Psychical Research to name a few. Unfortunately, it seems like even if we can fix EVP, the pushing will just move on to the next batch of paranormal articles. I think a user conduct RfC may be more appropriate, what do you think? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More editors would certainly help. What is a user conduct RfC BTW? Candy 13:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks Milo. The only person that I would consider this against though would be User:Davkal who seems to wipe any attempt at discussion on his talk page and labels the removal as "shite". Any attempt to talk to him seems fairly futile and he is a major PoV pusher on the EVP page. Who had you got in mind? Candy 17:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree about Davkal, also take a look at Special:Contributions/Martinphi, he's been pushing his POV pretty hard, edit warring over his changes, and pushing his edits even when consensus disagrees with him. Similar to what Davkal has been doing but unfortunately at more articles. Let me know what you think, thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some people have made it no secret that their goal is to systematically remove or minimize skeptical content from paranormal articles. I am not that familar with Wikpedia procedure or how a User Conduct Rfc works. However, my gut instinct is that it would be better to focus any Rfc on the article content and not on individual editors. Candy I am especially interested in your thoughts on an outline for a rewrite of the EVP article. Just from a notability aspect: of the 65,000+ results Google returns for "EVP (or Electronic Voice Phenomena)", 90% of results are websites of people involved in the current ghost hunting/paranormal fad, small businesses pushing ghost hunting gear, authors pushing ghost hunting books, references to ghost hunting groups by local newspapers, and associated reality TV show programming. Only about 10% of results are websites about "scientific" aspects of EVP and/or "research" (and that includes skeptical as well as proponents commentaries). The way I see it, the article, as it is now, has wrongly focused itself on the 10%. --- LuckyLouie 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an update, I've filed a sock puppet case against Martinphi: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. I'll see how that pans out and if anything else is necessary. Davkal has filed for mediation on EVP. If you're interested in getting any other actions started on articles or individuals, let me know. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacekeeping

I'm afraid I twarted your good attempt. Please don't hesitate to step in next time (hopefully thee won't be one) with more of your good humour. :) David D. (Talk) 20:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully it's all settled down now. 8) Candy 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Humpers; Specimens of Beauty; D'yer Mak'er; Dancing Days; Fire Party; Andy Kershaw; Richard Cole; Chris Dreja; Trevor Bolder; Thunderstick; Family of Free Love; Stain (album); IB Group 6 subjects; Igor Khoroshev; Jim McCarty; Bittersweet Motel; I Love You But I've Chosen Darkness; Harmony in My Head; You Shook Me All Night Long

Cleanup: Hard rock; ASUS; Born/Dead
Merge: Network Neighborhood; Phish Head; X-band radar
Add Sources: Tribute (song); Newton Heath; Marketing Manchester
Wikify: Chris Squire; Anarchy, State, and Utopia; EZ-Street
Expand: Bear Lake (Idaho-Utah); Ordsall Hall; Still The One (song)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davkal

This particular user is definitely one of the most antagonistic of the paranormal crowd. He doesn't seem to have much use for civility or other niceties of the Wikipedia community. However, the community is currently dealing with it. There is, up and running, an arbitration which I believe will result in careful examination of Davkal's behavior. I encourage you to add your thoughts either to the evidence section or by making a statement. --ScienceApologist 04:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solo's for "Stairway to Heaven

I notice that you reverted a piece of 'unsubstantiated fluff' about how the STH solo was perfect the first time because of a lack of citations. Unfortunately, now there is a piece of unsubstantiated fluff about Page agonizing over which of three solos to use. Are you aware of any supporting evidence for either position? I'd rather just kill both versions.Kww 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your user page. Candy 06:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Icompositions.jpg

Hello, Candorwien. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Icompositions.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Candorwien. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hell

You're right, but the link that I removed was to an atheist site. As far as I know, atheists don't believe in an afterlife. JuJube 09:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVP?

Hi Candy. Not sure where the bias might be in the opening sentence. As I said, "capture" can imply a number of things, not just the recording of environmental sounds. Maybe you can explain your concerns. As regards EVP and digital media, as far as I know, there are many EVP enthusiasts claiming success using digital recording devices. - LuckyLouie 04:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Appreciated

Hi, there's a "New Listing Policy" proposed over at Genealogy. I'm hoping that more than one person will chime in to help achieve consensus. I saw that you've contributed to the talk page over there before, so I thought you may want to help out. Thanks.--MonkeyTimeBoy 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On led zep

I have never altered Led Zepellin artical to I have no idea what you're on about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.150.5 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And,unfortunately, I have no idea what you are talking about! Candy 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Guitarists newsletter

The WikiProject Guitarists Newsletter
Issue III - July 2007

Project news

Hey everyone! It's been quite a while since the last newsletter went out but it's time to tune up those guitars, set the amps to 11, and rock out a bit. Or for us old guys, put on the fingerpicks and set the amp to 3. A lot of people have been laboring away at guitar articles and their efforts are to be applauded. If you haven't edited in a while, why not pick an article from Category:Stub-Class guitarist articles and expand it? Or better yet, pick one from the article requests and create it. More tasks can be found on the main project page in the WikiProject Guitarists open tasks box.

I went through the member list and moved anyone who hasn't edited a guitar article in two months to the inactive section. If you're getting this newsletter, it means you are still in the active list. See you around --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers needed

The Guitar equipment task force needs editors to work on guitar equipment articles. Many articles for guitar manufacturers, guitar models, amps, and effects are basically one-sentence stubs or written like advertisements. If you're interested in this type of article, visit the task force page to sign up and browse Category:Guitar equipment task force articles for things to work on.
If you are interested in assessing guitarist articles, please see the assessment department. At one time, we had it cleared out, but there are now a lot of articles in Category:Unassessed guitarist articles.

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself here.

EverQuest

Greetings ;)

I found your user page at Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Scepia/EverQuest, and was wondering if you'd be willing to do some editing for another wiki. I started a family of wikis - called The KnowledgePit; it's intended to (eventually) be an encyclopedic reference for anything video game-related. MMORPGs get their own nodes (EQ KnowledgePit, [http://wow.knowledgepit.org/ WoW KnowledgePit, etc); at this time, the EQ node is the only one I've really done any work maturing. I've done a little work with the others, the node for console games more than the rest, but mostly it's the EQ one, which I've written a whole bunch of extension code for; the others are really just there as placeholders currently.

Anyway, this whole long thing is basically to ask if you'd be willing to do some editing on the EQ node, since you're a player ;) any time you'd be willing to contribute would be greatly appreciated. I threw together a little database hack so that if you sign up for one, the login info will work on all of the.m

Thanks ;)
~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin project

	Hi! I've seen you around on Led Zeppelin related articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Led Zeppelin, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Led Zeppelin on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Led Zeppelin... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo: Current guidelines may be viewed at the main project page

Candy, I've seen your high quality edits on a number of Led Zeppelin articles. A portal and wikiproject have been set up to help organise and co-ordinate articles and I would be delighted if you could sign up. Regards, Edelmand (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candy, thank you for joining the project. Over the nest few days I'll try and finish off the sorting tables for the articles on the project page. If you can think of anything else that needs to be done, please feel free to add it to the "to do" list. MegX (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Austria Invitation

Hello, Candorwien! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Austria and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles project

Please accept this invitation to join the Eagles WikiProject (the band), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the The Eagles. Simply click here to accept!

Basketball 110 16:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

Thanks for the note on the talkpage, I've tweaked the article a bit more, which should hopefully resolve that concern. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IB contributions

Just thought I'd say thanks for the sentient comments/edits in the IB area. There's a big old argument going on with ObserverNY which has spilled over from other forums: They posted my comments and discussed them and then I introduced myself (well, who wouldn't grab a slice of celebrity?).

Ewen (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Good to see you looking after Jimmy Page's... err page. He rocks. I even bought The Firm albums.

Hi Candy! Tonight I added content to the IB MYP article because the article consisted of only a few sentences. But as per the history the MYP article was in good shape some months ago. Do you have a clue why it was wiped? In my view, my edits should be reverted and the article reverted to an earlier iteration. Wondering about your opinion as you've been working on the IB articles for some time. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy -- I've tried to clean up the CAS section and I've moved some of the material to the CAS sub-article (which needs desperate work!). Feel free to revert or to edit out (or back in) anything I've changed. At this point I'm dragging behind everyone editing for clarity, and cleaning up the citations. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you're not too busy, it might be helpful for you to pop into the IB Diploma page. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to notify you here. Replied on my page here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize for misspelling your name (and for assuming gender). Just hacked a lot of content from the article, but it's getting bloated up again. May have to be offline for a day, just so you know. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Candy-Thanks for the advice on how to proceed with editing and talk page etiquette. La mome (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citing works

Hi Candy--Sorry I wasn't very clear in my writing or my thinking, but to clarify...It would seem to me that referencing the guides electronically would violate copyright, since the only way to access them that way is through the OCC, which is password protected. Schools post them on their websites quite often, but I thought that was not allowed. Citing the hard copy makes all the sense in the world to me, now that you have pointed it out and I have thought things through. I look forward to working together on this project. I am in support of a NPOV and being as factual and truthful as possible. I am not interested in IB-bashing, nor I am interested in giving them free PR. Cheers! La mome (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy vio on IB DP

Accessed the link and found the copyright protection/declaration; deleted the ref and the text, just so you know. Posted on the Talkpage.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what to do about the rudeness. Also, all new content is from TAIB which has to be COI, wouldn't you think?Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair...

...re: this revert, I'd suggested on the talkpage that because it's an "integral part of the curriculum at all levels" that mentioning peace education would be OK. I tend to view that as fairly neutral, regardless of any apparent POV motivation that may or may not be behind it.

I do agree that the rest of the UNESCO stuff is far more appropriate on the IBO page.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I tend to agree with you. The source seems to suggest that the NGOs were acting together, but independently of UNESCO. The PDF seems to date from 2001 or later, so I'm not convinced it's that out of date (I assume that UNESCO moves at the same rapid pace as the European Union...!) however the half-decade referenced at the end of the PDF is, presumably, now over (although the ""International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-violence for the Children of the World" lasts until next year).

The key thing for me, though, is that this was adopted by the NGOs, inspired by, but not required by, UNESCO. Crucially, there's no agreement with UNESCO:

In 2001, the Executive Board of UNESCO invited the Organization's Member States and all partners of UNESCO to continue and deepen their commitment to a culture of peace in the framework of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (document 161 EX/3.6.1). In the same year, the annual NGO conference at UNESCO headquarters adopted its own action plan for the International Decade.

I'll post my revised thoughts...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB references

I've stashed them in my sandbox. If any more are deleted, we can use the sandbox to keep them so we don't have to constantly reformat. Some may be useful in the other articles. Feel free to access, copy, or to park anything in my sandbox.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IBDP

Hi Candy

Aye, I saw your post at WP:AN - hopefully some good will come from all this. Honestly, I read ObserverNY's post there and it was like they were talking about something else - or hadn't read my post except through a haze of some kind. I was going to reply, but figured any admin reading what I'd posted on the IBDP talk page would work it out for themselves.

Anyway - I'm venting! Thanks for your message, and hopefully an admin or two will start monitoring IBDP.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my username comes from being, for a long time, a supporter of a political party associated with the colour red, that elected a new leader, entered government, and let down its long term supporters ;-) The current username is a abbreviation, because "This flag once was red" is way too much to type...

Regarding your point about new-ness, aye, absolutely. I've been trying to cut as much slack as possible, but today I just snapped. You give so much, you expect something in return. Ewen saw some value in ONY's edits, particularly around fees, and personally I think the article should be critical (in the academic sense) of the IBDP - but not to the extent of using every opportunity to associate the IB with "peace" (as if "peace" was a dirty word...), "the United Nations" (also not exactly bad...), etc.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinion on Talk:IB Diploma Programme, etc.

Sure, Candy, I'll take a look at the pages and see how the discussion has been going regarding civility and such. I'm moving a little slow today so don't expect immediate response. I see this dispute has already emerged on WP:AN which may provide some additional eyes. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of stuff isn't helping. We all know that the English language is deficient when it comes to third-person singular pronouns. We even have an article on gender-neutral pronouns. Making a song and dance about someone being "sexist" when xe uses the wrong pronoun really doesn't improve an already poor talk page discussion, and it is certainly not a personal attack when someone does use the wrong pronoun. ObserverNY has no idea that you are not a dog. And this wouldn't be the first time in history that one culture's/person's idea of what sex goes with what hypocorism differs from another's. Focus! Uncle G (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a chill pill yourself

Gee, want to apologize for calling me a "sexist" yet? I've got you calling me a sexist and LaMome calling me fraudulent. Neither are good faith, both are rude and impugn my integrity. If you want to be treated with respect and in a civil manner, then you must treat others civilly and with respect. ObserverNY (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Talk:IB Diploma Programme

I've restored the comments you removed from that page. While it's true that there was a lot of speculation, that in itself is not a direct violation of WP:TPOC. And all you really did was disrupt the flow of conversation in some parts of the page. To an outside viewer, it would look like part of the conversation was removed, and it would be hard to follow the line of thought. For example, you removed ObserverNY asking about Locust Valley, but you left in another comment below that responds to that. Your edits were rather heavy handed and may put off some users (myself included), and I think you would have been much better off leaving a note at the end of those sections or elsewhere on the page, or maybe even on the individual editors' pages - that this is not a forum. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the IB series

Hi Candorwien! First, welcome back -- hope your holidays were relaxing. I'm contacting you because I don't think you should stop editing at the IB Diploma article -- you've put in good work over there, and still more needs to be done. I'm quite busy with copyediting and tend to try to avoid the IB series, but dip in occasionally, as I have this week. Inevitably the talk page drama tends to suck me in, despite my intents to avoid it, but in my view working with a large number of editors, and in an environment such as that ultimately teaches us as editors how best to deal with various points of view and editing styles. Your contributions have been invaluable in building the article, and I'd like to see you there as we continue to edit. The history section, suggested by Uncle G., although progressing painfully slowly, does add good content to the article. I think the next section to write about is the development of the curriculum, the delivery of the course of studies, and the IB in international schools -- all subjects I know very little about, but hoping you know more. Anyway, glad you're back, and hope you don't leave the series altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Don't know how to handle this-any thoughts?

La mome (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying a new approach to editing on the IB series--WP:1RR and/or WP:BRD--in order to avoid unnecessary discussion on the talk page. I hope this will work and that experienced, knowledgeable editors like you will continue to edit on the IB series.

Cheers La mome (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long term disruptive editing leading to near abandonment of the IB Diploma page

At this point I would like some advice from fellow editors who have been editing the IB Diploma pages in the past few months.

I feel that there has been a history of tendentious editing by ObserverNY for several months. Although there have been issues with many editors on those pages, including myself, I feel that ObserverNY has reached the point where some action needs to be taken. In particular, there is a continued pattern of rude and abusive behaviour as well as assuming bad faith among other editors. These two issues are the ones which I am most concerned about as ObserverNY seems to have driven off most editors from the pages.

I think ObserverNY has been told enough. I see no improvement in his/her behaviour despite repeated concerns and comments from several editors.

I would like to know if other editors feel that Wikipedia:WQA, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents or some other place is the next step for me to go. I don't have experience of reporting the behaviour of others so I am seeking advice.

Thanks, --Candy (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Candorwien-I fully support your decision to report ObserverNY. I have tried Wikipedia:WQA to no avail and I think the only effective approach is to report him/her here --Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents--for edit warring, long-term tendentious editing, continued personal attacks, inappropriate and offensive comments, meatpuppetry, etc... I just don't have the gumption to do it myself, as I have tried before with mixed results and which only ends up with more name-calling and accusations that I am out to pick a fight with ObserverNY. So, see below for a list of diffs (which I had posted on HelloAnnyong's page, pre-maturely, apparently). Let me know if you need anything else. Thank you for pursuing further action. (Below addition to post will be quite long as I don't know how to format the diffs to be listed without it being line by line--I apologise in advance for that---but I think it may be helpful in the end.)

[4] Posted on ObserverNY’s talk page, which was immediately deleted by ObserverNY

[5]Attempt at truce, which was deleted from the talk page by ObserverNY

[6] ObserverNY talk page, that has since been blanked, not archived

[7][8][9][10] [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] [25][26][27]

Continued references to personal information

[28][29][30][31][32]

Thanks again for your help and advice

La mome (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh. First, La mome, you need to stop taking up so much space with those edits; it's really, really distracting. Next, I agree that something has to be done. This nonstop arguing is petty and tendentious to the max. I think the last argument I saw on that page was about changing "attend" to "be enrolled in". Really? Is that what it's come down to?

Let me also remind you (and everyone else) that depending on which avenue you take, there's a high possibility that everyone else's actions will be judged as well.

Now, this issue has been taken to ANI before (see here) though that was slightly different. I would think that WP:AN or WP:ANI would be the place to take it; mediation is more for content disputes, and this is more about behavior, I think. Take a look at your options on WP:DR; we're clearly in the more advanced stages, but I'm not entirely sure which apply to this situation. If you do say something about it, write clearly, concisely, and give a bunch of diffs that clearly show the behavior about which you're complaining. But let me know how it goes; after watching the battle for awhile, it'll be interesting to see what happens. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue what to advise -- the last attempt at ANI had us all slapped and I really haven't the inclination to go through that again. HelloAnnyong is correct that everyone's behaviour will be judged and as the admins only see a snapshot of the situation the conclusion could be that all editors are edit warring. I'd like to have a day or two to think about the appropriate action, but off the top of my head I think the best course of action would be to have an admin watch to page for some period of time.

As for not wanting to edit: that is true. Today I started to expand the history section, then saw the talkpage comments and went elsewhere to edit instead. But, that said, that might also be another good course of action -- simply leave the page for a period of time and see whether things settle down. Anyway, I'll think about this, and post back again. Oh one more thing, you might want to include TFOWR and CinchBug in the conversation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy and all,

I completely agree that something needs to be done. ONY has succeeded in driving a large number of editors away from the IB pages. Who wants to spend their time arguing non-stop about trivial matters or read the vulgar comments? Anyway, in my opinion the only solution that would improve the situation is to get ONY permanently blocked from editing the IB pages. Nothing else would do a thing to change her behavior. Now, based on our previous experiences, I am not very optimistic that WP administrators would do this. So I guess I am not very optimistic but we should still try. I'll certainly support the complaint if it is posted.Tvor65 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. LaMome, I edited your diffs to save space for readability. Hope you don't mind. Cheers!Tvor65 (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HelloAnnyong - I think the last argument I saw on that page was about changing "attend" to "be enrolled in". Really? Is that what it's come down to? Yup. That's what it's come down to. And you appear to be the only right-minded individual in the bunch who can see how stupid the whole argument is. I don't respond kindly to stupidity, arrogance, censorship, gaming or edit wars. I have also moved on to other articles, but for these whiney editors to claim that I have driven them from the IBDP page is simply lame. Blame LaMome for being a nit-picking pain who starts every fight. Was ALL of this really necessary? Because I changed attend to enrolled? Give me a break. It's friggin pathetic. ObserverNY (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Thank you all. I will take some time to reflect but it is clear that we agree at a minimum that there has been tendentious editing over an extended period of time by ObserverNY. Looking at similar issues that other editors have complained about I was also surprised how mild they were compared to ObserverNY's. I will take a few days Wikibreak until I have more responses here from editors I have solicited and will keep you informed of actions (and ONY if appropriate) that I initiate on your talk pages. Cheers --Candy (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No tendentious editing over an extended period of time by LaMome? Oh, how very fair-minded of you, Candy. Look to the root of the problem. Action >< Reaction. ObserverNY (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Calling another editor a Nazi is about as low as you can go, I think.

I haven't been banned for WP:3RR or edit warring WP:EW and I haven't received warnings about WP:OUTING other editors or tendentious editing WP:TE. I don't add sensationalistic links to the talk pages and I don't blank articles WP:BLANKING. I haven't insulted WP:NPA every other editor on the IB series. I don't try to add my own website WP:SELFPUB over and over again to the external links. I don't systematically try to transfer so-called "facts" WP:OR from my website to a Wikipedia article.

So, yes, I agree, let's look to the root of the problem-- (talk)

La mome (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please LaMome - who was the troublemaking obnoxious tattletale who kept running to admin to impose those temporary bans? Oh that's right, it was YOU!!!!! And I don't systematically try to transfer so-called "facts" WP:OR from my website to a Wikipedia article.. Liar. ObserverNY (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ONY - Hello? 'Action and reaction' you say - well, whose arrival on wikipedia started this whole episode? Feel free to criticise other editors when your own actions are beyond reproach. What kind of person contributes to a page discussing her own behaviour with language like 'stupid', 'arrogance', 'censorship', 'gaming', 'edit wars', 'whiney' 'lame', 'nit-picking pain' and 'friggin pathetic'?

If it came to banning anyone (we're none of us beyond reproach here, but I'd say ONY would be first to go) then I'd be in two minds about banning ONY. On the one hand, it would solve a problem for wikipedia; but on the other hand it would reinforce her sense that we are not prepared to listen to what she has to say.

Ewen (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Ewen, since LaMome and Tvor65 arrived at IBDP approximately one week after I did, I'd say THAT is what started the whole episode. And what kind of person? An honest person who calls a spade a spade. You want to sit around and coffee-klatch and complain about me then get used to reading words that accurately describe the behavior of LaMome. Add "liar" to your list. ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

You forget that I've been here longer than the three of you, and clearly recall the disruption you caused as soon as you arrived. As for 'honest', it might be an "irregular verb": "I am honest, you are blunt, he is a shit-stirrer" Ewen (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that was because I was a brand-newcomer to Wikipedia, as were LaMome and Tvor65 who followed me over here. They can deny it all they want, but I know they did. ObserverNY (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Whether or not you know or think you know an editor isn't revelant. How you treat others is relevant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONY--

1. You wouldn't have been banned if you didn't deserve to be banned, so stop blaming your inappropriate behavior on me.

2. "And I don't systematically try to transfer so-called "facts" WP:OR from my website to a Wikipedia article.. Liar." ObserverNY (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY So what is my website and what information am I sytematically transferring from there to the IB series?

3. You came to Wikipedia in September 2008, I started editing in June 2009. How do you know that I followed you here? (and obviously it was not one week later---notice I am not calling you a liar---maybe you meant to say almost one year later---I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, in good faith.)

La mome (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me to comment, Candorwien. Though single-purpose accounts are sometimes helpful to counter inbuilt biases by other editors, it certainly isn't desirable that IBDP article edits are in effect being policed by the foul-mouthed rants of an individual editor who hasn't contributed elsewhere. I don't intend to make further IBDP contributions until the community has clearly censured such behavior. - Pointillist (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will be following Pointillist's lead. I won't be editing on any of the IB series pages either, until ObserverNY is banned from those articles. It's just not worth the frustration of dealing with an unreasonable, vulgar person. S/he is now editing on other pages anyway, perhaps she has found her niche elsewhere. I enjoyed everyone else's company and have learned quite a bit, so for that I thank all of you.

Ciao for now La mome (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that seems a little defeatist. You're both giving up and making someone else do the grunt work. Isn't Wikipedia about being bold and doing things yourself? You've clearly got some form of consensus from the community here - or at least with everyone that's involved in the IB pages. Now you need to take it to the next level. Without someone watching, the articles are just going to turn into garbage, basically undoing months of work. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy offered to do the grunt work this time. I did it twice before, resulting in a 72-hour ban, which imo, was not long enough. I also provided a list of diffs to be used in the report. There are plenty more examples here and all over other editors' talk pages of ObserverNY's general incivility and vulgarity. What is interesting is that when I first complained about ObserverNY's behavior, others came to her defense, for the sake of providing balance and another POV to the IB series. As a result, ONY became bolder in her editing, not by making contributions to the articles, but by bullying on the talk pages and engaging in edit wars when his/her edits were reverted. I think Ewen's last comment is telling-"If it came to banning anyone ... then I'd be in two minds about banning ONY. On the one hand, it would solve a problem for wikipedia; but on the other hand it would reinforce her sense that we are not prepared to listen to what she has to say." I am all for solving a problem for Wikipedia, not for sparing the feelings of an individual who has absolutely no regard for the feelings of other editors. I am no longer interested in reading what s/he has to say.

I am not worried about the articles turning into garbage. ONY hasn't read any of the sources so hasn't and probably will not add much in terms of content to the article. ONY contributions are primarily based on what s/he either already has read or can find online from Google alerts, mostly from questionable sources. Just look in the "IB is a fad"-"IB is indoctrination"-part of article. That's the extent of ONY's editing abilities.

I hope that the large number of ONY's edits is not an indication of what a "good" editor s/he is, but rather that s/he monopolizes the pages and makes several minor revisions on her own contributions, rather than using the preview button.

Candy, I apologize for taking up so much room here.

La mome (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem taking room, LaMome, on my talk page. I invited comment here.

It's just a matter of ensuring that the complaint I make is appropriate, is evidenced and as reasonable as can be. As far as I am concerned I am not going to even speculate as to the outcome of the complaint as I believe it is up to the appropriate committees to decide what needs to be done and this could be anything from dismissing the case to administering warnings or punishments. I think we all have consensus and agreement that the outcome that we want is an end to abusiveness and contentious editing by all participants in Wikipedia. After examining several complaints about other individuals on other pages they seem very mild compared to ONY's behaviour. I'm certain there is no one editing Wikipedia who hasn't done one or more of these at some point or "had their moments". However, ONY just seems to have become bolder and increasingly lewd and vulgar as many of you have noticed and said.

So, I'm preparing a case but I am a little tied up at the moment so it will still take a little time to get it right I feel. It's also not just about what ONY has said but also whether ONY has been dealt with appropriately by use as editors when the lines have been crossed and whether ONY has responded appropriately to reminders and requests to be more civil. I feel that the case has to run along three threads:

Use of vulgarity by ONY and whether this has been picked up and pointed out appropriately by other editors (with ONY's responses)
Whether editors have attempted to mediate disputes and how ONY has responded to this
Contentious editing by ONY over a prolonged period

This is also not about improper behaviour about other editors. If this has happened then these should be dealt with as a separate case. The other thing is, trying not to dig too far back as it's important not to put undue weight on actions when ONY was a newbie but show that a trend of increasingly worsening behaviour. Any comments would be gratefully received. --Candy (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is also not about improper behaviour about other editors - LOL! Of course not, it never is, is it Candy? This is an IB lynch mob. Talk about WP:DRAMA. Good grief, don't you people have lives? ObserverNY (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Hi Candy,

You can add these to the list-more incivility by ObserverNY--

[33][34][35]

La mome (talk) 02:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and this vulgarity [36] La mome (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I REALLY don't appreciate you WP:STALKING me. Knock it off LaMome! ObserverNY (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Not WP:STALKING, just gathering evidence-- "...Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases." La mome (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break

(edit conflict which shows my incredible prescience) Let me just amend that since I know you will claim the line that says tracking of a users posts for grounds for incivillity is not stalking. That sentence is preceded by: A user warning for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. LaMome is escalating and escalating this thing beyond all reason. Truthkeeper and I were able to work out a re-wording of the first paragraph under early development quite civilly. So I go to Van Jones and HelloAnnyong has to follow me over there? Good grief! And now LaMOme is tracking the talk pages of editors I'm speaking with over there? That's downright creepy! ObserverNY (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

"...Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by harassment and/or personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences such as blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption."

La mome (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONY: Since you yourself put forward your contributions to the Van Jones pages as evidence of your good behaviour, I think it's fair game. Ewen (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's nice Ewen. Consider yourself "unfriended" on Facebook since now I know you're just a spy. I actually had good faith that there might, might be a reasonable IB teacher out there in the world. But no. Your country thinks it's fine to release the Lockerbie bomber and you supported that. Lovely. I didn't realize every comment I make anywhere on Wikipedia will now be considered "evidence" by a bunch of IB freaks. Nothing will make LaMome happy unless I am banned. I find that very weird. Very sad. Very lame. Pathetic, actually. That an anonymous editor on Wikipedia has nothing better to do with their life than follow ME around, accumulating a pile of edits like some time-warped version of King Midas.

Hey LaMome - Gotten laid lately? You know in OTHER Wikipedia talk pages, people seem to ask each other that regularly. Then editors either laugh, or reply with something like "yeah, today", etc. That's how NORMAL people act. And I just saw another editor call someone else an egotistical twat. Have I ever called you that, no matter how deserving you are of the label? No, I have not. Seriously, get a life. You remind me of this mentally deranged retired teacher who used to post to another forum. Is your real name Anne? LOL! OMG - if it is now I'm dead because that would be OUTING <gasp>!! Wait I better preview this paragraph first or else LaMome will yell at me again...... are you really so stupid that you don't realize that by doing what you are doing you just make me think you are completely insane?

I bet if LaMome could she would send my computer a virus just so she could control my Internet usage, that's how disturbed I think this woman is. Fortunately, she appears to be rather inept technologically.ObserverNY (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Looks like ONY is helping Candy to build an even stronger case here. She adds more evidence of her personal attacks and vulgarity on WP every day.Tvor65 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Btw, LaMome and Candorwein are both guilty of Responding to disruptive canvassing to conspire against me and "build their case". I really can't be bothered going around collecting all of your "Can you drop my my talk page re IBDP" requests the way LaMome does, simply because I have no interest in "building a case" against you. Actually, you honor my "power" to speak freely by your obsessive campaign against me. I had one IB nutjob accuse me of causing her to drive into the side of her house because of something I wrote once.... LOL! Even Jay Mathews said I was "capable of causing a stroke"....in print! In the Washington Post!! Should I have sued him for defamation of character? Of course not! That would be sheer idiocy.

Oh, there's my little sunshine! How ARE you Tvor65? Having fun "dearie"? ObserverNY (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Candorwien left notes for everyone involved in the IBDP discussion, which may be considered a friendly notice. Here, I'll quote an example of friendly notices for you: "For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion". I think all of us count as that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I don't consider conspiring to gang up and build a "case" against one editor the least bit friendly. Funny, huh? ObserverNY (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Btw LaMome - considering you're a "one-horse" editor, you might want to go back to your first tendentious edits in June and see who came in with the "does anyone want to help clean up this mess" comment re: UNESCO. [37] Oh that's right, it was YOU! Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

That's an interesting bit of history and that particular mess has been cleaned up. So what exactly is wrong with the comment? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you would have liked your contributions to be called "a mess", Truthkeeper. ObserverNY (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Just as an update, ObserverNY was blocked for 24h for the edit above at 10:39 on September 7. See this diff. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

ObserverNY is now mentioned in two separate incidents on ANI---here “being stalked by a user”: [38] And here “Reliefappearance’s continued disruption at Van Jones: [39] [40] Can we request OhanaUnited (since s/he blocked ONY twice before and believes s/he should be banned/blocked indefinitely) as an admin for this? La mome (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give it up LaMome. Why don't you go yell at Truthkeeper for undoing your most recent edit to IBDP? Hmmm? If I did it you would have screamed bloody murder. ObserverNY (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Hi LaMome. I'd rather keep it formal and let the admin's decide what to do. Requesting OhanaUnited because the admin believes that a user should be banned or blocked rather goes against the spirit of how I feel people should be treated. Otherwise, almost put the case together. --Candy (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wasting your time, Candorwein. I start work tomorrow with a 4:30 AM wake up time. But if it makes you feel good, by all means, complete your manifesto. First I think you should watch the Youtube video I linked on the talk page at IBDP Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

This would be what, the third of fourth time ONY has declared she is leaving for good, spraying insults as she slams the door behind her? Trust me, she'll be back at it soon enough.Tvor65 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ONY at AN/I again

Notifying. See here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you all being busy little beavers editing IBDP?? Hmmmm? Can't stand it that I'm not trying to "muck" it up so you have to "watch" my every move? Truly, pathetic. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Well I took too long getting the case together. It was pretty long and detailed. I see ONY has been banned. TBH about 2 months too late but at least we can continue editing without abuse. --Candy (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB Diploma Programme

Hi Candorwien! I don't know whether you're still active, but the IB DP article has been picked up for review - I thought I'd pulled it from WP:GAN but apparently not. Are you interested in being a co-nom and helping with the lead? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's done and promoted. For you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote IB Diploma Programme to good article status.

License tagging for File:NZSI Student Council 2011.png

Thanks for uploading File:NZSI Student Council 2011.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:NZS campus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:NZS campus.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:NZS logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:NZS logo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Candorwien. You have new messages at Talk:Short-term memory.
Message added 10:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lova Falk talk 10:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Thomas Brierley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Brierley 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/Thomas Brierley 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2014 (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) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Candorwien. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Candorwien. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Candorwien. 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]

Nomination of Thomas Brierley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Brierley 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/Thomas Brierley (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]