User talk:Littleolive oil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Littleolive oil, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sethie 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is exciting to see a true pro-TMer finally join the editing team. I think you will have much to offer, since so much of the editing discussions to date have been among folks (including myself) who have various criticisms of TM or its organizations. For NPOV and balance, the pro side must be represented. David 05:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] How to tell who did what on the main article

Hi Olive. FYI no one signs changes on the main article. However, you can tell who made the change by looking at the top of the diff. Tanaats 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. TimidGuy 18:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transcendental Meditation.
For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Bleep OR straw poll

There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 17:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 17:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment Olive! Things like that really make the effort worthwhile! Dreadstar † 09:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It was so good, I just had to enshrine it! Dreadstar † 09:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back to Bleep! Good to see you there again! Dreadstar † 03:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you very much for the welcome... My favorite kind of editing - no arguments needed .... I hope!(olive 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind, but I linked to the article in your post for convenience. Dreadstar † 19:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, good, Thank you, ... I thought about it but forgot.....(olive 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] TM article "German Study

Hi LO

Thank you for cleaning up the mess that I no-doubt made of the TM article :-). Can i just confirm what the issues are with the so called German Study by the way? Just so I can get a grasp on it. Crowleys Aunt 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Olive

Thanks for answering on the correct talk page. I think I'm tired or something. Sleep is needed :-) Crowleys Aunt 03:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it was fine for you to answer here.The material on the German study was archived on discussion so I just put it back on the discussion.(olive 13:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Dreadstar RfA

Click there to open your card! → → →

Thanks for your support and the congrats, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by stealing someone else's design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

The reason I've said, " Maharishi and others believe..." is that the book, which I've cited, shows that others do in fact share Maharishi's belief. In other words, I don't believe that my use of "others" is simply a weasel word. Therefore, I'm undoing your deletion. Sueyen 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jean-Paul Ney

I see that you have expressed concern on this article's talk page [[1]] about the edit-warring and lack of proper citations. I wanted to let you know that I have expressed my concerns on these issues on the Administrators' notice board.

Hello Littleolive oil. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked this site this morning and I think all was quiet. Whew! What a mess in a short time .... although things were difinitely building up to this I guess . Thanks for assistance on the article and for notifications . I am not a major editor on the article just a cleaner - upper but will be nice to see things progress in an appropriate manner.(olive 22:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Jean-Paul Ney

I've decided to take a slightly different approach to this article than usual. The edit warring is not that severe and the article needs work. I don't think locking it down is the best approach. Instead I am going to institute a state of 1RR. Anything more than 1 revert by any user will result in a short block. Any type of threat, personal attack, or harassment will also result in a block. I have also blocked User:82.67.185.164 for the legal threat on the talk page. Anything disputed should be discussed on the talk page, but the dispute and a slow edit war should not stop needed improvement. I will copy this comment to user talk pages of those involved in the dispute and the article talk page, so there will be no "I didn't know" excuse for edit warring. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Olive, thanks for your note. I left a note on CSX's page asking him to stop the legal threats, personal attacks and generally uncivil comments. If he persists he may have to be blocked. I hate to do this because I'm afraid this may lead to more unsourced libelous material being added to the article - I'm hampered in this because of the language barrier. I've asked a few French-speaking editors to weigh in, but no response yet. We may be better served by putting up a request for comment and asking for help on the WP:BLP talk page. What are your thoughts? Dreadstar † 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Great idea asking the Wikiproject France to weigh in! Dreadstar † 01:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I also left a note here. Dreadstar † 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Mine sword doth ever be at thine disposal, dear lady! I thank thee most humbly for thine divine compliments...! Dreadstar † 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Check this out. Dreadstar † 08:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gymnastics Wikiproject

Your edits or discussions show that you may be interested in the new Gymnastics Wikiproject. Please join and help to start this new wikiproject. We need lots of members and lots of help. Wikiproject Gymnastics also contains the related sports of cheerleading, power tumbling, and trampolining. Maddie talk 21:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks so much, Olive, for the barnstar, your kind words -- and your excellent work on Wikipedia. It's great having you as a contributor. TimidGuy 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you, dear Olive, for the note, and you were fine to blank the page in that case. It will soon be deleted, no worries! Thank you for watching out for things! (There is also a User:Ariel., but that isn't me, either.) Ariel♥Gold 21:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back and for worrying about me. I had a bout of either food poisoning or stomach flu...but I'm doing much better now! Dreadstar † 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
How sweet! My very own frozen Cod! I shall thaw it (being most careful not to poke my eye out) and make us barbecued Cod Steaks with Lemon & Spam Crust and Spam over an open flame...or perhaps I'll make a keepsake out of it in my very own freezer...;) Hey, thanks...always good to hear from you! Dreadstar † 03:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly walks

D'oh!, just shoot me! No overloading, just my silliest of walks, I forgot to tell you that it was taken care of last evening. Then I got distracted. No worries and no apologies, it's what I'm here for..! Dreadstar † 17:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gymnastics Wikiproject

Your edits or discussions show that you may be interested in the new Gymnastics Wikiproject. Please join and help to start this new wikiproject. We need lots of members and lots of help. Wikiproject Gymnastics also contains the related sports of cheerleading, power tumbling, and trampolining. Maddie talk 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maddie. I will probably not have a lot of time to edit, but I keep a watch for vandalism and every now and then do some copy editing. I seem to be editing several articles right now so don't think I can do any actual writing but count me in for copy editing.(olive (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Compliment

Hi Sir Dread...I really want to go on record as commending the leadership you once again gave the Bleep article.I believe that you were completely neutral, patient, tough if needed, but in a civil way. There is a fine line it seems to me between maintaining neutrality, and skepticism, and you I thought were very aware of were that line is/was.(olive (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC))'

Oh, why thank you so much Olive! What a nice message to start my new year off right..! And thank you for your helpful comments and support..that article is an amazingly hot button issue..especially for a film like that...! Dreadstar † 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Jean-Paul Ney

An editor has nominated Jean-Paul Ney, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-Paul Ney and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the bleep?

You said on my talk page "I wanted to mention as per your comment on the Bleep talk page that the suggestion that some will not accept pseudoscience," I actually said the opposite, "some folks here will not accept the removal of the term pseudoscience." I believe that is a fact based upon my involvement with these editors in the past. If you think that statement is insulting, then I will consider refactoring. Thanks for your opinion. Anthon01 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you were put off by Antelan's comments. I appreciate your contributions to the discussion. Please consider commenting here. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I responded on Bens page. Anthon01 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep

Did you think the process we were moving forward before was helpful? Anthon01 (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Anthon I'm not exactly what you mean by before ....e-mail me....I may not be checking here.(olive (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been named as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Appologies

Olive -i feel very guilty if I in anyway "upset" you regarding the TM discussion. Re-reading it you are correct and I may have come across as a "little harsh". This was not my intention nor is it my "manner". Please do not assume it was in anyway personal. For that full apologies. Peace Really2012back (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

edit: Sorry! [[Image:http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-fUj4_Sx-VLW9M:http://criss.site.voila.fr/terragen/medit ation.jpg]]

Thank you, Really. I appreciate the apology, and the lovely little picture.(olive (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] TM

LG/TG - I assume you are just two people but anyway this is also addressed to both. Every time I comment on the TM article I feel a tad guilty. The reason for this is that I feel am denigrating peoples spiritual beliefs. This is not something that I wish to do at all, I can assure you and is why I always keep away from religious debates in WIKI and else-where. The reason that I am commenting at all is simply due the financial side of things. Because TM is treated as a commercial venture - IE a charge is made, products sold etc - it is important to me that the article in question is understood in this framework but more importantly is written and constructed on this basis.

However, The Sidhi Program, etc. deal, IMO, far more with your spiritual beliefs and on that basis I have decided to discontinue my involvement in these.

Anyway, I just felt the need to let you know that I an no way wish to insult, denigrate or whatever your spiritual beliefs and just hoped that that could be understood Really2012back (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Really thank you for these comments . I do not in any way feel you are denigrating my spiritual beliefs. I expect we are all trying to be neutral, and I haven't seen you make remarks that indicate you are making comments about my belief system. The editing of the article is a neutral issue for me. I can't allow my belief system, whatever that may be to get tied up with the article for personal reasons but also for editing reasons.I think your comments on the article have helped us all look the thing from multiple perspectives and that can only be good for the article.(olive (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 12:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

I'm leaving this on both your pages. I have only just heard and I know this isn't the place no-doubt but I have felt I have got to know you both - if slightly. Just wanted to give my condolences - ad it was reported in the Times I will assume - at this stage - that it is not a continuation of Internet rumors. As this will nodoubtt attract the vandals to your pages if you are bothy busy I shall attempt to keep track of them for a day or to and revert any "nonsense". Peace Really2012back (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No not a rumour and thank you for your thoughts . In reality, as many have noted he seems to continue on. Huge numbers of people from all over the world are converging on India where he will be placed in the Ganges River.The great Indian saints from all over the country are expected to converge and the shankarcharya will officiate. Its not a sad time it seems, but a time of great celebration for a life lived to the highest of standards.(olive (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] hello

Like a fool stepping in where angels fear to tread, I probably triggered off the recent spate of edits when I altered the article. I still find it difficult to see where each of the individual editors are coming from. Would it help if I discussed with you? The Rationalist (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss at any time. Just drop by here. As to where editors are coming from; I'm nit sure anyone knows that, but the best idea might be to just get to know them and their work. I believe this takes time as it does with getting to know anyone, anywhere.(olive (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
You said there was a version of the intro that you liked, or was attached to, or something like that. Which was this version. Thanks The Rationalist (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rationalist . I'm getting over some kind of flu so am not ignoring you. I will respond tomorrow if that's OK . Still trying to rest.(olive (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Just dropping by, with an observation

I thought this comment was a little questionable. If this is an ongoing problem, please let me or someone else know. WNDL42 (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Namaste, Loo.

I was absolutely not referring to your comment. I was referring to the sentence beginning with "Perhaps all those that believe...". It seemed to be a denigration - low level incivility, but I could not decide who it was aimed at. User:Jimbo Wales has been noticing that low-level incivility has been driving good editors away and is taking steps to stop it, read his final paragraph. Don't allow yourself to be mistreated. If I took this the wrong way, please forgive me but the editor who made this comment has behaved "questionably" elsewhere regarding people's beliefs. WNDL42 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you WNDL, and to you. I am aware of Jimbo's concern with incivility and the notion that some good editing excuses some poor behaviour. I don't think there is a solution for a voice not heard unless it is that the voice shows up more often . There is a point where one makes decision to do that or not, and I don't think we can protect the less heard voice except by encouragement and civil behaviour. I don't think it helps to discourage the more frequently heard voice. No don't worry. I will not allow myself to be mistreated, nor do I bite at every bone that goes by.(olive (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
Thanks, and ok...but editors in these situations have been known to voluntarily adopt a 1RR rule explicitly for the purpose of slowing things down, so there are solutions, and my appeal to the group to "slow down", and stop loading the talk page with noisy diatribe is an appeal to just plain good "table manners". Indiginous americans sat in a circle and passed a "talking piece" to encourage similar respectful discourse in multi-party disputes, and we should at least talk about the lesser heard voices even if nothing can be done. The noisy diatribes (talking past one another), smoke screens, Straw Man attacks, and "mild" discrediting, taken in total must all be refuted, as "low level" forms of discrediting warfare. You may be commended for not taking the bait, but I decided to bring it up because (as Ghandi wrote) "passive resistance" must include speaking out when necessary, and I chose to speak to you rather than at the talk page. We may agree to disagree on whether talk page headings should or should not be used to shout above others, perhaps I've seen it happen too often, but it IS happening at Bleep. Anyway, thanks for welcoming me on your talk page, I needed a dose of civil discourse. Thank you (again) WNDL42 (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of what you have mentioned as to what has gone on this article. I'm not sure in this case if we have unheard editors so much as editors who choose to come and go dependent on what is going on in the article. I don't have a solution, but I like the idea of civility and of taking all voices into account . I'm not sure how that translates into a practical solution. Visit here anytime.(olive (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Being clear

I decided to leave a longer version of my message, here. I actually had started to believe the nightmare might be over, too. Coming to some kind of terms with you and MartinPhi on the lead seemed like a major accomplishment, and I hoped it would last for a while. I was happy when I got up in the morning and looked at it, and it was the same. I wasn't happy to see that it was protected again, and that the edit warring took up again within hours, however. I liked seeing that SA put back the version that the three of us had worked on, but didn't like seeing the edit war break out again. I'm only half joking when I say to delete and salt the article ... I'm not sure that it will ever stop being a tug-of-war, and I don't need the stress. I think it's important that the article reflect the scientific viewpoint, but I don't think it's all that important that there be an article at all.Kww (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree also that the lead should reflect the scientific viewpoint, and yes I too thought we were in the clear and had something that would please everyone. I don't know who reverted what since the whole thing happened quickly in the space of 1/2 an hour, while I was away from my computer. Thanks for your explanation and visit.(olive (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] BarnStone for Littleolive oil!!!

No fancy picture of a star, just my little "thank you" for all you do. You are truly a Wiki-gemstone. WNDL42 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wndl for your "Barnstone". I am honoured and feel humbled if I am seen as someone who can help the Wikipedia project in even the smallest way.(olive (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
Hi again Loo...we are getting nowhere at Bleep, and we are stuck exactly where we were here. The issues are identical today as they were then, but I think we will get a unanimous agreement to mediate this time and we should go for it. WNDL42 (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I doubt that SA will go to mediation, that has not been his style.Can you compromise on the lead in any way.(olive (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, but fyi my response on the matter of compromise, just for completeness (essentially, WP can't compromise on WP:NPOV. WNDL42 (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia can't compromise on NPOV but unfortunately NPOV isn't objective... thats "the rub"(olive (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Mediation

Well, I think I have offered dozens of ideas for compromise, each one rejected explicitly or stonewalled. There is no compromise on WP:NPOV, as you know, and as long as the lead flagrantly attempts to set a "tone", it will never pass WP:NPOV. Here is what I mean:

Authors set a tone in literature by conveying an emotion/feeling or emotions/feelings through words...In literature an author sets the tone through words. The possible tones are bounded only by the number of possible emotions a human being can have.
Diction and syntax often dictate what the author's (or character's) attitude toward his subject is at the time.
An example:
"Charlie surveyed the classroom of dolts, congratulating himself for snatching the higher test grade, the smug smirk on his face growing brighter and brighter as he confirmed the inferiority of his peers."
The tone here is one of arrogance, Charlie refers to his classmates as "dolts" and the quip "inferiority of his peers" shows Charlie's belief in his own prowess. The words "surveyed" and "congratulating himself" show Charlie as seeing himself better than the rest of his class. The diction, including the word "snatching", gives the reader a mental picture of someone quickly and effortlessly grabbing something, which proves once again Charlie's pride in himself. Characteristically, of course, the "smug smirk" provides a facial imagery of Charlie's pride.

I can't accept the "tone" as the current lead (and proposals) convey. They need to be "toned down". Now, as two editors have clearly stated their absolute and unmoving desire for such a tone, I see no way out except for a mediation. If an individual editor wants to kill it again (I think he'll have a hard time given all the compromises that have been offered), then so be it. I was proud to vote in favor of mediation then and I'll be proud to vote for it again. WNDL42 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my undergrad degree, and some of my graduate work is in Literature. I have been at this for a very long time and the tone is much improved over some other versions . I guess thats where I am on this. I could compromise, because I feel the tone is approaching neutrality in some places Please note I do offer another version, somewhat more neutral. If you want to go for mediation go for it, but a mediation does not mean that anyone will agree with the comments from the mediator. (olive (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Don't panic

I didn't delete your vote ... I just deleted my version, put your version in its place, and moved your vote to line up. Since we were the only two that had registered an opinion, and I didn't mind your version, it seemed better to have only one version listed that two people could support.Kww (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol... Ok, Kww, you had me there for a minute.... good ....(olive (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Olive?

You added a new section to the bleep article - regarding offending section - to which I responded. However,now loooking, your comments there - valid ones - seem to have gone. If i have accidently deleted them, while inserting mine this was completely in error. I hope this was not the case but I hate WIKIs use of HTML. If this is the case it was not deliberate and please re-insert - I know that they can be brought back up form the history but have no idea how to do without a complete set of undos. Sorry Really2012back (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the section as per your request.(olive (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Thank goodness - I mean that it wasn't me. I shall stop looking embarrassed now. Thank you.Really2012back (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bleep

Well good luck with it. At a certain point, fanaticism becomes just too disturbing to be around. No big deal; at least in the real world, science types aren't anywhere nearly as fanatical and rude as their Wiki counterparts! Cheers Boodlesthecat (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi LoO...

Returning from a long and beautiful weekend drive yesterday with my vso, I heard this:

on the radio..."The Inner Landscape of Beauty" about John O'Donohue (who passed last month) and I thought you would like it...very beautiful and relevant to Bleep (in a sense)...

You can download the mp3 here.

References to Reinhold Niebuhr and other great works too...

Cheers WNDL42 (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wndl .... this looks wonderful .... I being part Celt and all...and being in pursuit of beauty(olive (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
Too wierd. I am part Celt too, and on my trip to Ireland (business) in 2004 I managed a two day side trip to Limerick and County Clare (O'Donahue's home)...wow...I was blown away there! Strangest thing is that I was so excited to hear the NPR thing yesterday that I was sure I was going to share it with at least a half-dozen wiki-acquaintances, and you were the first I thought of...and only one I wound up dropping it to. Just wierd. !!!! WNDL42 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Click on the Celtic knot here for a daily dose of beauty and wisdom. There are hundreds of messages if you keep clicking the knot. WNDL42 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice Wndl .... thanks.(olive (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC))
You were right...see you (I hope) on another topic. WNDL42 (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No apology necessary! You didn't leave anyone high and dry, you had the good sense to walk out of the room. Took me a little longer. WNDL42 (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bleep article

I think we've finally managed to calm The Rationalist down. My personal take is that he hasn't gotten skilled at keeping track of the different editors and remembering each one's positions. I think he has gotten you confused with Wndl42.Kww (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't trying to excuse the behaviour, just explain it. Unfortunately, sometimes there's a world of difference.Kww (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I know. Thanks. I really appreciate your comment.(olive (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
I hope that you don't let this kind of thing run you off forever. If the article gets done without your input, it just is going to wind up back in a war later because your perspective wasn't adequately represented. Believe me, I know how necessary a break from it can be.Kww (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Olive - while I know that we often don't agree - I'm with Kww in his comments and support your return if you have the "energy" :-). I think the problem that may develop at the moment that the remaining editors maybe so critical - no matter how good the intentions are - that this is reflected in the article. The one thing about you is that you will always only use reliable sources to support your arguments. Really2012back (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can summon up the energy, please say "yea" or "nay" here. If I ask an admin to edit the page in a protected state, I'd like to have one handy section for him to look at to determine people's stance.Kww (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll support whatever is agreed. The Rationalist (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry. The Rationalist (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remote viewing

This is to inform you that I have filed a request for informal mediation on the article Remote viewing, and named you as a party. Best, ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] edit summary

Hi - regarding your "Apology: edit summary" on wp:civil... here's a trick you can use if you ever need to revise an edit summary;

Add another separate edit after the one you did that lost its edit summary. Make it an invisible edit, like add a space with a blank line near the bottom of the page.

Then, you can write in the new edit summary; "null edit for comment - " and then mention your previous edit and add the edit summary. That way it goes into the page history like a regular edit. That can be a useful method in some situations...

thanks for your help on the policy page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [3] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ermadog response

Ermadog. My non reponse to you on anything in the last 24 hour simply means I am very tired, have a very bad migraine, have to stay off-line, and shouldn't even be here right now. There was no request for consensus on anything and non was given from my side. I am not sure what you are talking about, actually. If you are referring to my warning on civility ... such a warning is a courtesy since your behaviour was blockable.(olive (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] small addition to Remote viewing article

Hello, I have been discussing with User:JzG about changes to the lead of this article. Since Guy seems to respect your opinion, could you go to the talk page and opinate on the changes that have been done on the last days? Specifically, could you assess about adding "without the use of the five senses" to the first sentence? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just be happy if you comment on Guy's talk page to convinve him to use that. Getting him to accept "apparently" as a replacement for "ostensibly" would also greatly reduce the chance of another edit war. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tutankhamun

Hi, I have protected it for 6 months given the constant vandalism it gets when unprotected. It is a very high profile target it would seem. I had noticed it was getting vandalised more and more, once again. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You should know

Olive, you all should know that Shoemaker's Holiday has accused you of being Martin's meat puppet. [4] Tom Butler (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation

I apologise for the accusation, I've never dealt with meatpuppetry before, and the only rshouldn't have made even a tentative question about it publicly, as I suspect that any editor who was familiar with it would tell me I was wrong wrong wrong. Sorry. I'm still concerned about Martinphi, but mentioning you was a severe lapse in judgement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello!

I remember you from the Simple English Wikipedia. What a surprise to see you here! Cheers, Razorflame 19:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay idea

Hi. I really like what you said here. I wonder if you know about the m:Dispute resolution analysis group we've set up at Meta? If you'd like to join, you're certainly welcome, as is anyone else who you think might be interested. Not much has happened there yet, but these things can move slowly, or in fits and starts. I'm currently mulling over some thoughts about article-based strategies versus editor-based ones, and I think I may post them there, to centralize discussion a bit, and try to generate some energy around the project. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Edits Per Day

Wikipedia:Edits Per Day, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Edits Per Day and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Edits Per Day during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Just a note that you may want to be a little more careful in your copyediting - a couple of them (out of a dozen or so) actually added grammatical errors. Otherwise, there is nothing objectionable about them, that I can see. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Though as a reader of Victorian novels I like to shove in commas everywhere, so it looks a ltittle odd to see 'em missing =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Adding your essay to civility page

I certainly don't mind; please feel free to use it in any way you desire. :-) Kirill (prof) 00:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)