User talk:Gandydancer/Archive 1

{talk archive}} Welcome!

Hello, Gandydancer. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Gandy dancer - you are reverting pages that you know NOTHING about. Please get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcprosser (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Esprit15d 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

You will find more information about this at WP:USEPRIMARY. You may use primary sources (particularly high-quality primary sources). Even MEDRS agrees that primary sources are (at least occasionally) useful and appropriate, particularly for recent information and for subjects for which proper reviews are rare. "Primary" is not an alternative spelling for "unreliable". What you particularly want to avoid is using a primary source to de-bunk a secondary. "According to this newly reported experiment, ___" is okay; "All the reviews say X, but this little primary source proves them wrong" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

horizon oil spill relief wells

The citation was provided in a previous version. Some troll removed it. I have been struggling to keep this piece of information in the wiki but I do not have time to do this. I quit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinxman1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cold medicine

You replaced a review with primary research therefore reverted.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Rutabaga has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Falcon8765 (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell

Thank you for participating in the on-going discussion and editing of the Joseph Campbell article!

As you've found, Wikipedia is a funny combination: an anarchist belief in the hive mind at work and a set of very stringent (if not always stringently applied) rules for ensuring the highest usability, accuracy and neutrality of articles. The learning curve can be challenging, but it is worthwhile, I promise!

In any case, I look forward to your further contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.214.191 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, regarding diagnosis section

Hi Gandydancer,

I responded to some of your points on the discussion page. By all means, Yes, please include the best quality stuff you can find. And it sounds like this is a real issue. Cool Nerd (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Referencing

Yes, <ref>http://some.url.here/<ref> is perfectly acceptable. However, a better but more complicated way to cite a web source is by using a citation template, which can be filled out and inserted using the "{{ CITE }}" button in the toolbar. But using a citation template is by no means required and not all people are comfortable using them. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

As stated here Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_medical_sources "The Cite.php footnote system is preferred as a method of indicating your sources but is not mandatory—see Wikipedia:Footnotes for details. Some editors format their citations by hand, which gives them control over the presentation."

So well it is not mandatory it is recommended and consistency in formatting is required to pass GA and FA reviews. I see you edit a fair bit which is why I bring it up. Thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you had a bit of difficulty with a ref on Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- great AP scoop and incredible details in that story. I fixed ref. Two tools can help a lot with formatted refs: no-install (bookmark) Citation generator makes it easy -- just select type (news, Web, etc), fill in the required fields, and cut and paste Wiki text. But I prefer Wikipedia:RefToolbar 2.0, which adds one-click access to these templates to your edit box for super ease of use -- pull down Template (news, Web, book, journal) from drop down box (hit Cite button if template selections not visible) and fill in the required blanks. It offers preview of not only Wiki text, but also preview of exactly how it will render in References. One click and ref data inserted at cursor (so position that at end of sentence first). Install one-line script in your User space, per instructions, reload browser, and you're off and running in seconds, literally. Paulscrawl (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I did try the Citation generator and could not get it to work properly. I have to admit that my computer skills, on a scale of 1 to 10, are about a 1, if that. I edit Wikipedia because I feel that it is my civic duty now that I am retired and have more time and it's a lot of fun, not because of any special skills I have. I've learned the little I know by observing how others did it. When I have time I'll try to work on my citation skills again, but for now I have only time to make a few edits. You are doing an awesome job on the article! Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the citation tools on wikipedia are a bit confusing. I used to just copy and paste other citations and then just change the details, but I have since found that the simplest way of doing it is to use the cite pmid template. All you need is the PMID number of the study (or the DOI if you use the doi template) and all the other stuff gets filled in automatically for you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Roma IQ studies

"This IQ info is absurd! This was one, deeply flawed study, not a review of studies at all)"

Don't correct other people's links, when you don't read them, you dolt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.235.19.212 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Just to inform you, regarding this edit, that ScienceDirect is a database of journal articles so it's not correct to state that the "study has not been published in a peer reviewed journal, rather it has been published on-line at ScienceDirect". It was in fact published in Intelligence. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected this but you might want to take a look at the wording yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

common cold

The study is already there and refed to the journal.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

MS

You need to get consensus before adding this stuff again about CCVSI.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Your addition to Program for Evaluating Complementary Medicine has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines

Hi Gandydancer, just to let you know that I responded on my talk page to your question about Wikipedia guidelines. Vitaminman (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Swine flu

Hi there, first off thanks very much for your work on this article, this has been a very important test for Wikipedia and due to editors such as yourself I think we have done pretty well. Cool Nerd asked for some advice and help with the talkpage discussions, I've responded on his talkpage and have read through more of that discussion. One approach I might recommend for you (I can see some frustration in your responses) is to copy the parts of the text that are under discussion onto the talkpage. This can then be redrafted and discussed and hopefully having the text there will help focus the discussions. I tend to use the

Quotation

template to do this, since it makes the draft stand out more. Anyway, hope this helps Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cat talkpage

I'm concerned about the quality of sources being used here, see talkpage for discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic

Gandydancer,

I also look forward to our once again having a good relationship. Now, I am a radical in some regards, and that's likely to remain the case. But, I think we most likely have many areas of overlap where we can work together very constructively. For example, we both think it’s important for our page to meaningfully communicate with parents, right?

Cool Nerd (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PS And where is that good joke on Tim’s page!

Re: H1N1

Not seeing what you're talking about. Could you elaborate? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What browser and OS are you using? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See here for the former. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Subpage created

I've created User:Gandydancer/Naica for your use as you redo the article. Left a link at Talk:Cave of the Crystals. Works in progress are usually done this way for various reasons. I've answered/commented on a couple things and have your subpage watchlisted. When its ready you can move back to the article or replace parts of the article with your work. Vsmith (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the edit conflict - commented at User talk:Gandydancer/Naica. Vsmith (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

re: AltMed

just as a piece of advice, you should read wp:bait. don't let yourself get caught up in the personal commentary, because what will eventually happen (once you get worked up enough) is that some hitherto uninvolved admin will show up out of the blue and block you for disruptive editing. be calm, be focused, and if other editors insist on making personal comments, ignore it (or leave me a note on my talk page and I'll deal with it - I have a lot of experience with this kind of thing).

do your best to think kind, peaceful thoughts. . --Ludwigs2 21:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

In a recent edit to the page Factory farming, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. emerson7 04:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

== April 2010 == Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bo Carter. That edit seemed to constitute vandalism and has been reverted. If you consider the edit to have been correct, please add a verifiable source.--Technopat (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Greetings Gandydancer - please accept my apologies. I didn't know that one and thought "weiner" was a more modern term. I was, in fact, going to substitute it for the "lemon" song, but thought there were already enough titles in there. Again, I'm sorry for slapping the vandalism tag on you. I owe you one. PS. Why don't you delete the warning I've struck and just leave my apology here - it's your talk page and you can do what you want!--Technopat (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

He did sing "Please Warm My Wiener". See your talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Gandy-dancer Chant

It's one I've seen on antique signs and such. I don't know about the authenticity of it, but I still think it's funny. Glad you enjoyed it! Kalmbach (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Deepwater Horizon oil spillKittybrewster ☎ 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kitty, My edit:

The type of oil involved is also a major problem. While most of the oil drilled off Louisiana is a lighter crude, because the leak is deep under the ocean surface the leaking oil is a heavier blend which contains asphalt-like substances, and, according to Ed Overton, who heads a federal chemical hazard assessment team for oil spills, this type of oil emulsifies well, making a "major sticky mess". Once it becomes that kind of mix, it no longer evaporates as quickly as regular oil, doesn't rinse off as easily, can't be eaten by microbes as easily, and doesn't burn as well. "That type of mixture essentially removes all the best oil clean-up weapons", Overton and others said.

This info is referenced and I believe appropriate for the article. Please explain why you feel it is "not constructive". Gandydancer (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That info is fine. The info you added as shown by the history was "suspicious" - in the lede. I think the software faltered and your edit (which is lost) was over-written by vandal 83.39.9.248. I have revoked the warning. Sorry. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

However, the history of the article still makes it look like I am a vandal, which does not make me look good at all!Gandydancer (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair comment. I will see if I can get it amended. I fdon't think it would be held against you. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Kitty, but I think I fixed it with a comment when I did add it. All's well that ends well! Gandydancer (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to personally compliment the two of you for dealing with this issue as calmly as you have.Naraht (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't believe you didn't check my source carefully enough, but I went back and looked, which I should have done before I reverted your revert of my edit. How do they just delete something like that? Did the fishermen not go to the hospital? If they didn't shouldn't the paper have reported that it was believed but then found not to be true? I don't get it. I didn't think an article could change that much after I saw it. I guess I should be careful when posting breaking news.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Deepwater Horizon oil spill

--Wanted to make sure you got one of these. Awesome job! - Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Excessive summary edits on Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Thank you for your support. I responded. Paulscrawl (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecology

Hey, I don't remember Peabody's coal train but I remember Mr. Whoopee explaining the unlimited advantages of mass production with his 3d bb.

I changed by comment in the Ecology discussion section to say now is the time to take the 'before' pictures for eventual inclusion in the article.Createangelos (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thank you so much!

You're quite welcome. He was definitely acting in an appropriate manner and his additions of irrelevant material to the talk page defied Wikipedia policies. If he continues to bother you in the future or act inappropriately, you need not hesitate to let me or anyone else here know about it. Cheers and happy editing!. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing talk page comments

I thought I'd move this here rather than User talk:MichaelWestbrook. I was unaware that users are not allowed to edit their own comments on other's talk pages, could you point me in the direction of the relevant policy? I looked earlier but to no avail! Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 18:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it is here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Collaborating_with_Other_Editors/Communicating_with_Your_Fellow_Editors I am not an experenced editor and I'm surprised I found it - I'll probably never be able to find it again... :) Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No misunderstanding

Of course we are on friendly terms. I was just trying to put the whole thing to rest. It pains me to see long threads like that -- such an unconstructive use of our time. You've been around for a while, so you know that such user talk threads must be geared to ending, and not "feeding" the dialogue.

If there's anything you ever need, just let me know. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Well said. Onwards! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anna and Paul. I put quite a bit of thought into that post - it was not dashed off on the spur of the moment. I remain uncertain as to whether or not it was the right thing to do, but I am certain that it was the right thing for me to do. Over the years I have worked with abused women and children and as such have strong feelings about women's issues.

While it may be seen by some as "feeding" the issue, I did not see it that way. Editing would be easy enough if it were not for the discussion that is so often necessary. As you know, Wikipedia uses consensus and consensus can be very difficult since it insists that each speaker must be willing and must be allowed to express their point of view. To close a discussion because it is difficult is never a good idea and not fair to those involved. Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn' mean to imply you were "feeding" him. I used the term "feeding" to imply that he is a troll, as in "don't feed the trolls". I thought you might know that saying. At the time, I couldn't openly say it. Now, it is clear that he was the poster-child.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Slippery matter

Hi Gandydancer:

I meant I don't care either way about the past tense, not about what you said. I liked what you said.

Funny, isn't it? Something like 15 thousand visitors a day, and nearly 300 editors watching the page, and not a peep about the switch to past tense. Sometimes I just don't get Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, I was thinking the same thing! Anna, if the truth be known, it is quite surprising that I edit at all. I never was one to have a way with words, plus my father published a book and my two sisters both write extremely well - so I was sort of the black sheep and have little confidence in myself in that area. Add to that, I really have few computer skills - I still have not been able to figure out how to upload a photo though I read the Photos for Dummies section. But I love Wikipedia, and I feel a responsibility to do my share. Considering that the corporate world spends millions upon millions to influence the public, if it weren't for us they could easily take over Wikipedia. As always, it is good to hear from you. Gandydancer (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have confidence in your writing. It's fine. Also, you do more than your share. Nice to hear back from you. Stay well, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I think they turn out just fine as well...but I really do have to work very hard to put a reasonable edit together. And then everything must go through a spell check - sis Judy won the spelling championship way back when, but that part of my brain seems to be missing completely. :) Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

References made easy

You might find this useful:

I've been using this. It fixes up the references automatically. I don't know if you're familiar with it. It will turn this into this.

• Paste in the article name
• Click run
• Preview changes
• Save

(If one of the refs is a pdf, before you use reflinks, stick something after the url, like: < ref >oilspillsandwhytheyarentfun.pdf Information on oil spills< / ref >)

Very handy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to convert this: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract from Cancer Research, a medical journal, and it just said "page not found". All I did was to paste it in the first box. (It is from the high-fructose corn syrup page under the Cancer section.) Did I need to do more? Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Put the ref in the article where you want it to be with the normal ref thingy: <ref>http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract</ref> ...and save page. (You never need to use those square brackets.) Then paste the article name into the reflinks box.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

References made easy: Example

This.:

<ref>http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract</ref> 

becomes this:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/70/15/6368.abstract |title=Fructose Induces Transketolase Flux to Promote Pancreatic Cancer Growth — Cancer Res |publisher=Cancerres.aacrjournals.org |date= |accessdate=2010-08-06}}</ref>

and renders like this:

1. ^ "Fructose Induces Transketolase Flux to Promote Pancreatic Cancer Growth — Cancer Res". Cancerres.aacrjournals.org. Retrieved 2010-08-06.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you were interested...

It's not especially relevant to the ADHD article, but since you're interested:

On the first day of the school year in California, the Kindergarten teacher may be faced with students as young as 4 years, 9 months, and as old as six years, 11 months (not counting students with disabilities, who may be older). The state requires schools to accept students whose fifth birthdays are before December 2nd -- thus the 4.75-year-old child. It also prohibits the school from requiring a student to attend any school at all before the sixth birthday -- thus the nearly 7-year-old child, who couldn't be forced into school the previous year.

This appears to be the legal maximum for normal admissions; the typical age range in a Kindergarten classroom seems to be about 16-18 months. Additionally, there are complications with students who begin school in other states, and a variety of adjustments made for students with disabilities (some of whom both start Kindergarten later than average and also spend two years in Kindergarten).

In some other countries, it appears that Kindergarten is normally a two-year program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI

While I agree with your comments, since this edit is quite controverted it would be a good idea to try to reach consensus at talk page first or we would end on an edit-war.--Garrondo (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand your thinking and to some extent I do believe you are right. On the other hand, I have decided to just plow right into this, as I have done - with both eyes open... From just the little reading I have done, it seems that you are attempting to keep the article balanced. I have had other dealings with LSD, and we tend to not be on the same wavelength. Same for Doc James. But they both have sound medical knowledge, not that I always agree. As for the other editor, he seems quite difficult... Gandydancer (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Baby Doe Tabor

Thanks for the note on Baby Doe. Do you know where we can find a copyright-free picture of Baby Doe that we could use in the article? Plazak (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a native, having moved here only 34 years ago. I live in Denver. Plazak (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We owned several hundred acres 3 miles south of Granite right there by what is now called the Pine Creek Rapids. I went to the one-room school up on the hill in Granite. There is a photo of the ice palace in Leadville at the govt. site if you'd like to add it to the Leadville page. Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Gandy dancer

Photos added! :-)

best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

When i work with Google Books references, i have two windows open for each book. One is the information in the book that i am referencing, and the other window displays the about this book information. That way, i can easily create the footnote, and switch back and forth as needed.

I normally don't use the link to the Google page as a part of the reference. If Google changed their method of display, all the Google book references would be broken. Rather, i follow the standard footnote format as if you had the book in front of you. I include the author's name first, then book title, publisher, any additional info (such as paperback edition, etc.), and finally, page number.

If one desired to link to the Google book source, then that should be included in the footnote after the other information. Important to leave a space before and after the link. Then, include "retrieved on November 29, 2010" to let anyone exploring the link know when it was accessed. But this link is extra information, it is all the standard book details that are important.

I do, of course, sometimes share Google book links with others on the talk page. To make the link manageable, simply put single square brackets around it. Then there's a trick that you can do. If you leave a space at the end, inside the brackets, you can add a word or a phrase after that space to explain the link. This word or phrase will appear in the text when the link is presented.

It is important to avoid adding photos to Wikipedia that are claimed by a library, they will just get deleted. However, sometimes you can find equivalent photos in books printed before 1926. These are pretty much all public domain, because the copyright has expired.

I'm a graphic designer, so will be happy to help with photos if desired, including making them presentable, if needed. And, will look at the Granite article soon. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Gandy Dancer. I see you undid an edit I made at the Gandy Dancer article (referring users to relevant content at the article's Talk page) indicating I should read the Talk page first. Actually, I had, and found that some Internet searching I had done on my own prior dovetailed with the last several items posted by the above Richard Myers. I wrote up a post including it for the Talk page but see now I never hit "Save Page" before retiring past 3AM. My mistake. The additional content is posted there now. Thank you for your vigilance.

I'm going to clean up a loose sentence left similarly mid-edit at the Gandy dancer page and call it good for now. Cheers. Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Haiti

Okay!  :) Just re-added it, as I said from your remark. I had heard it before, that the shallowness of the quake made it worse, which seems to make sense. So I thought it was a slam dunk when someone ref-ed it. Agree that it needs to be more scientific. Will keep my eye out for a better ref. Basically did this the lazy man's way. Now to actually work!  :) Thanks for the heads up! Student7 (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Only. Again. Still. Yet

Let's say you are six feet tall. No one has ever measured you but you weren't that height exactly. It is written in the sky.

With a deliberate axe to grind, I report, "Gandydancer is only six feet tall," meaning, of course you "should" be taller. Maybe I report basketball or something. Or I say, "Gandydancer is still six feet tall." Should have changed. Why hasn't he? "..is yet six feet tall." Should be something other than that height. To avoid the perception of bias on my part, I could report objectively and merely say "Gandydancer is six feet tall." People, including sports fans, can put whatever spin they want on that. I have not put any. And being an encyclopedia reporter and not a media reporter, that is indeed, what I would do. Student7 (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2011 Wisconsin protests - talk section: Merrill

I would not characterize your efforts regarding the Merrill protests as "misguided". However, I did suggest what I think would be a better way of handling it in the future under the talk section. Overall, we came to a desirable solution in the aftermath and I appreciate the comments regarding. Best wishes and happy editing. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

haiti earthquakes

The fact that the geometries of the sun earth and moon were identical in the cases of the 1907 kingston earthquake and the 2010 haiti earthquake is an interesting observation I decided to note on the page, but you deleted it calling it Vandalism. Last year there was a 8.8 magnitude Chilean earthquake as the Sun, Earth and Jupiter were lining up.

I know I am suggesting a correlation, but it is interesting nonetheless, and very useful than most information because it might save lives.

Don't burn books.Ngrant5 (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Ngrant5

Campbell Article

Hi, I rewrote the article we talked about some weeks ago. Please have a look and let me know if you agree

One aspect of Campbell’s analysis focused on the evolution of the mythic imaginary through history. The forces responsible where environmental, with the source of food being of primary importance, as well as social, with influences from neighbouring cultures. He indentified stages of evolution which can be summed up to the following

Hunting and Gathering Societies (The Way of Animal Powers) At this stage of evolution, religion was animistic, with all of nature seen as being infused with some kind of spirit or divine presence. At the center stage was the main hunting animal of that culture, whether the buffalo for Native American or the Eland for South African tribes and a large part of their religion focused on dealing with the psychological tension that came from the reality of the kill (versus the divinity of the animal being hunted). This was done by presenting the animals as a willing participants, springing from an eternal archetypal source and coming to this world as "willing victims with the understanding that their lives [...] will be returned to the soil or to Mother through some ritual of restoration"[24]. The act of slaughter then becomes a ritual where both parties, animal and man, are equal participants. In his last interview with Bill Moyers as well as in his lectures, later released as Mythos, he recounts the story he calls the Buffalo's Wife as told by the Blackfoot tribe in North America which recounts the origin of the buffalo dance.The story tells of a time when the buffalo stopped coming to the plains and the chief's daughter promises to marry the buffalo chief in return for their reappearance. She is eventually spared and is taught the mystic knowledge of the buffalo dance, which is the ritual that allows the spirits of the dead animals to return.

Agricultural Societies (The Seeded Earth) Starting off on the fertile grasslands of Europe in the Bronze Age and moving to the Levant and the "Fertile Crescent" of Mesopotamia, the arts of agriculture spread together with a new way of understanding the world in relation to them and the Earth and myths focused around her life-giving powers. The plant and cultivation cycle was mirrored in religious rituals which often included human sacrifice symbolic or literal. The main figures of this system where a femae Great Godess, Mother Earth and her ever-dying and ever-resurrected son/consort, a male God. The focus here was to participate in the repetitive rhythm the world moved in, variously expressed as the four seasons, the birth and death of crops and the phases of the moon. At the center of this motion was the Mother Goddess from whom life would spring and to whom life would return. This often gave her a dual aspect as a mother and as a destroyer.

Higher Cultures of the Ancient World (The Celestial Lights) As the cultures of the Near East evolved into the high civilisations of Mesopotamia and Babylonia. The constant observation of the stars gave people the idea that life on earth must also follow the same mathematically predetermined path where individual beings are but mere participants in a cosmic play. The king was symbolised by the Sun, with the golden crown being the metaphor, while his court where the orbiting planets. The Mother Goddess remained but her powers where now fixed within the rigid framework of a clockwork Universe.

As the Indo-European (Aryan) people descended from the north, carrying with them their masculine warrior gods, they blended with the previous system of the Earth Godess, creating many of the great mythologies of ancient Greece, Rome, India and Persia. Figures like Zeus and Indra are thunder gods who now interact in the same system with Demeter and Dionysus who's ritual sacrifice was still enacted in Classical Greece. In the lecture series of Mythos Campbell speaks of the Mysteries of Eleusis in Ancient Greece, where Demeter's journey in the underworld was enacted for young men and women of the time. There he observed that weat was presented as the ultimate mystery much as it is in the Christian mysteries in the form of bread. Both religions carrying the same "seeded earth" cosmology in different forms.

Medieval mythology and romantic love Campbell recognised in the poetic form of courtly love, carried through medieval Europe by the travelling troubadours, a complete mythology in its own right.[25][26] In the The Power of Myth as well as the "Occidental Mythology" volume of The Masks of God, Campbell describes the emergence of a new kind of erotic experience as a "person to person" affair, in contrast with the purely physical definition given to Eros in the the ancient world and the communal "agape" found in the Christian religion. One of the archetypal stories of this kind is Tristan and Isolde which, apart from its mystical function, shows the transition from an arranged marriage society, as practiced in the middle ages and sanctified by the church, into the form of marriage by "falling in love" with another person that we recognise today. So what essentially started from a mythological theme has since become a social reality mainly due to a change in perception brought about by a new mythology.

Creative Mythology Campbell believed that in the modern world, the position of formal mythological systems is taken by individual creators such as artists and philosophers. In the works of his favourites like Thomas Mann, Pablo Picasso and James Joyce, he saw mythological themes that could serve the same life giving purpose that mythology once played. Accordingly, Campbell believed the religions of the world to be the various, culturally influenced “masks” of the same fundamental, transcendent truths. All religions, including Christianity and Buddhism, can bring one to an elevated awareness above and beyond a dualistic conception of reality, or idea of “pairs of opposites,” such as being and non-being, or right and wrong. Indeed, he quotes in the preface of The Hero with a Thousand Faces: "Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names."—which is a translation of the Rig Vedic saying, "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmick66 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Mmick I have read it quite a few times but without your source I don't know how to respond. If you feel that it is ready to post I guess I'm not the boss of Wikipedia to tell you that it is not. I'm sure you have worked very hard on this and would like to see it on the Campbell page. I really like some parts, others not so much... Best, Gandy

What do you mean by "without your source?" There are a few references throughout... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmick66 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will continue to try to give my feedback:

Creative Mythology

Campbell believed that in the modern world the position of formal mythological systems is taken by individual creators such as artists and philosophers. In the works of some of his favorites such as Thomas Mann, Pablo Picasso and James Joyce, he saw mythological themes that could serve the same life-giving purpose that mythology once played. Accordingly, Campbell believed the religions of the world to be the various culturally influenced “masks” of the same fundamental, transcendent truths. All religions can bring one to an elevated awareness above and beyond a dualistic conception of reality, or idea of “pairs of opposites” such as being and non-being, or right and wrong. Indeed, he quotes in the preface of The Hero with a Thousand Faces: "Truth is one, the sages speak of it by many names"—which is a translation of the Rig Vedic saying, "Ekam Sat Vipra Bahuda Vadanthi."

What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Medieval mythology and romantic love Campbell recognised in the poetic form of courtly love, carried through medieval Europe by the travelling troubadours, a complete mythology in its own right.[25][26] In the The Power of Myth as well as the "Occidental Mythology" volume of The Masks of God, Campbell describes the emergence of a new kind of erotic experience as a "person to person" affair, in contrast with the purely physical definition given to Eros in the the ancient world and the communal "agape" found in the Christian religion. One of the archetypal stories of this kind is Tristan and Isolde which, apart from its mystical function, shows the transition from an arranged marriage society, as practiced in the middle ages and sanctified by the church, into the form of marriage by "falling in love" with another person that we recognise today. So what essentially started from a mythological theme has since become a social reality mainly due to a change in perception brought about by a new mythology. CHANGES FOLLOW

Medieval mythology and romantic love

Campbell recognized that the poetic form of courtly love, carried through medieval Europe by the traveling troubadours, contained a complete mythology in its own right.[25][26] In the The Power of Myth as well as the "Occidental Mythology" volume of The Masks of God, Campbell describes the emergence of a new kind of erotic experience as a "person to person" affair, in contrast with the purely physical definition given to Eros in the the ancient world and the communal agape found in the Christian religion. An archetypal story of this kind is the legend of Tristan and Isolde which, apart from its mystical function, shows the transition from an arranged marriage society as practiced in the middle ages and sanctified by the church, into the form of marriage by "falling in love" with another person that we recognize today. So what essentially started from a mythological theme has since become a social reality, mainly due to a change in perception brought about by a new mythology. Gandydancer (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Higher Cultures of the Ancient World (The Celestial Lights) As the cultures of the Near East evolved into the high civilisations of Mesopotamia and Babylonia. The constant observation of the stars gave people the idea that life on earth must also follow the same mathematically predetermined path where individual beings are but mere participants in a cosmic play. The king was symbolised by the Sun, with the golden crown being the metaphor, while his court where the orbiting planets. The Mother Goddess remained but her powers where now fixed within the rigid framework of a clockwork Universe.CHANGES FOLLOW

I don't have any information of my own on this section and have no idea what to do with it.

As the Indo-European (Aryan) people descended from the north, carrying with them their masculine warrior gods, they blended with the previous system of the Earth Godess, creating many of the great mythologies of ancient Greece, Rome, India and Persia. Figures like Zeus and Indra are thunder gods who now interact in the same system with Demeter and Dionysus who's ritual sacrifice was still enacted in Classical Greece. In the lecture series of Mythos Campbell speaks of the Mysteries of Eleusis in Ancient Greece, where Demeter's journey in the underworld was enacted for young men and women of the time. There he observed that weat was presented as the ultimate mystery much as it is in the Christian mysteries in the form of bread. Both religions carrying the same "seeded earth" cosmology in different forms. CHANGES FOLLOW

I am very familiar with this information but I would have presented it very differently. It is my impression that you have tried to present so much information that it is jumbled and hard to follow. I won't try to make any changes. Gandydancer (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hunting and Gathering Societies (The Way of Animal Powers) At this stage of evolution, religion was animistic, with all of nature seen as being infused with some kind of spirit or divine presence. At the center stage was the main hunting animal of that culture, whether the buffalo for Native American or the Eland for South African tribes and a large part of their religion focused on dealing with the psychological tension that came from the reality of the kill (versus the divinity of the animal being hunted). This was done by presenting the animals as a willing participants, springing from an eternal archetypal source and coming to this world as "willing victims with the understanding that their lives [...] will be returned to the soil or to Mother through some ritual of restoration"[24]. The act of slaughter then becomes a ritual where both parties, animal and man, are equal participants. In his last interview with Bill Moyers as well as in his lectures, later released as Mythos, he recounts the story he calls the Buffalo's Wife as told by the Blackfoot tribe in North America which recounts the origin of the buffalo dance.The story tells of a time when the buffalo stopped coming to the plains and the chief's daughter promises to marry the buffalo chief in return for their reappearance. She is eventually spared and is taught the mystic knowledge of the buffalo dance, which is the ritual that allows the spirits of the dead animals to return. CHANGES FOLLOW

Hunting and gathering societies

At this stage of evolution religion was animistic, with all of nature seen as being infused with the spirit of the divine. At center stage was the main hunting animal of that culture, whether the buffalo for Native Americans or the eland for South African tribes, and a large part of religion focused on dealing with the psychological tension that came from the reality of the necessity to kill versus the divinity of the animal. This was done by presenting the animals as willing participants springing from an eternal archetypal source and coming to this world as willing victims, with the understanding that their lives would be returned to the soil or to the Mother through a ritual of restoration.[24] The act of slaughter then becomes a ritual where both parties, animal and mankind, are equal participants. In his last interview with Bill Moyers as well as in his lectures, Campbell recounts the story he calls "The Buffalo's Wife" as told by the Blackfoot tribe of North America. The story tells of a time when the buffalo stopped coming to the plains and the chief's daughter promises to marry the buffalo chief in return for their reappearance. She is eventually spared and is taught the mystic knowledge of the buffalo dance, which is the ritual that allows the spirits of the dead animals to return. Indeed, Campbell taught that throughout history mankind has held a belief that all life comes from and returns to another dimension which transcends temporality, but which can be reached through ritual. NOTE THAT I HAVE ADDED A SENTENCE HERE Gandydancer (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with the changes you made. The main line of dispute seems to be the blending of indo-european with pre indo-european cultures where male oriented and female oriented cultures merged. How do you think its best to present this. I am holding a Campbell book this moment where it says: "It is almost certain that the association of King Mark with a horse ... testifies to an original involvement of his image in a context of royal solar rites, the warrior rites of those Celtic Aryans who, with their male oriented patriarchal order, overran in the course of the first millenium BC the old bronze age world Mother Goddess and mother -right" [Masks of God Volume 4 page 208] So Campbell uses the Mother Right wording as well... Mmick66 (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will print the section we are having problems with first:

As the Indo-European (Aryan) people descended from the north, carrying with them their masculine warrior gods, they blended with the previous system of the Earth Godess, creating many of the great mythologies of ancient Greece, Rome, India and Persia. Figures like Zeus and Indra are thunder gods who now interact in the same system with Demeter and Dionysus who's ritual sacrifice was still enacted in Classical Greece. In the lecture series of Mythos Campbell speaks of the Mysteries of Eleusis in Ancient Greece, where Demeter's journey in the underworld was enacted for young men and women of the time. There he observed that weat was presented as the ultimate mystery much as it is in the Christian mysteries in the form of bread. Both religions carrying the same "seeded earth" cosmology in different forms.

(In response to your post) OK, in the first place you have it under this heading: Higher Cultures of the Ancient World (The Celestial Lights). This info is about the manner in which the Mother Earth/Nature Goddess was removed from Her place on-high and replaced with with the Father God (God of heaven AND earth!). Then, although you have explained the Mother Goddess of the agricultural societies elsewhere, there is no introduction to the Father God concept - the fact that He was the God of the herders of animals who roamed about becoming warriors who conquered others rather than staying in one place and being "fertile". This story is told in the Old Testament when Cain slays Abel - the herder slays the one who tends the earth - and that is our legacy to this day. In your post you show how the two mythologies were combined, but I feel that you have failed to mention the fact that from that time on the female goddess was subjugated to the male god. There was a marriage, however the two were not then (or now) in an equal relationship. Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

To go on, here is the last section of your proposed edit with my suggested changes:

Agricultural Societies (The Seeded Earth) Starting off on the fertile grasslands of Europe in the Bronze Age and moving to the Levant and the "Fertile Crescent" of Mesopotamia, the arts of agriculture spread together with a new way of understanding the world in relation to them and the Earth and myths focused around her life-giving powers. The plant and cultivation cycle was mirrored in religious rituals which often included human sacrifice symbolic or literal. The main figures of this system where a femae Great Godess, Mother Earth and her ever-dying and ever-resurrected son/consort, a male God. The focus here was to participate in the repetitive rhythm the world moved in, variously expressed as the four seasons, the birth and death of crops and the phases of the moon. At the center of this motion was the Mother Goddess from whom life would spring and to whom life would return. This often gave her a dual aspect as a mother and as a destroyer CHANGES:

Agricultural Societies

Beginning in the fertile grasslands of Europe in the Bronze Age and moving to the Levant and the Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia, the practice of agriculture spread along with a new way of understanding mankind's relationship to the world. At this time the earth was seen as the Mother, and the myths focused around Her life-giving powers. The plant and cultivation cycle was mirrored in religious rituals which often included human sacrifice, symbolic or literal. The main figures of this system were a female Great Goddess, Mother Earth, and her ever-dying and ever-resurrected son/consort, a male God. At this time the focus was to participate in the repetitive rhythm the world moved in expressed as the four seasons, the birth and death of crops and the phases of the moon. At the center of this motion was the Mother Goddess from whom all life springs and to whom all life returns. This often gave Her a dual aspect as both mother and destroyer. Gandydancer (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with the edits above and would make no further. About the Male/Female gods talked above. There is an obvious problem with providing too many details about the Aryan male gods since the indo european herders who carried him had not invented writing and left little traces of his development. So his story really starts from when he subjugated the female fertility godess. I suggest we add the story of Cain and Abel as an example. We can also add the Tree of life, an early symbol of the Goddess who became the source of pain for mankind as well as the snake turning from a fertility symbol to an evil spirit in the Old Testament. I do not remember references by heart so we must do some research. Apart form that I feel that we are almost ready to post a first version live... Mmick66 (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Indian Love Call

Har! That song...is so...odd...and makes me howl every time I see the Martians die in Mars Attacks.

Ok, so the thing with non-free media is that one has to write a super duper fair use rationale, with sources and everything that say unequivocally how important this file is. Do you have the sources to do that? Can you write a few sentences to describe, like this one, how important this sample is? And it has to be shorter than 30 seconds, so 29 if possible. Which 30 seconds would you like? --Moni3 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Veto

I didn't say it would have done anything _useful_, I just said he could have vetoed it. It almost certainly would have been overridden, but he could have made that choice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Abortion

As a heads up this topic area is under a 1RR restriction per Wikipedia:GS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

1RR means that editors are only allowed to revert once rather than the usual 3 reverts... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about Deepwater spill article

Hi, i've seen you for a year now on the BP spill article. I've been doing a lot of editing there, but always with an IP. Finally got myself a username. The page is locked now, and I don't see a time limit. That is new to me, i wonder why that happened and whether some policy has changed at Wiki to allow this? Thanks, Petrarchan47 (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Abortion: a matter of life and death?

Hi, GD, you said:

• Ed, quick reply - been there done that. The discussion did center around that issue for some time. The problem is, if even the best minds can not agree, is this something for Wikipedia editors to tackle? Can you have death if there was no life to die? See for instance Wikipedia Life: "Since there is no unequivocal definition of life..." [1]

Right, I had totally forgotten that everyone's split over "life begins at birth". Of course, they mean "human life" which in turn means that the fetus *is* a human being (and all that implies). And if it's a human being, and it's alive, then killing it is homicide, i.e., murder, eh? (I will bring this back to talk:abortion ... I'm not trying to split the thread.)

When I get back there, I see I'll have to distinguish between "causing the living cells of the fetus to die" and "killing a baby" (wish me luck). --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well you'll need it. Having no idea about who you are I meant to check your talk page but accidentally clicked Michael's talk page where I found this post related to this issue (Orange was the first to bring up the no death without life consideration):

[edit] Talk:Abortion

My left nutsack knows more than you. Jesus fucking Christ, I have never attacked you personally, but have, in fact, ignored you commentary. But your personal attacks are childish, immature, and, prove to me, you lack anything but personal attacks as a skill set. Consider this a warning for your childish personal attacks. Your best choice....do something else in life that befits your level of knowledge. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Grow up and stop acting like a foul mouthed adolescent. Your contribution at Talk:Abortion was unscientific and typically stupid. That some lone incompetent twat followed your lead is unfortunate (and hilarious). -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That's me - I'm the lone incompetent twat. :D Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC):

I'd suggest one keep in mind:

In 1973, Harry Blackmun wrote the court opinion for Roe v. Wade, saying "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate." Gandydancer (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

RE. Michael C. Price's comment: I would not jump to a conclusion on that, he might have had someone else in mind. I was following that at the time I didn't think then it refered to you. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? And what other twat expressed similar thoughts at that time? Gandydancer (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be me, through some wibbly wobbly timey wimey...stuff. NW (Talk) 13:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I think I understand your concern about "death". You don't want the first sentence of the article to be understood as declaring that meaningful human life (or "ensoulment") begins at conception or implantation. Looking at the 2006-2011 version, what word could we swap with death to solve this particular problem, putting aside for the moment other problems you may have with the 2006-2011 version? "Expiration"? "Demise"? "Cessation"? "Loss"? "Assassination"? Well, maybe not that last one. Please think it over, and maybe discuss at the article talk page if such a word exists. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"suspended the use" ≠ "changed their laws"

Hello Gandydancer. In your 01:20, 30 June 2011 post above, you pasted the following quote from EPA's website: "Several European countries have suspended the use of certain pesticides in response to incidents involving acute poisoning of honey bees". You then quote from a question I asked you on the clothianidin talk page: "do you have a credible citation for your claim that Germany changed its laws because of the 2008 incident? You seem to be basing your position on an uncited assumption." You follow this up with the statement: "Actually I never claimed that, but as a matter of fact, er yes, the EPA said that and I assume that they are a credible citation."

As a reminder, here's the statement you actually made: "For instance, the Germany incident - if this incident actually did result in the German decision to change their laws re its use, I would feel that that is notable information and within the guidelines of Wikipedia policy."

I apologize for incorrectly stating that you "claimed" the Germans changed their laws as a result of the incident. It would have been more accurate for me to say you first posited that the Germans "changed their laws" as a result of the incident, then you used that uncited hypothesis to justify your "feel[ing] that that is notable information and within the guidelines of Wikipedia policy." Unfortunately, your hypothesis that the Germans "changed their laws" was baseless.

The text you quoted from USEPA's web page does not say, imply or infer that "Germany changed its laws" (italics added) because of the incident; the exact phrase is "suspended the use." What Germany changed was not the "law," but rather the registration status of a use or uses of a pesticide. This is not an insignificant distinction.

For example, USEPA has in the past suspended and cancelled uses of many pesticides (e.g. DDT). The agency takes these actions consistent with established regulations, which are based on federal law. "Changing the law" requires an Act of Congress (ie a REALLY REALLY big thing). While approving, suspending, or cancelling a pesticide use isn't small potatoes, it's generally not even in the same order of magnitude as an act of congress. It is my understanding that German laws and pesticide regulatory decisions use roughly the same processes as we do in the U.S. So when you posited that the Germans "changed their laws" you substantively misstated the facts, which--coincidentally?--promotes a biased point of view by inferring a greatly exaggerated version of the actual facts of the matter.

The cumulative effect on public perception of little (and, no doubt, innocent) slips like this one are the reason I am tasked by USEPA with trying to bring NPOV to some of Wikipedia's pesticide chemical pages. The more these innocent little slips show up, the longer I'm going to have to be around. Peace --USEPA James (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a simple "FYI: They changed a regulation not a law" would have been more appropriate. Assuming good faith is important. Please read this one free clue. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

An unbiased reading of the quoted text from USEPA should have precluded the need for FYIs. And given the extensive commentary above, a more detailed explanation seemed more appropriate. It's ironic that you would mention AGF. From AGF Demonstrate good faith:

In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with editors.

Compromise? Adherence to policies and guidelines? Food for thought... --USEPA James (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

James, that you would try to weave a picture of the danger being done to the reputation of the EPA by the accidental use of the word law rather than regulation on a Wikipedia talk page is just absolutely ludicrous. And that you should attempt to weave my mistake into some sort of dark intent "which--coincidentally?--promotes a biased point of view by inferring a greatly exaggerated version of the actual facts of the matter" and blowing a simple mistake on my part into a wild fantasy of yours is like something out of a soap opera. You then seem to have a change of heart and you assure me that you are sure it was a "little (and, no doubt, innocent) slip" that has brought bias to the pages of Wikipedia, but by gosh you're going to be on the look out for more of these so-called innocent slips in the future. I hope that as you continue to work on the articles you will come to realize that most editors are honest and hardworking, they are intelligent and able to use logical reason to come to a decision, and some of us like to have a little fun too. This is not fun. The next time I make a mistake please correct me rather than weave it into a dark plot to be revealed at a later date. Gandydancer (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology

Gandydancer, I am sorry I was rather sharp the other day in responce to a couple of your questions. I find it difficult to grasp what one other editor is saying at times. Sometimes it seems like editors just remember their last comment. Thankyou for your efforts at brokering a compromise. I have no problem acknowledging strengths in others arguments. What I think the problem is and you probably see this also is that there are two sets of editors, one wanting to hold on to a previous consensus, and another wanting to advance a new one. The thing is neither is wrong in wanting to either hold onto the existing consensus, or wanting to advance a new one. I tried the latter on another article and ended up topic banned! But that is all I can say about that. Yet here I am trying to defend an existing consensus that experienced admin say is the result of a hard won compromise, and I am getting blocked! Yes I agree with the existing consensus and so that makes it easier to defend. Yet what is causing this dispute - bad faith and misunderstanding? Probably. Neither side wishes to open the door too wide, for fear of what might slip in. The pro-choice leaning editors undoubtedly are leery of any mentioning of killing in the article, and might have a coronry if m....r slipped in. But seriously is that really a risk? On Wikipedia? The site leans at least slightly toward liberal views, if it didn't there would be no Conservapedia. Can you see a strong consensus being established for "Abortion is the killing of the unborn in the womb". Thats my view, but I don't see it having much possibility of making it into the article, and I would not try to push for it either, because while I have no problem with pro-life literature using this language, I know the difference between a pamphlet and an encyclopedia article. So as I see it pro-life concerns about the direction the article might take and is taking are more realistic than pro-choice concerns - it is not moving towards pro-life rhetoric. Do you see what I am saying? Best. DMSBel (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, in case you misunderstand. I want no rhetoric in the article, I don't want it to become an advocacy piece of any kind. But the advocacy issue is more pertinent to groups/organisations, than to dictionaries and definitions. Advocacy looks something like: "such and such pro-life group (or pro-choice group) is correct when they state:" - followed by quotation from afforementioned group. Statements from groups, individuals etc. can be placed neutrally in the article often by juxtaposing them with other statements. But in the definition, we have to concede to dictionaries, and where one is silent doesn't mean we can't supplement it by another. Best DMSBel (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. As for an apology, none is needed - I don't even remember the incident you speak of. Yes, I agree it is a very difficult situation. I don't feel either side is arguing with bad faith, but rather a deeply held belief. I can't speak for the other editors, but it is not my impression that they are concerned that words such as murder or killing might slip into the definition. It certainly is no concern of mine. It seems to me the the problem lies in the fact that one group of editors believes that life begins at the moment of conception and others say that while that may be true, there is no agreement in the world at large. That is why I feel that we have no choice but to use the definition used by 22 of our 24 sources (if I remember the actual count correctly). Best Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gandy, Your attempt to summarize how the "death" editors might see the unfolding of the lede discussions is refreshing and welcome. I think it would be important to include: 1) something about the behavior of several editors who changed the lede without respecting the FAQ (and also changed the FAQ) and 2) the fact that not one death editor has argued anything about personhood and instead has relied upon science and medicine and 3) the most popular English-langauge medical dictionary (and regular dictionary) includes death in the definition (it is the top medical dictionary at Amazon and the online dictionary used by the NIH's MEDline. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you 71. I feel that your info re the medical dictionary is very important. I feel that it will offer food for thought to both those for and against including the term in the definition. I've added your suggestions to the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Gandy, It is nice to have my comments acknowledged, as well, even though I choose not to register. Thank you (not sure if you have already acknowledged my comments before, but I want to thank you in this instance regardless). One more thing to consider including: The word "death" is used by some abortion clinic websites (a link was posted on the Abortion talk page over the past 2 weeks) designed to explain to potential patients what happens during an abortion. Also, some abortion providers and lobbyists and advocates with excellent abortion advocacy bona fides have candidly stated that a living fetus is killed/dies (they have used both terms) in an abortion (links have been posted to such statements over the past few weeks). This usage of alive/death by abortion providers and advocates bolsters the notion that the words are appropriate and not de facto POV. And, while not the same as WP:RS, these citations all affirm the plentiful WP:RS that do verify "death" as an objective fact. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the issues you bring up are important and appropriate for the article. In fact very important. From the posts that I have read on the talk page most or perhaps all of the editors have no problem with including this sort of information in the body of the article. But for our definition I believe that we must strictly adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV standards. When our (U.S. - I live in the U.S.) Supreme Court said in the Roe v. Wade decision that there is not yet an agreement on when life begins, it certainly would take more than a handful of wikipedia editors to change my mind. From their court opinion:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate."

Gandydancer (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The WP abortion article also "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins". Yet you seem to be insisting that it must. HOWEVER, the difficult question the court posed is not medical or biological life, but personhood life (which is a philosophical and legal concept). The biology is clear: the fetus is alive and a spontaneous or induced abortion can only occur if that fetus dies. You seem to be imposing the philosophy of personhood into the lede when in fact the lede is broader than human abortion and includes other species. Why do you impose such meaning onto a plain, objective and accurate descrition? A gestating dog fetus is alive - and it is either born alive or aborted. What about the CDC discussion about how to code a fetal death versus an induced abortion (of a not "already-dead fetus")? I am not trying to trip you up, but if you can't see the objective nature of the life and death of a fetus (immaterial to its personhood) then that is where your view is opposed to what remains the consensus version of the lede (the 2006 version with death). The consensus has been to inform readers up front in the first sentence "in an abortion a fetus dies and exits the womb." This applies to all abortions. As I have stated again and again, if no fetus dies, there is no abortion. How can you advocate that a fact necessary for every abortion be left out of the lede? 71.3.232.238 (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you why in a nutshell (and I have posted this on the talk page as well). It is the little gem of a post I read as I reviewed the 2006 discussion. That editor changed his/her mind based on the fact that saying before viability did not discount the death of the fetus (person, non-person, animal, whatever...), but death did not do the same. That is not very well explained - perhaps you want to look it up. Anyway, I have no desire to discuss this issue on my talk page when I have expressed these very same thoughts on the article talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Knowing that there are lawful abortion procedures designed for the express purpose of killing a viable fetus, and that those procedures are in lawful use today, I am stunned that you would want to discuss and defend any reference to viability. Of course years ago the abortion of a viable fetus was unthinkable and it was called infanticide. But times have changed, and today we call it a late-term abortion. As you said, I will continue on the article talk page. Cheers. 71.3.232.238 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If the fact that I value the life of the mother as well makes me a baby killer in your book, so be it. Please do not make any further posts on my talk page as I will just delete them. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If I might comment, I realise this is your talk page, but I don't think the IP was saying that you are a baby killer. Would you mind sending me a link to the part of the 2006 discussion that you refer to. DMSBel (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry DMS, I just could not possibly go through all thse pages and find it again! I did copy it on our current talk page (I think...) if you want to look there for it. I know you are sincere in your beliefs and are just doing what you feel is right, but this is one thing we will never agree on. Gandydancer (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Its got nothing to do with "feelings". Would you mind linking to the comment please in the archive. You seemed to think it important. DMSBel (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Clothianidin edit conflict.

I had an edit conflict with you on Clothianidin. Please check it and let me know if I have caused errors in your edit. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems OK. Art, what is this?: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Log/2011-07-08 Please read my edit and let me know what you think. Gandydancer (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a bot generated report of some kind. Looks like it watches for odd citations. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, did you know that he complained at the CHEM site about you? Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

And this: OTOH, it's also been somewhat amusing to observe editors who make little effort to hide their biases with regard to pesticide chemicals object to my mere presence here. Anyway, thanks for the comments. --USEPA James (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at NuclearWarfare's talk page.
Message added 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Missed your post earlier, sorry. NW (Talk) 01:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Porky Pig and blue christmas

I agree the porky pig version just has it over Bing's, but only by a scratch. That said, I hate it when they change the words - white christmas - blue christmas! LOL. [[2]] DMSBel (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wired magazine?

My guess is that Wired magazine is not a reliable source. In general, your recent edits on methyl iodide verge on pushing a POV and overly dramatic (Nobelists out defending the fetus, the elderly...). Much of the content is almost provincial (i.e., WP:UNDUE undue weight is given) - about the US province/state of California. My guess is that most readers of Wikipedia are not from the US, much less California. When WP articles on chemicals are written in an unbalanced way, the very environmental issues of interest are subverted and disserved. At least in my opinion.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you please move these comments to the appropriate talk pages? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope that I was not being a jerk and that you dont drop out on helping with the chem-pesticide articles. We need diverse voices. Let me see what I can do.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No you weren't being a jerk at all! When I made that edit I really was not trying to pull a tear-jerker, unborn babies and all, but when I went and read it I realized how correct you were. It was way overdone and it was good of you to point it out. As for the California comment, I don't live in CA, I live in Maine, but I am very much aware that many people believe that farm workers and others in CA (and elsewhere) are being exposed to dangerous chemicals. I know that you look at these articles from a chemistry point of view, but I look at them from a pesticide point of view. The organophosphates for instance have had a great deal of bad press lately and I don't know where else it would go other than the article of their name. I feel that these comments balance the article rather than being inappropriate. I try to keep my editing fun so as to not get so frustrated that I quit editing. I do not really enjoy controversy but sometimes it is unavoidable. I even went back to the rutabaga article today, after 2 years, and again am attempting to put "my" turnip/jack-o-lantern information in - this time I will be no more Mr. Nice Guy. :D Well, I was critical of you to bring your comments to my talk page rather than the article, but it seems you were right about that too! It is good to talk to you in a civil manner and we can still be just as blunt as we please at the article pages! Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer

Hello Gandydancer
I put a reply at User talk:Peter Horn#Rail transport. Peter Horn User talk 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 1, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

for the Talk:Abortion thing. As someone who feels just as strongly, if not more so, as you on the other side of the debate, I should be the last one questioning your ability to edit the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your revert here violates the 1RR sanction on abortion articles; I have to report it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GandyDancer reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: ) Normally I wouldn't do this as someone who has violated 1RR several times on accident, but you have continued to do it after I apologized above. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

You're being discussed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

You've been listed as a disputant at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The thread in question is Rutabaga. Have a nice day. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Rutabaga-O-Lanterns

Hello, I saw the request for dispute resolution at WP:DRN and I think I might be able to help mediate the dispute. I have some experience as a mediator (I was even a member of WP:MEDCOM briefly) and would be interested in helping find a solution to the current dispute. -- Atama頭 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK - thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I finally found the time to get it started, I just opened the discussion on the article's talk page. If we end up overwhelming the talk page we can always move it to a subpage if necessary. Feel free to give your opinion about my summary and to add any other issues you'd like to discuss, thank you. -- Atama頭 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:To-do list/to do

Hi Gandydancer, I've rolled back your blanking of that page, because it needs at least some text on it. Graham87 14:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

COI

Have you declared a conflict of interest at Wikipedia?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Gandydancer (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A person by the name of Kim Gandy is a past president of the National Organization for Women (an article that you've edited), and she has two daughters (as you've said you do). I haven't bothered looking into this much, but just in case I wanted to bring WP:COI to your attention. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a very, very strange person. Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civil also. I assure you there's nothing strange about bringing the COI policy to the attention of someone who may have a COI. Have a nice day.Anythingyouwant (talk)

Listen, I am being civil when I merely suggest you are being strange. To come on my talk page and ask "Have you declared a conflict of interest at Wikipedia?" based on the fact that my name contains the word "gandy" and the fact Kim Gandy is a past president of NOW, "an article that [I] have edited" (once!), and that we both have two daughters is, IMO, far beyond "strange". I think it is either just plain looney or an attempt to smear my name and suggest that I just may have a COI that should prevent me from expressing my opinion on the Abortion article, since that is the only article that we both have contributed to extensively. Gandy dancer Gandydancer (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You now have been informed of the COI policy. If it's not relevant to you, then please disregard it. I really don't have anything to add, except to deny your accusation that I am "looney" or "smearing" you. I'm simply telling you about the COI policy. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I too have an important policy to tell you about: WP:STALK. JJL (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JJL. I thought about it and decided to just ignore Anythingyouwant's strange attempts to educate me. Gandydancer (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Former NOW president Kim Gandy was born in 1954. Per Talk:Elvis_Presley#Haley.2FSnow.2FPresley_ad, editor Gandydancer was "one of those screaming girls" who adored Elvis in the 1950s. Unless "screaming girls" includes screaming infants, the accusation of COI appears to have no foundation. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not care to be followed around and have my comments from other articles spread around. If it was my desire to let this idiotic topic drop, I feel that that should be respected by strangers. I choose the name Gandydancer when I joined in 2003 because it represents to me a spirit of working together in a joyful manner and getting work done through cooperation - work that would not be possible to accomplish any other way. See "my" article Gandy dancer which I have worked on extensively. End of discussion, I hope. Gandydancer (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Virginia Earthquake Impact

Hi... I saw your edit this morning of the impact section. It's basically a reorganization of the information that was there, which is great, but I can't see support for this: "A magnitude 5.5 eastern U.S. earthquake can usually be felt as far as 300 miles (500 km) from where it occurred, and sometimes causes damage as far away as 25 miles (40 km)." in the source given for that paragraph. Do you have another source? It would be great to add if we can properly source it. Cheers! Wikipelli ^Talk 11:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Marvelous addition

Thanks for adding good information to the article about Opposition to the legalization of abortion. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yodeling

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at Sabrebd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"You believe it improved the wording" - how exactly?DMSBel (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yodelling reference

I think I found the reference you were looking for - I posted it on the Talk page at Yodelling. --HighKing (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

OMFG YOU DESERVE ONE FOR YOU INCESSANT NEED TO LIBERALIZE EVERY PAGE! S51438 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I wasn't sure what you were referring to on the talk page, and you had me confused with your response. The page history shows that Lihaas (talk · contribs) removed the see also section.[3] His edit summary said something about replacing it with a template. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I've removed the article from my watchlist. Viriditas (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit help needed

Hello Gandy, may you give an hand to correct my English please. That's well sourced, and far more serious than to report the breast photography, and just 7 lines wrote by myself. Easy to manage for a native speaker. May you help ? Yug (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yug, I left a note on the talk page asking for the refs. About your English, I really felt bad when I left a note saying it was not very good. To be clear, it certainly is "good enough" for conversation - I'm sure that we'd understand each other perfectly well if we were to have a conversation. But for the article, you frequently arrange your sentences incorrectly and some of the words that you choose are "strange". Obviously you are very intelligent - it seems that you have learned to speak Chinese? - but I get the feeling that you have not had a chance to use English in conversation much, is that correct?

Also, it seems that you want the article to reflect the fact that some of the statements by those who oppose the protests are utterly and amazingly untrue. I don't know if the French use the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink", but that is certainly what we are dealing with in the US right now. People watch Fox news and really do believe what they hear. They think that a more liberal news outlet is controlled by commies, socialists, or whoever else their anti-God and Country boggie men are. It won't do any good to edit the article to say that "Hannity, (for instance) was proved wrong...", and besides that is stating a POV in the article. But if you have another notable person that refuted his statements in an acceptable source, we'll see what we can do? Best, gandy Gandydancer (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Using fringe sources

The New American is not a RS for anything on Wikipedia except for information about the John Birch Society. Please do not continue to add it into Occupy Wall Street. If you would like clarification on this matter, feel free to start a noticeboard request over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that I used this source. Exactly when did I use it? Gandydancer (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor did not answer so I took it to his talk page. Anybody interested can read the discussion on his page. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your comments on the talk page, which are always polite, inclusive, and making Wikipedia a better place, thank you! LoveUxoxo (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup of park

The next time you find yourself about to delete relevant and sourced content because for organizational purposes, please reconsider. I would ask you to consider putting it elsewhere, but it was especially appropriate exactly where it was. I restored this content; please don't remove it again. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

When the information offered is not covered in the reference it is appropriate to remove it, as I did. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Information seems to be missing from the body of the article.

Or I just couldn't find it. If it is not in the article already, using it for the lede is undue weight and will surely be disputed. Can you add this and see if it holds firm. The information itself seems more than reasonable but not if it is just summarizing the movement and not the information in the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean the GA stuff that I just added? It is in the article under Focus. West made the "Democracy" statement and (I will paste) On October 11, Katrina vanden Heuvel, who writes a weekly column for The Post and is the editor and publisher of The Nation, said "most understand that the main task ahead is growing the movement", made the other statement. Does that answer your question? The reason that I feel that this section is important is that again and again one finds a reference to lack of goals throughout the article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It does answer my question. I apologize if I sounded as if I was assuming bad faith. I am simply exhausted and half stupid at this point for staying up more than 4 hours past my bed time. I couldn't find the letter A in the article at this point. LOL! Good night(for me)...or good morning!--Amadscientist (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OWS

Careful, you are on 3R on the article. Nice compromise on the last edit though, well done. The Last Angry Man (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it so nice when editors remind one of such things! Gandydancer (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren GA

At Talk:Elizabeth Warren/GA1, please let me strike out the text that I consider addressed or fixed. Binksternet (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I have caused a problem. A Wikipedia Review is new to me and it seems I don't understand the process. I am more used to working with other editors rather than "under" another editor, so as to speak. Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No sweat! It's just my lil' ol' personal preference for GANs that I'm helming. It helps me keep track. Thanks for being flexible! Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am flexible but I have no idea what a GAN is. It is a surprise to me that I need you to check my edits before they can be crossed off the list. When I made comments such as "how's this?", I was not speaking to you. I thought I was speaking to other editors. Perhaps it would help to improve Wikipedia relationships if you would point editors to a wiki page that explains the process you are using. I realize that I am coming across as a little peeved and that's because I am. It does not seem reasonable to me that you should use the talk page for your personal score sheet. In my years of editing Wikipedia I have thought of myself as being on an equal playing field with other editors and have recently had to deal with the fact that Wikipedia allows paid employees of government agencies to edit articles (see talk page Clothianidin). That experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

Since many of my interests/edits are related to "underdog" issues, this has resulted in my fear of seeing "experts" taking over our encyclopedia. My area of experience/expertise is in the medical field and I have seen it happen to Wiki medical articles. So yes, my hackles do raise at times. Clearly you are interested in improving Warren's article-but is it possible that a wolf in sheep's clothing reviewer could "improve" it as well? Gandydancer (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the alphabet soup. WP:GAN is Wikipedia:Good article nomination. The practice for reviewing an article to see whether it is at the level of WP:Good article is to have one or more editors review it, with one editor responsible for determining whether the article will be listed at WP:GA. Because I accepted the responsibility and began the review, I am that editor who will determine whether the article is GA. This is the 29th time I've reviewed an article submitted to GAN, and I've submitted 24 articles myself, so I am pretty familiar with the process. However, the process as practiced varies by editor. Some use a handy template and check off points all in one go. Others identify problems point by point, like I do, then put the article on hold for improvements.

Other editors are always welcome to add their comments to the GA review process, and the one responsible editor should include those concerns in the final decision. You are welcome to make comments and to make fixes to the article. So are other editors such as AmbidexeterNH and Davemck who both made observations on the talk page. I am glad you and these other editors are involved—more eyes are better.

Regarding using the talk page as a personal scoreboard: There is a special page for GA reviews, and it is usually "transcluded" to the talk page of the article during the period of review. The special page is specifically intended to serve as a scoreboard. Transclusion just makes sure that the page is not orphaned or unseen; that it shows on the talk page. The special page is here: Talk:Elizabeth_Warren/GA1. When the GAN is done, I will remove the transclusion and that section will disappear from the talk page except for a small link I will put up near the top. Once that's done, I'm just another editor, on an equal playing field, limited only to whatever leverage I can get from the power of my arguments.

I'm sorry you are peeved by my review style but that was not my intent. Wikipedia is a crazy little world, but it's a project worth working on, in my opinion. I appreciate your work and look forward to seeing more of it. When I get a chance, I might stumble over to OWS and see what you are working toward—what challenges the page has.

I doubt I will check deeply into the Clothianidin article because I am not familiar with the topic, except that I have heard of the seriousness of the decline of honeybees. I greatly regret that editors with a conflict of interest can sometimes skew an article. That is a problem that is widespread on Wikipedia, and it will only get worse as Wikipedia becomes more prominent, as it increasingly becomes the first resource used by people who want straight-up information about a subject. As the frequent first resource, Wikipedia becomes the target of folks who want to shine a good light on things they are connected to, or a bad light on their enemies or competitors. Last year around this time, I had a very hard time with the article Coanda-1910 at which a group of Romanians wanted to have the article plainly state that the little-known airplane was, in 1910, the first jet. Through a laborious process, a group of other editors including myself brought together the minor Romanian viewpoint and the mainstream viewpoint to make an article that successfully tells both stories. It was tough working with conflicted editors who wanted a positive article and nothing else.

Try to stay cool! Internal bitterness might be reworked to create cool resolve; resolve to make sure a neutral point of view is always present. WP:Neutral point of view is one of the most important parts of Wikipedia! If you have trouble with someone who is not holding to that ideal, start a discussion about it at the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. And give me shout if you wish; I'll look at the problem if I have time.

Regarding experts, only the non-neutral ones are a problem. Pure expertise is a benefit, not a hindrance.

Yes, I am newly interested in improving the Elizabeth Warren article. To be perfectly honest, I had not paid attention to her until accepting the article for GA review. I have learned a lot in a few days! Because she's a candidate for senator, her article should be as complete as possible, and of course it should be neutral, with both positive and negative aspects portrayed with proper weight and as calmly as possible. After the article reaches GA quality, I may well jump in as just another editor and continue to add material in an effort to get it up to WP:Featured article level, the top level at Wikipedia. As a lifelong Californian, I have no horse in the Massachusetts senate race, so I think of myself as a relatively impartial editor. Whatever remaining prejudices I may have about her politics I hope I will be able to rise above them to help build an article that is equally readable by persons who want Warren to win her race and persons who do not. If you continue to stay tuned to the article, I will appreciate your help and your "underdog" viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Of continued interest

Per Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street/Archive_7 you were in favor of adding the wikilink Global financial system. Are you still? Also see Talk:"Occupy" protests # Wikilink global financial system. 99.109.126.95 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

hmm, are you certain I am the person with whom you are speaking? Gandydancer (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

ows

Hey, would you mind just pointing me to the discussion of this?. It seems worthy of inclusion on the face of it. B^e——C_ritical 19:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it was very interesting. But long and involved. In short: Seems that the group has split into two distinct groups with one wanting no goals and the other adamant about goals. So they all signed up for the Goals Working Group, had a sneaky meeting on a day most people were on some big march, wrote um up and published um. So when the no-goals people found out they were furious. They have a media contact, Kingkade from Huff Post. So he published the info.

Disruptive editor D wrote it up for WP as though it was settled, now they have goals, and some blogs said that as well. I changed D's post saying it had not been voted on. Eventually it was decided that the refs were not good enough, and I agree. I spent a fair amount of time looking at them - that is discussed on Talk. Our photographer said a couple of weeks into the protest that even then a strong split was beginning to develop between the two factions. From what I have seen around the web, the young folks and wise old folks want no goals (for now) and the older people are not comfortable with that. I wished we could have kept the "goals are for terrorists" quote, but it had to go. Hope this helps... Gandydancer (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh......... yes sounds like it shouldn't be there unless you can source what you just wrote above. I personally thought that the "demands are for terrorists" quote was silly and detracted from any legitimacy the protests have in a manner which wasn't very substantive, just rhetorical. Thanks for taking all that time to explain! B^e——C_ritical 21:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Giggle

Wait, wait ... you wanted to include it and yet you have not been battling tooth and nail to include it, no matter the cost? Inconceivable! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You will need to explain that because I have no idea what you are talking about. Gandydancer (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to your recent comment at OWS talk ("Believe me I tried! I wanted to include it but it never made it beyond a Huff Post blogger."). It was meant to contrast with the conduct of another user who also wanted very much to include the 99% declaration bit. I posted it at article talk then realized it was probably not the best place to put it.

Failed attempt at a joke, I guess. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well thank Gawd it was just a joke! I was starting to wonder if any sane ones were left! It did cheer me up when I knew you were kidding. Gandydancer (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Background or Overview. I figured a month long protest didn't have the history for true "background" and reason that overview is used on many articles. Not something I feel strongly about. Just an attempt at a neutral header.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but you will see I've got it fixed now so that it only includes stuff prior to the Sept. 17 start day, so that's why I changed it. BTW, on one hand I was so happy to get the criticism today, but on the other hand, I doubt that anyone can imagine what we are dealing with. So many times I have thought, oh good finally things have slowed down so we can get some control over the article and the next day all hell breaks loose again. Well, good to hear from you. Gandydancer (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll pass

I'm glad you found the assessment helpful, and I'm willing to look at things if you need an uninvolved pair of eyes, but... honestly, good luck. There are a couple of people on that talk page who appear to be of the activist bent. I had a "fun" time with that a little while ago, and honestly talking to activists is like talking to religious fanatics: they have the WP:TRUTH, and they aren't going to listen. I'm not really active enough on the project to be a big help anyway. My preferred long-term solution would be a more rigorous enforcement of WP:NOTNEWS, but I know that's not likely to happen. SDY (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Kitties for hard work and because cuteness can help with stress reduction. :)

LauraHale (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. The woman issue is where I met our mutual friend. He sent an article to the new article incubator that had been deleted as non-notable after finding it on the gender gap list. (THAT bothers me, men's rights type activists trolling a list for intended to help increase female participation.) He made similar non-existent, not supported by research connections including that roller derby was like pornography, and that roller derby disturbed him because he had been a victim of female on male domestic violence and the sport's glorification of violence (it doesn't) appears to encourage that. Against the support of the roller derby contributors, argued the lack of accepting the article was based on discrimination against women. His arguments made it harder for the roller derby editors because we couldn't argue related to the sport as kept wrongly crying discrimination against women. Erk. Erk. Erk. :/ He offered non-apology I apologies, and refused to back up his claims. This was coupled with doing copyright violations with uploading non-free images, then sticking them in articles that had ZERO to do with the topic so he could use them on incubator. He appeared in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect to complain and gave that bad advice to another WP:AGF editor who was working on another article. (He had been told on wiki and in chat that doing that could lead to blocking.) Beyond that, he showed up in #wikimieda-gendergap ^connect to basically slam and complain about me. Anyone who has to deal with our friend on a consistent basis deserves far more than a kitten. --LauraHale (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly object to these misrepresentations of my actions, words, and goals. Dualus (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like she is spot on. Gandydancer (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So you trust her description of my statements that you didn't see? Dualus (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

He's been reported for edit warring. He's left comments on my talk page. My archiving of them didn't send a clear message that I didn't want to engage him. I think I archived his comments three times. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and the agenda pushing are annoying. As a female contributor, I find him continuing to come into #wikimedia-gendergap ^connect to complain about my actions to be really disturbing. His actions do nothing to fix the gendergap. In fact, if that is his goal, he should re-evaluate his methodologies because the opposite is likely to result. He implied I should support the 99 Percent Declaration because of its feminist nature. Absolutely not. The article was a WP:POVFORK, [[WP:OR, has WP:V issues and he repeatedly stuck WP:COPYVIOS in it. I'm not going to WP:IAR to support the 99 Percent Declaration article because I'm female. I'm not going to WP:IAR to demand that all articles about roller derby articles be kept. They need to meet WP:GNG. By arguing WP:IAR, edit warring, trying to circumvent Wikipedia processes to get an article through, he makes it HARDER for women's sports to get fair treatment on Wikipedia. He keeps citing the gendergap list as the reason he is involved in it, but I made that post. I'll share the exact text of the e-mail I sent to the list on 11 October 2011:

I don't know if this has been mentioned on the list before, but there is a roller league derby article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies . I don't particularly care about the outcome either way, but there is an issue of setting precedent for future roller derby articles that may be nominated and that's where I care: However it ends up, it would be nice to have it make sense. So yeah, that. :)

End e-mail. That wasn't an invitation to save the article/recreate the article at all costs. --LauraHale (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Laura, thanks for helping to ban Dualus. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Tinychat?

Do you think it would be helpful to try to communicate via Tinychat? Dualus (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the last person that I'd want to chat with. I am glad to see that he has been banned from editing the articles I edit on. Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

I have added you to the rollback usergroup. It might help out in fixing any vandalism that you run across (though make sure you read the policy on when it is and isn't acceptable to use it). Please let me know if I was being too forward in adding the usergroup without asking you first. Best, NW (Talk) 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks NW, though true to my nature I didn't bother to first read the instruction booklet and took a whack at it by pressing the button of a random entry on my watch list to discover how it worked on my own. Wouldn't you know, it was an edit made by one of the editors from The Article From Hell, and not one of my favorites, either. (I left a note on his talk page.) The situation at the Occupy article is now greatly improved now that our main headache has been banned from editing. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your new rollback Privileges! If you were ever to run for an admin position you would have my support. You are a Wikipedian of a very high caliber! --Amadscientist (talk) 11:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you and I hope we can again have the good working relationship that we shared. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Essay invitation

I am inviting you to help contribute to a new essay article, WP:PAROOAH Wikipedia:Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This essay is about no synthesis. Please feel free to add contributions, edit the article for errors and discuss the [edit: changed to not sound like I mean the essay article as policy) Wikipedia policies and guidelines for Original Research, on the talk page and how we can improve my essay!--Amadscientist (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You may familiarize yourself with essays here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Good luck with it. I'll put it on my list and add any comments I may have. Gandydancer (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments. I am back and will be around, although I'm reconsidering whether/how much to devote further time to these topics. It seems to be a lot of thankless hard work that mostly invites scorn from true believers, and carries the risk of incurring administrative sanctions, to boot. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not leave. IMO your edits/opinions are good for Wikipedia. Plus, your down-to-earth bluntness has made me chuckle and smile when I really needed a little humor and I would really miss you. Hopefully as time goes on the OWS article will settle down some and we can do our job without so much frustration. But without people like you, it seems less likely that that will ever happen. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw a really great montage about Spain here that I thought you might like to watch. It's great to re-boost your focus on improving the ows article, both of you. :-) 완젬스 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Other than Mexico and Canada, Spain is the only foreign country that I have visited. You know, I have been ashamed of my country for so long and now I am so proud that we are now playing a leading role in a people's movement to bring about something good for Mother Earth. Gandydancer (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you removed your invitation to visit Korea. If it is related to my disagreement with Amadscientist, I can only say again that I am sorry it happened and I did not mean to question his editing in general. I felt/feel especially bad because it seemed we had all reached a place where we were all getting to know one-another and could work well together. Not to mention the fact that he was one of my favorites! Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For lining out the statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that we have lost what I considered to be a good working relationship. It was never my intention to insult you. I will be more careful in the future. Gandydancer (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

We have not lost a good working relationship as far as I am concerned. You are a good editor, I have no doubt. You were good enough to simply line it out so we could move on. You also work in a collaborative effort. Being passionate about a subject is not a bad thing. All of the editors having to deal with some of these pages have become very frustrated, myself included. I learn from everyone I have contact with...it's just that the articles I generally work on are so obscure I almost never have to deal with other editors very much. On the other hand one article I am major contributor on has a very similar, unique and obsessive base to deal with. I have learned from some very good editors...although I know I frustrated my mentor and a number of other editors in my first...oh....4 years here!(it will be 5 in January). I guess I should have gone for the mentor my first few weeks here and not after two years of banging my head against a wall! LOL! I am not perfect and I make a lot of mistakes, but I do learn and I do retain that knowledge....even if some took more extreme measures from other editors to make me see it. But over time I generally come to really like and respect the ones I bump heads with the most.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Bold edit

I looked at the statement and decided that a way to look at this is the statement is not changed to remove the contentious line and with that and some of the other prose in the line removed it says the same thing in a more neutral manner.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was not my edit and I never liked it either. Gandydancer (talk) 14:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR @ Occupy Wall Street

You might wish to consider a self revet on Occupy Wall Street as by my count you have made four (1,2, 3 and 4) reverting edits in the space of 25 mins today, it would be a shame to sully your clean block log. Mtking ^(edits) 02:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure how you figure I've ignored a 3 revert rule. Please explain. Gandydancer (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You have made 4 reverting edits, I linked to them above. Which one do you think is not a revert ? Mtking ^(edits) 04:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are, but I can be pretty dumb when it comes to some things! Could you please show me the policy that would call my edits reverts? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A revert means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. (taken from WP:3RR) you have been warned about WP:3RR before above. - Please reply to post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gandydancer reported by Mtking (Result: ). Mtking ^(edits) 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer, Mtking has opened a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3#User:Gandydancer reported by Mtking (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad and unsurprised to see that these were quickly closed with no action. If Gandy got sanctioned for editing OWS I would lose a lot of faith in the WP process. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, however it is obvious that this editor was mistaken about WP policies - they can be hard to understand for a newbie! However, I am disappointed that s/he did not make any further posts... Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick OWS talk page question

Did I correctly quote your proposed lede correctly? Something doesn't look right, can you check and make sure I didn't vandalize your post here? I'd appreciate a second set of eyes, since I tried making your lede look comparable in format to Amadscientist's lede. 완젬스 (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems fine - thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Batman edits

Maybe he fired up an old computer in the basement.--Nowa (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

haha...maybe his mom's basement...Nowa, I DO LOVE to LAUGH! Thanks. OK, back to trying to get the garden produce into the house or somewhere... Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments taken out of context, for dramatic effect

"I was a major contributor to the Gulf oil spill, the Haiti quake, and the flu pandemic."

     —Gandydancer

You're a monster!! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A quote for Factchecker, AKA Centrify: "A man that is born falls into a dream like a man who falls into the sea. If he tries to climb out into the air as inexperienced people endeavor to do, he drowns." Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Erm. If I don't get it, does that reveal something terrible about me? Or was it a joke? Either way, I don't get it! :( Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it either!  :-) (But, I didn't get your message either - tit for tat!) Thanks for asking... Best, Gandy

I suppose if I have to explain it, it's not funny :(

What I meant was this. You were talking on the OWS talk page about how you had been a contributor to the WP articles on the Gulf spill, Haiti Quake, and flu pandemic. But if you take the quote out of context, it makes it sound like you were saying you helped cause those disasters. Hence, "You're a monster!"  ::gets pelted with tomatoes and yanked off stage by giant novelty hook:: Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out. Strangely, I could not remember writing the above quote. I say "strange" because when it comes to my edits in articles and on talk pages, my memory is extremely good. I have no memory of how or when I came up with that quote, though I can see I used it because it is confusing. But I have googled it and find it is from "Lord Jim". So that explains everything. BTW, I love Conrad's work and now that I realize that it was his work, I understand it quite well... ;-) As for what you meant, that's what I thought - but there is so much animosity at that article that I couldn't be sure. Again, good to chat with you! Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Gandydancer: I opened a sockpuppet investigation of 24.161.123.221 It appeared to me as if the puppet master might be Dualus. Another possibility is User:The99declaration User '221's content and tone might match the The99declaration more closely than it does Dualus. What do you think?--Nowa (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know! I do believe that it was actually Pollok that made the first post to the article. If you remember, Dualus was just beside himself with joy and hinted that Pollok contact him through sock-puppetry if he got blocked - something like that...and then Dualus got blocked...

I am glad that you filed the request. I see an admin blocked the acct. for 3 days. So, back to square one and no closer to understanding anything. Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Targeting

Are you sure you meant to revert to [4] and not [5]. You merely removed dispute tags. Hipocrite (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry, I just had a minute and the lede was a mess...please fix anything I did wrong if you have time. Gandydancer (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a revert war with an ideologue, which is what will happen if I revert again. If you have time, revert to the version you want to revert to. If you don't have time, don't be drive-by destructive. Hipocrite (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tempting...but I shall just keep my thoughts to myself...Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Great job on the OWS article. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 21:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer advised

8) Gandydancer is advised to subdue the tone of comments in heated discussions.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
4. Was looking for better wording than this... but whatever. While I appreciate sarcasm, I am not aware of any instance where sarcasm, especially biting sarcasm that is thinly-veiled-NPA violation, has ever contributed to an open, collaborative editing environment. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
5. Kinda' awkward wording, but the sentiment is right. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Mailer Diablo 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
7. With the clear understanding that discretionary sanctions are available and will be imposed if problematic comments continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
8. First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer 8.1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
2. In favor of 8.1. — Coren ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Prefer 8.1,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Gandydancer topic-banned

8.1) Gandydancer is indefinitely topic-banned from abortion-related pages, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in one year.

Support:

1. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
3. Like I said above, this topic is in dire need of fresh blood that does not have a long history of heated disputes. The findings are marginal enough that in a less disruptive case, I would have probably gone with the advice above; but it's too late for that. — Coren ^(talk) 00:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
6. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
7. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. weakly - I don't think the finding rises to the level of this, however if consensus swings I'd be open. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
2. Similar comment as with respect to Michael C Price above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking

8) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking, and only do so when no other alternative would prove as effective. When placed, blocks should be intended to prevent disruption to the project and not simply to punish a user for their (mis)conduct. Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility blocks

11) The civility policy permits blocking for "major" incivility, which includes incivility rising to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment, or outing. Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption

12) Editors may be blocked for disruptive behaviour, which can include repeated or extensive violations of the civility policy, refusal to work toward consensus, or repeatedly ignoring community feedback. Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Offensive commentary

14) Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace. Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Administrators reminded

6) Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective. Passed 10 to 0, 02:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OH LOOK! MY NEW FRIENDS ARE EMAILING ME ALREADY:

Sorry to see things go so close for you with arbcom.

All of the editors up for sanctions are from one side of this argument.

The fact that you are 1 vote away from being topic-banned for being pro-life despite never being blocked ever in 5 years of service lets you know where we are. The fish rots from the head, as wikipedia has lost good editors we have lost proportionately more good admins. This is the chaff we're left to deal with, too dumb to know the case history but too proud not to rule on it. NewYorkBrad and JClemens are remnants of a bygone era - they're both pro-choice but they're professional. I don't think this would have happened even a year ago.

If its any consolation I work in American politics and we're winning this in the real world, I think Roe v. Wade is years not decades away from repeal.

It has been a honor to edit alongside you.

Best wishes, -Hay

Don't ask me WTF this is about...I have no idea other than I am obviously not the person with whom he thought he was speaking! :-) Gandydancer (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure who your comment "Oh look, my new friends are emailing me already.." is addressed to, Gandydancer?, or why you are confused exactly, were there any other editors one vote away from being topic banned? DMSBel (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am also not sure why you deleted my earlier comment. I apologise if it was out of place, but I can't see how missing a topic ban is something to be so agrieved about. My confidence immediately following the result was not at an all time high either, but on reflection, I don't think in itself it can be taken to reflect a bias on the committee. I'd have prefered a little more skepticism from them in regard to allegations. I was left with the feeling there was a degree of naivety in weighing claims made about evidence. But the matter is over and done with. Editing something completely different, or taking a break, I find always helps bring down my stress levels.DMSBel (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

DMS, your edit was not out of place and there is no need for you to apologize. It is my opinion that you and I had a good working relationship on the talk page, considering that we are in complete disagreement about the topic. In fact, nothing that any editor said on the talk page offended me. I found the talk exhausting and frustrating, but I felt and still do feel that the editors, including the ones I did not agree with, were sincere in their beliefs about abortion and doing the best they could in a difficult situation. Maybe some editors were creating a toxic atmosphere, but I really have no memory of it. Perhaps it is just that it rolls off my back and I didn't take note of it - I don't know and I'm sure not going to go back and look for it.

On the other hand, I was just stunned to learn that my three sarcastic comments were considered by five of the committee sufficient to ban me from editing abortion articles and the rest believed I needed advice. Frankly, after my initial feelings of anger and hurt feelings, I have nothing but contempt for them. If I was actually in the habit of disruptive editing, my record would show it - and yet as far as I know I've never been cited for anything. And then too, the fact that I had no idea that my editing was supposedly problematic and thus was not able to speak up for myself increased my anger over the event. In fact, that was perhaps the biggest factor since I am not in the habit of sitting on the sidelines and letting the world pass me by while others make decisions.

For a short time after they made their decision I questioned whether or not I wanted to continue to edit and whether or not I needed to change my "style" on talk pages. Now that I have had time to cool off I have decided that I will change nothing. As a Gandy dancer I will continue to try to have a little fun while I'm working in harmony with others and perhaps now have some contempt for the boss man as well. I will never feel the same as I did about Wikipedia but I'm not going to let that stop me from editing or discussing edits as I have done all along.

So DSM, I believe that I need to make the apology, not you. I was angry and in no mood to discuss anything. That said, I hope not to go any further with our discussion and I hope you will understand that. Gandydancer (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to draw you into further discussion against your wishes, but I'd like to reply. I try to (or am trying to) take a kind of cognitive approach to these things. On the one hand there is a whole pile of past discussion of stuff I have no interest in looking up in as far as it regards personal conflicts, egos and such like. A little CBT works wonders in my case when I am tending towards thinking a conspiracy is afoot behind every comment. Brings to mind the this exchange from The Abyss -

Bud : "Hippy, you think everything is a conspiracy!

Hippy (puzzled): "Everything is"

Once we get to that point well...

If I may grossly over-simplify CBT for a moment, it states that faulty cognitions can sometimes come from "mind-reading" ie. attributing a motive that we could not possibly know to another's actions. So unless an editor spells out their reasons we don't really know what they are most of the time, even if we think we can guess. It been said elsewhere that it makes little sense to AGF to the point of stupidity (of course in the past I have erred on the side of stupidity quite often!!!). A new consensus can often be sucessfully argued for and advanced if it is based on sensible premises, never on preposterous ones. Two temptations not to give in to:

1. Pushing for a change then trying to find reasons for it afterwards, or hoping someone else will supply the reasons. Of course I have fallen into this myself on occasion. It's bad because it shows one doesn't care to do the groundwork (in which case why bother editing that topic at all)

2. Automatically assuming anyone arguing contrary is evil (evil! I tell ye!!) or an republican, or a conservative. I don't live in the US so I can make a little joke.

3. Yes I know I said two, but another has just come to mind. Don't over-rate the ability of wikipedia to shape thought. Out of this follows all kinds of edit-wars!!

Editing something that aspires to be an encyclopedia is a learning experience, because quite simply none of us have an encyclopedic grasp of everything, so most of us learn about subjects as we edit them. Abortion is perhaps by its nature a polarised and polarising subject. Initially I would have liked to keep the definition as it was, my arguing for that was not just to be contrary and to fight a new consensus. I don't believe truth is always arrived at by consensus, but I like to see consensus respected when it has been arrived at, and good reasons (rather than bad-faith insinuations) put forward before trying to overturn a long standing consensus.

In the end the discussion got bogged down on the first sentence. It took me this long to get perspective. DMSBel (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is good you could express your thoughts DSM. I know it really helped me when I went and cried on NW's shoulder. If the truth be known, I am so happy, considering that I was still so angry, that I didn't slobber too much! :-) Gandydancer (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Slacker uprising

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at Talk:Michael Moore#Slacker uprising.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Organic farming

Please see WP:BURDEN, WP:EW, and WP:ES regarding your unexplained revert at Organic farming. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice that I added a reference? (It was wrong of me to not mention it in an edit summary - sorry) Gandydancer (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When the edit summary indicates a simple revert, editors will assume the edit is indeed a simple revert.

Thanks for the new ref. Responded to both refs and the content change as a whole on the talk page... --Ronz (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reactions to the Occupy movement

Hello Gandydancer. A couple days ago, I proposed a split to the Occupy movement article, named "Reactions to the Occupy movement]]. I've created a userpage draft for the article. I've also contacted Rangoon11 about this proposal, as you two are major contributors to the Occupy movement article. Any suggestions to improve the article is greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- Luke (Talk) 22:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go for it, but it won't surprise me if it isn't suggested for removal right away since it seems that every other split has been resisted. As for suggesting improvements, actually I would rather not have such a high edit count on the articles and only edit when I feel that others have not made changes that I would like to see. I'm working on the pregnancy article right now and would like to put my energy into that for awhile. Good luck! Gandydancer (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Pregnancy, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Viable and Chlamydia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OWS, in re "non-violent" or not

Hi. Your recent reply at Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#generally_speaking.2C_OWS_is_non-violent is somewhat ambiguous at the beginning -- Are you agreeing with Racingstripes or me? I'm only asking because of the indenting, repeated post (initially) and close timestamps with his so there may have been an (ec) edit conflict. Respectfully, El duderino (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I left a note at the article. Gandydancer (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for your perspective on SOPA

Hi Gandydancer, there's currently an ongoing discussion about splitting the Stop Online Piracy Act page at Talk:Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#ONGOING_DISCUSSION_-_Splitting_the_Article. You've familiarized yourself with the entry before, and your insight and perspective on the matter would be appreciated. Hope to see you there, Sloggerbum (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OWS criticism section dispute resolution

I have requested dispute resolution here, and named you as one of the parties involved in the dispute. B^e——C_ritical 04:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for vouching for me at the Abortion article. I really thought he was accepting the compromise. I'm sure it would require further research to get to the bottom of all the issues. Probably there is some discussion back somewhere that came to a consensus that only MEDRS are acceptable for the article lead. Just doesn't seem right to me. B^e——C_ritical 00:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Virginia earthquake GA Nomination

The article 2011 Virginia earthquake has been listed as a Good Article Nominee. The review page of the article can be found here. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Request Notice for 2011 Virginia earthquake

I sent you this message to let you know that the 2011 Virginia earthquake article is undergoing a Peer Review you may find the review here. Your input would greatly appreciated. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2011 Virginia earthquake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

OWS on DR/N

Hi Gandydancer,

Informing you of this. Cheers. B^e——C_ritical 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I failed to notify you of this. My fault.

Talk:Occupy_Wall_Street#.22Crime.22_and_.22Sexual_assult.22_sectionsRacingstripes (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Yet another barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your mediation and help on the Occupy Wall Street talk page, as well as for your excellent editing of the Occupy Movement articles Be——Critical 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am supposed to inform the author...

But Dualus has been permanently blocked...so I am informing a handful of editors from that page that I have nominated 99% declaration for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99 Percent Declaration (2nd nomination).--Amadscientist (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Russian Cathedral

Hi Gandydancer, thanks for your edits at Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary. The article just failed GA due to prose issues, so any copyedits/improvements to prose would be greatly appreciated. There's a peer review open if you have any more general comments on the article. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh! OK, I'll read the review. I've been very timid in my edits so far, but perhaps I can be a little more aggressive...though I've not been to mass for many, many years, I don't speak Russian, and so on. ;P Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark, I asked for help from a copy editior and got this reply:

Based on the discussions there, it looks like the page needs a copy-edit "to clean up the prose" before it's peer-reviewed again re GA renomination. It'd take about 3 hours, at most. Tomorrow afternoon (EST) okay? I'll bang it out right after the OWS section. I'd be happy to work with a collaborator, if you've got others in mind. Ryanwould (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to contact him? I'll ask him to take a look at your note as well. Also, it seems that a Russian-speaking editor may be willing to help? Gandydancer (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your great copyedit on Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary! :) ♫GoP♫TCN 12:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

I wanted to say thank you for the barnstar. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You deserve it (and if you ever decide to take a break again I'm going to start sending you cups of coffee). ;-) Gandydancer (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

List of churches in Moscow

hello,

could you copyedit the lead if needed? I want to nominate it on FLC, and I think you are a competent copyeditor. Note that if you don't want to wait so long due to the large page size, you can post your suggested lead on its talk page. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I am NOT a good copy editor! I have my own gifts and I am very intelligent (top 5%) - smart enough to know good writing when I see it and to know that I don't have the natural gift of words. When I saw how much help your church article needed, I asked Ryanwould, a professional editor, to edit the article, and Ryan did, and IMO he did a great job at it. That you never complimented him has left me puzzled and disappointed. Gandydancer (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

:) You are right, I sent him a barnstar. He made useful edits, he deserves it.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy...

Thanks for removing the redundant subsection. I returned the regular section and failed to see that it had been made into a subsection. Either way actually works and if you and others support the subsection instead of a full section, I can very much live with that. If you wish I can change that back.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused...I thought it was my fault because I reverted something a while back...I trust you to do whatever makes sense. Gandydancer (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Nope....my fault for not realizing it wasn't gone but just moved.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to look at references tomorrow. My eyes are shot after reading code all day and trying to make sense of it all. LOL!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The articles I was referring to were the articles the other editor was using to demonstrate the use of a segregated information to state that the OWS article could have them as well. Million Man March Tea Party movement are both C class articles. A political article of this nature is not likely to have a B or better rating without a more neutral approach...but there are enough real problems with References, POV, OR etc, as cleaned up as the article maybe now and as much effort that has gone in to keep the quality up. While my edit was bold there are discussions at each project should any of them decide to dispute the rating.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at Ebikeguy's talk page.
Message added 16:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ebikeguy (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your willingness to compromise in the ongoing disputes at Cracker Barrel! Ebikeguy (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Colbert page

I worked on some edits for this page and see you are a major contributor. I did not put any of these on-line but I altered two others who work on page. Take what you want. Technically it was 527 organization and not 501 C... I added many cross links and see disclosure I wrote it and decide.

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow

Formation	2011
Purpose	Political action committee
President	Stephen Colbert
Website	ColbertSuperPAC.com

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow (better known as the Colbert Super PAC) is a United States political action committee (PAC) established by Stephen Colbert, who portrays a conservative political pundit on the television series The Colbert Report. As a super PAC the organization can raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals. Speaking in character, Colbert said the money will be raised not only for political ads, but also "normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."

During the January 12, 2012 episode of The Colbert Report, Colbert announced his plans to form an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for his possible candidacy for "President of the United States of South Carolina." In the process, he transferred control of the Super PAC to Jon Stewart, renaming it The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC. On January 30, 2012, Stewart transferred the super PAC back to Colbert.

In a January 31, 2012 Federal Election Commission filing, the Super PAC reported raising over $1.02 million. During this announcement of his million dollar earnings on February 2, 2012, Colbert stated a call to the nation to Google Bomb Super PAC's definition to "A frothy mix of lube and campaign funding that is sometimes the byproduct of politics.". The next day, DefineSuperPac.com was registered and posted Stephen's new definition on the landing page. This all being a reference to Rick Santorum's Google Problems.

Founding

Colbert filed a request with the FEC asking for a media exemption for coverage of his then-prospective super PAC on a May 2011 episode of The Colbert Report. The FEC voted 5-1 to grant The Colbert Report a limited media exemption during a June 2011 public meeting. Following the hearing, Colbert formally filed paperwork for the creation of his super PAC with the FEC secretary.

Colbert Super PAC's treasurer, Salvatore Purpura, resigned on August 11, 2011 to work as campaign treasurer for Rick Perry. Shauna Polk took over treasurer duties for Colbert's PAC.

On September 29, Colbert consulted his lawyer and they set up his own 527 organization non-profit, similar to American Crossroads. Colbert will serve as president, secretary, and treasurer of his new organization and its stated purpose will be to educate the public. However, the organization may legally donate to his Super PAC, lobby for legislation, and participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as campaigning is not the organization's primary purpose. Colbert's organization may legally accept unlimited funds which may be donated by anonymous donors. Since the Federal Election Commission doesn't require full disclosure, Colbert likens his 527 organization to a "campaign finance glory hole": "You stick your money in the hole, the other person accepts your donation, and because it's happening anonymously, no one feels dirty!" Colbert is currently looking for a billionaire donor, or in the language of Colbert, a "sugar daddy."

Colbert initially named his Delaware corporation and 527 organization Anonymous Shell Corporation, however, according to the Delaware Secretary of State's Office the official name was changed to "Colbert Super PAC SHH Institute" on the same day it was filed. According to experts, Colbert's actions are perfectly legal and shine a light on how the financing of elections has dramatically changed since the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United that corporations have free-speech rights to spend unlimited amounts of money in political advertising to elect or defeat candidates for office.

Funds

In an October, 2011 email to his supporters Colbert explained how his 527 organization can be used to legally launder anonymous donations to his super PAC, "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow."

Note: To anyone reading this and not realize that it is comedy and satire. The above paragraph, while documenting what the comedian stated in October 2011, is not factual. See page Political action committee for Federal cases that have been ruled subsequent to the show's airing. Further consult a tax professional before assuming deductions to 527 organizations are deductible in light of IRS examination of this topic.

As you know, when we began Colbert Super PAC, we had a simple dream; to use the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling to fashion a massive money cannon that would make all those who seek the White House quake with fear and beg our allegiance…in strict accordance with federal election law.

And you’ve responded generously; giving your (or, possibly, your parents') hard-earned money in record numbers. And although we value those donations, we were somewhat surprised to note that none of them ended in "-illion.

That is why I formed the Colbert Super PAC S.H.H., a 527 Organization, to help lure the big donors. As anybody who thumbs through the tax code on the toilet knows, a this type of organization is a nonprofit that can take unlimited donations and never has to report the donors. This should be especially helpful considering that establishing this new non-profit status has quadrupled our parentheses budget.

Already, we have gotten a massive donation from [NAME WITHHELD], a kind and [ADJECTIVE WITHHELD] person who only wants to [OBJECTIVE WITHHELD].”

In a January 31, 2012 FEC filing, the Super PAC reported raising over $1.02 million. The filing also listed donors who gave more than $200 to the Super PAC, including Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsom ($500), actor Bradley Whitford ($250), and actress Laura San Giacomo ($250). In a press release Colbert said, “We raised it on my show and used it to materially influence the elections — in full accordance with the law. It’s the way our founding fathers would have wanted it, if they had founded corporations instead of just a country.”

Ad campaigns

On August 10, the first ad by the Super PAC, titled "Episode IV: A New Hope," ran in Iowa, telling Iowans to write-in "Rick Parry" instead of Rick Perry at the Ames Straw Poll. The following day the second ad ("Behind the Green Corn") was run. Two Iowa television stations ran the ads; however, WOI-TV told Colbert that they would not run the ads because they considered them confusing to viewers.

In October 2011, the Super PAC released its third ad, titled "Foul Balls," concerning the 2011 NBA lockout. It also released a fourth ad, also related to the NBA lockout, titled "Ball Gags."

Run for "President of the United States of South Carolina"

During the January 12, 2012 episode of The Colbert Report, Colbert announced his plans to run for "President of the United States of South Carolina." Colbert's lawyer, Trevor Potter, made it clear that it is illegal for Colbert to run for president while active in his Super PAC (though it would be perfectly legal for him to "volunteer" on its behalf). Colbert then signed over control of his Super PAC to Jon Stewart (President pro tempore), and announced that the organization would now be referred to as "The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC." Immediately after this legal block was removed, Colbert announced his decision to form an exploratory committee for his run for "President of the United States of South Carolina". Super PACs are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates or political parties since they are "independent", however a candidate may talk to his super PAC through the media and the super PAC can listen, just like everybody else. In a press release, the new PAC president, Jon Stewart, denied that he and Colbert would secretly coordinate their efforts: "Stephen and I have in no way have worked out a series of Morse-code blinks to convey information with each other on our respective shows."

During the run-up to the South Carolina primary, the super PAC released an "over the top negative ad" attacking Mitt Romney ("If Mitt Romney really believes 'corporations are people, my friend' then Mitt Romney is a serial killer") and another which first attacked Stephen Colbert and then attacked the Super PAC itself. Both urged South Carolinians to vote for Herman Cain (a former candidate who had suspended his campaign but whose name still appeared on the primary ballot), whom Colbert was using as a proxy as it was too late to get on the ballot himself.

A January, 19 poll showed that if Colbert were to run for "president of the United States of South Carolina," 18% said they were at least "kinda somewhat likely" to cast their ballot for Colbert, including 4% who were very likely, 7% who were somewhat likely, and 7% who were "kinda somewhat likely." However, 13% reported they were not too likely, 56% say they were not likely at all, 8% didn't know enough about him, and 4% a were unsure. Poll results showed that 52% of the potential Republican primary electorate in South Carolina were aware that Stephen Colbert was exploring a potential candidacy for president of the United States of South Carolina, while 48% were unaware or unsure. 21% of the potential Republican primary electorate reported they would be more likely to vote for former candidate Herman Cain if that vote served as encouragement for Colbert, while 62% would be less likely to cast their ballot for Cain, and 9% were unsure. On January 21, the "Cain/Colbert" combo received over 6,000 votes, a fifth-place finish.

External links

• Official website
• McGrath, Charles (01-04-2012). "How Many Stephen Colberts Are There?". New York Times Magazine. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

A brownie for you!

I included you as an example in my post, but just used your name as an example. I tried to use your name as a positive individual but since my sentence could be interpreted different ways, I felt inspired to clarify here on this talk page, as well as extend to you a warm, Korean welcome! 안녕! I hope you never run out of steam on the ows articles--your advocacy for our movement is commendable, and it's a pleasure having people like you on the side of the 99%. As you know, OWS is at a crossroads, and the leadership on facebook & those on the ground are having massive infighting. There will be a leadership change at the end of this month (no later than March 1st) so I just thought you would enjoy knowing some privileged information. I've been tapped by those who have decision-making power on facebook because they saw a good fit for me as a "pro-OWS" individual (plus they love filling their roster with diversity rather than all-whites) so that's where I am nowadays. Wikipedia has been so crucial in casting OWS in a favorable light during the first few weeks. I just wish the mainstream news outlets would help quash the reports of crime, vandalism, and rapes--the people who wish to sabotage our movement (i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?f&v=uqxA9LMa_0c) are having a field day by testing our resolve to keep fighting for our convictions. The reason OWS will succeed is because more people are becoming poorer, losing their houses, losing their jobs, and this increases our rosters. I've met brilliant "think tank" style leaders through facebook, and there's zero chance of the movement failing. Every endgame to every scenario looks promising and full of hope--thanks in part to volunteers like yourself. 완젬스 (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there and thanks for the brownie! But when you say you included me as an example in your post, I have no idea what you're talking about. As for what's going on on Facebook, I've never looked at the OWS page. When you say there will be a "leadership change", are you talking about the 99% Declaration people? Best, Gandy dancer Gandydancer (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I went to one of the Facebook pages and found this:

What has and is hurting the cause is that he isn't working hard to find delegates. He's working hard to ensure that he is the speaking voice for the 99% Declaration. If you take the time to read carefully through the documents that have been exposed on the forum, here's a recap of what you'll find:

Michael Pollok is a white collar crime lawyer.

He defends tax evaders, mafia crooks and child pornographers for a living. He went down to OWS and volunteered to do represent some arrested kids, free of charge. They gave him their ideas, which he made into the first draft of the 99% declaration, including his 6 point plan. No clue what happened to them. They are no longer mentioned. Michael began recruiting people to help him fulfill his plan, which includes replacing everyone in congress if the demands of our declaration are not fulfilled. Michael himself ran (very) unsuccessfully in congress. He wants to be in congress. Michael began bumping heads with people who volunteered to help him. First OWS. He said HORRIBLE things, which still make their way around the web about OWS.

Then his own group. More and more people became disenfranchised. Of the 1K people in the Facebook group, 50 or so have bothered to make accounts on the forum. You didn't even know it was there, for example. No one is paying attention. But he supposedly managed to raise 18K in order to get a matching donation of 18K from an anonymous donor to help the group.

Sweet!

The only problem was that the anonymous donor (Most people think that's Nancy Marcus Newman, another rich lawyer) added as a condition of her agreeing to give the money, that he step down from the "board" of leaders of the group and stop yelling at people and calling them horrible names if they disagreed with him.

He yelled at her and called her horrible names. For some reason, she sent the money anyway, and he supposedly stepped down.

He still controlled several facebook pages (for some reason there were like SIX) and began posting information as the group. All of it appeared harmless, so no one stopped him.

THEN things turned ugly. I guess he expected to be allowed to continue to influence the group. When that didn't happen, he decided to rival the group. Now there are 2 groups of people calling themselves the 99% declaration, and the only people left who are paying much attention are curious folks like you, folks like me who are interested in seeing if the situation can be salvaged (although at this point... I'm thinking this is one that Fox News is gonna have a field day with instead) and those that are grabbing at the power over... um... some facebook friends who are no longer in participation, and the 25K or so left in the accounts currently.

And this:

For immediate release. Since Michael Pollok has resigned, he and another ex-member Karlie Cole, have refuse to give the 99% group the passwords on the website. Any donations made at this time may be illegally used by these two ex-members. Below is the message I would appreciate help in getting, expecially to the fake National General Assembly FB page. Thank you all.

This is now bordering on fraud. Michael Pollok & Karlie Cole are no longer members of the 99% Declaration, they have been removed from the membership and have hijacked our website and are now putting up these fake pages in an attempt to continue to accept donations under false pretenses. Please report this page to Facebook and your local police. Do NOT give any donations until the web site is returned to the legal organization. Please contact me for more info. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a long story, but Mike Pollock and Karlie Cole are spiteful, cynical sociopaths. They expect to be treated like they have done nothing but selflessly sacrificed themselves for the good of the movement. To put it succinctly, they blackmailed the nycga if we don't agree to listen to them, compromise with them, etc. The only volunteers who matter to us are those who ask nothing in return, which is why I have tremendous faith and the utmost respect for our actual leaders. Imagine the best admins on Wikipedia (such as NYbrad) who are humble, polite, selfless, and that's like the minimum character requirement to have any positions of power in our movement. It's so reassuring to have information in advance this movement really does in fact know what it's doing, and is able to handle saboteurs, agents provocateurs, propagandists, and attention whores. Every threat to our movement has a "think tank" type of guy, and they have 2-3 dedicated assistants (which I currently am) and I get to help out in a meaningful way to a great person who himself has power & influence over the nycga & on the official/unofficial online presence which we have. Anyways, the reason I'm so optimistic is about the phone call I received yesterday, which is about the upcoming leadership change. It's a done deal, and things will actually operate differently after that. The idiot who will finally be getting ousted this month wanted to rename our movement on May 1st & have a formal declaration of victory, which would have been totally stupid. Anyways, the biggest revamping will be in our horribly failing interoccupy arm which has bungled the biggest missed opportunities and have tried to control us, but now we control them as it should be. The person who is the target of our ousting will also do a formal apology which explains to the rest of the movement's groups how not to betray the movement, and what happens when we perceive a threat. It's so awesome, because it shows how organized we really are, and how determined we are to attain success. (in fact, most of the reason we have not been successful has been due to interoccupy who plays both sides of some secretive discussions about money, leadership changes, and control over all our sites). I'll just go ahead and say it--we almost got a favorable response from Barack Obama himself, almost got invited (and two ows protestors introduced!) at the State of the Union address! And, we lost 2 multi-multi-millionaire investors who have net worth of ~$500 million. Can you imagine if our movement had attained those missed opportunities? I wish I could tell you more, but you'll just have to wait until the end of this month. Lastly, please continue your hard work on the articles you've invested your time and diligence into. It is tremendously appreciated how you do so much positivity to a movement struggling with problems of perception. Nevertheless, the movement will become better from March onward, and I'm wholly confident that success will be our only accepted outcome. 완젬스 (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I took some time to read the Facebook posts and his behavior is a carbon copy of his behavior here on Wikipedia. But as someone that edits OWS articles, I'd really like to not hear all this "insider" stuff from a fellow editor. I guess it's OK, but it makes me feel a little uneasy. I regret that I made any posts about the current goings on here on my talk page or at the 99% article. At any rate, none of this surprises me after our dealings with him at the 99% article. Best, gandy Gandydancer (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well said, just don't give up and let it get discouraging. Don't worry too much about insider information, my lips are sealed on all the stuff which I've learned over facebook. Can I personally ask you about your opinion on the 99% declaration? It caused a lot of in-fighting, and here is Polok's comment:

“OWS is a failure and there is no backup plan. it is antidemocratic and censors people outside of the narrow agenda of the small elite oligarchy that runs it; I have been down there and I saw them in action; they are a star chamber made up of anarchists and other antidemocratic movements who want everything and nothing. it cannot succeed; it has consumed it’s own oxygen and now the flame is out what a waste. we will press on with the nationwide election of delegates to a National General Assembly”

“this is an anti-democratic movement and we withdraw our support.”

That elite oligarchy is the inner circle which are the most amazing, selfless people I've ever met. I have pretty strong views on the 99% declaration, and you've been silent on that page. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts? 완젬스 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No further conversation about OWS please. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Replied

Hello, Gandydancer. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crime/Security Concerns/Security

I've brought the discussion back here again.Racingstripes (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You deserve a lot of credit

You keep cool, civil and stay within guidelines. You don't make personal attacks and you are able to disagree respectfully and not make a battle out of every issue. You are able to get your point across (to me anyway) without much hoopla and in doing so make it much easier to look "within" for mistakes or misinterpretations were others create an atmosphere that is agressive, hateful and ignorant of facts and policies. You are a good editor and do NOT let anyone tell you differently. No one has to agree to get along, as getting along takes more effort than simply agreeing with each other. The real test is when we disagree and how we overcome those disputes. Please feel free to post on my talk page. Of all the editors I have encountered on wikipedia in my time here...you may not be the best editor...but you are the best person I have encountered. You show a desire to learn from mistakes and when you honestly don't understand something...you admit it. That is SO rare at Wikipedia these days! Also....I think wikipedia needs more female editors and I personally think you are one of the best women I have encountered here. I wish more women would edit Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this thoughtful message! It really means a lot to me to hear from you. Gandydancer (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

The Greaber information you added was a violation of copyright policy. Please be careful when "paraphrasing" to closely, as it could create problems for the article. I hope this doesn't make you mad at me.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't make me mad. I know it's very hard to find fault in other editors but its part of our job sometimes. I did try very hard to avoid copy right problems and thought it was good enough. I guess I'll need to read the guidelines. Best, gandy Gandydancer (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No information "unsourced"

I don't know what you mean by that. But if you are asking what the text was and how it was a violation I can explain that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article:

In June and July, after talking to Adbusters, a group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods—began advertising a “People’s General Assembly” to “Oppose Cutbacks And Austerity Of Any Kind”. The assembly was held on August 2 in Bowling Green Park, the downtown Manhattan park with the famous statue of a charging bull. Anarchist activist and anthropologist David Graeber and several friends attended the meeting and were angered when they found that the event was not, in fact, a general assembly--a carefully facilitated group discussion through which decisions are made through consensus--but a short meeting to be followed with a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands such as "An end to oppression and war!". Angered, Graeber and his small group began to hold their own general assembly and gradually, despite the efforts of the event's planners to keep people in their group, all of the 50 or so people attending had joined the insurgent general assembly. The group continued to hold weekly meetings to discuss the choices that would follow, such as the decisions to form working groups and to not have leaders. The group also discussed what demands to make, or whether to have demands at all—a question that still remains unresolved

The source:[6]

A group called New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts—student activists and community leaders from some of the city’s poorer neighborhoods—stepped in to execute the rest.

A “GA” is a carefully facilitated group discussion through which decisions are made—not by a few leaders, or even by majority rule, but by consensus.

The tug of war lasted until late in the evening, but eventually all of the 50 or so people remaining at Bowling Green had joined the insurgent general assembly.

to be followed by a short meeting and a march to Wall Street to deliver a set of predetermined demands (“A massive public-private jobs program” was one, “An end to oppression and war!” was another).

The group endlessly discussed what demands to make, or whether to have demands at all—a question that months later remains unresolved.

I am sorry that this has effected you so badly or made you feel like you are being attacked. You are not. If you remember I had just gone through the section to copy edit and found this from another editor and went out of my way to make it work. So I was keenly aware of the text. I make no judgement of you over this, I ask that you not judge me harshly as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct...

I made a mistake on the issue of "after talking to adbusters". It was in the source and I sincerly apologize for the mistake. If things were going just a tad better on the talkpage it might have been ironed out quicker, but I have been trying to keep up with the wall of text being thrown up. I also mentioned this on the talkpage in case you didn't see it there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously pissed off...

So I will back away slowly and not bother you further...--Amadscientist (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the rest of your talk page, but I just wanted to remind you that for the months of 2011 where I worked on the talk page with you, I always felt like you were very even-keeled and showed tremendous civility. The example which sticks with me is when I removed a paragraph about the lack of initial coverage (my motive was length issues), and you engaged me very politely and we agreed to add it back into the article. So I just think you're misunderstood, rather than pissed off, because you're one of the best tempered editors, and it is always a pleasure working with you. I hope whatever wiki-drama that transpired in the last 3 days is water off a duck's back for you. Cheers, 완젬스 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much :D

I changed it to Security concerns and crime. I hope that will be agreeable. I also deleted some individual incidents but wording remains that makes it clear that assults, etc., were a serious problem. Gandydancer (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't I think of that, seriously? Anyways, I think that compromise is fine. I see that it has stuck for the last two days, and I'm really glad we can move on. If I ever get disagreeable, please smack me with a Trout because I try not to get involved into long arguments or ani or dn or rfc with anyone. I hope this compromise can stay in place, and I wanted to thank you for suggesting that section title which makes everyone happy. I just got back into the thick of things, and I'm so glad the problem disappeared while I was gone. Now if we can only get amad & centrify to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, lol. 완젬스 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you understand?

That is if you didn't already know. Am I going crazy here or is this not an improvement? B^e——C_ritical 02:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Recommended reading

Gandydancer, this is my formal request that you observe Wikipedia's talk page guidelines, including all of the basic talk page how-to's and good practices as well as (or, perhaps,especially) behavior that is unacceptable. The fact that some people regularly violate some policies is no justification to continue doing so at will. This notification on your talk page is required before I can take the next step in Dispute Resolution, which I hope to avoid. The guidelines are reasonably explicit; if you disagree with them I encourage you to work to change them. Until that happens, I expect you to abide by them on pages where our editorial paths cross. Thank you. USEPA James (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Since I have no idea what guidelines I may have broken, it appears that you had best take your issues to Dispute Resolution so that I can improve my talk page behavior if need be. Gandydancer (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Clothianidin

This is just a friendly (please take it that way) suggestion not to continue to restore the "policy concerns" section at Talk:Clothianidin. Though I don't see it as technically a violation of any Wikipedia policy (such as WP:OUTING), if you have specific concerns about USEPAJames' employment, it is probably best to deal with it somewhere else other than at an article talk page, such as WP:COIN. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Edgar, I do take it as a friendly suggestion. The thing is, James and I have discussed my concerns at length on the talk page for that article and then it was dropped. However he recently warned two new editors about mentioning it, which I don't understand at all. I note that he is now discussing policy changes as well... I hate controversy and try to avoid it but I can't possibly understand how it could be considered even vaguely WP:OUTING). Perhaps it would just be best for him to take it to Dispute so that I can get a better understanding of Wikipedia policy. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I can sympathize with you. I don't see why USEPAJames is concerned with it now either, when it was obviously discussed openly before and is clearly tied to his username. But some people interpret WP:OUTING way too broadly and that may cause trouble for you. The article talk page isn't really the appropriate place for it anyway, even if it was discussed there before. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have to go back and read the talk page to be certain, but from memory it was my impression that the editor was seriously hoping that James could help with information, not attempting to discuss James' employment. I do agree that the talk page is not, at this point, the place to discuss James' place of employment, but by memory that was not being done at all. And, if the DISPUTE people want to make trouble for me, they can go right ahead. I have been on the verge of leaving Wikipedia for the last six months and that may be the final straw. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I didn't mean to suggest that it was not appropriate to clear the air re James' COI status on the talk page - that's why I started that section. He has now twice deleted it. I also have very strong feelings about deleting other people's edits, as he did, but I will let it be... But I do wonder as we have apparently entered this new era of COIs editing, how will editors know who's a COI and who is not? In any other article I would start a new section re my concerns, but apparently in this case I must confine my concerns to his talk page? I know that many editors kindly ask that editors that bring up article concerns on their talk pages to move the concerns to the article talk page. I am one of the editors that holds that belief. It does not seem healthy for Wikipedia to have more and more backroom debates going on...Gandydancer (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Imidacloprid

To Gandydancer Please tell me your expertise on Imidacloprid. I am about to report you as a fraud and an incompetent. I have worked with this compound for 16 years. I have read every study and report. Your biased and selective "facts" are surprisingly inaccurate. For instance you say Imidacloprid is stable in water. It is not. This is just one example. This compound does not leach and is much safer for the environment than most compounds you use in your daily life including toothpaste. I use it to save trees, 1000's of them. And it is far safer then what we used before Imidacloprid. I will report you and make a case that will expose your hearsay knowledge and bias and then request you be banned from this. I am in the process of showing others who like me, have a realistic point of view and a balanced agenda. Thus you will start seeing others begin to post on this. If you insist on your non facts and continue I will proceed with my defense of this compound and will go to the wiki editors.

The article talk page is the best place for this discussion, not my talk page. Like many Wikipedia articles, the imidacloprid article could use some fact-checking, but to go through the article deleting referenced material and including material just because you think it is true is not the way to go about it. I gave just one small example of the info you keep putting back, the 3 hour half life, on the talk page. You will need to argue this sort of information on the talk page and not my talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This editor added and then deleted the following:

The 3 hour half life is a known fact in light and water. I will prove to you. Check your Canada document you referenced. Also check this. Frequently asked questions regarding potential side effects of systemic insecticides used to control Emerald Ash Borer. I have 3 people other than myself tuned into this now. All agree your facts are not accurate. They will be working on this to balance the message and cite sources. If you are willing. Then so am I to cooperate on this. This is too important of a substance for saving trees for you to disparage with non facts. Thank you

Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for edit warring and abusing rollback, as you did at Imidacloprid. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gandydancer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This editor has added this same edit numerous times and has yet to use the talk page. He has left disruptive notes on my talk page three times. I left a note on the talk page each time I reverted his/her edits. I got mixed up on the number of times I did a revert, thinking that I had only done three in the last 24 hours. I'd appreciate it if you would unblock me. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for a WP:3RR violation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gandydancer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've never been blocked before so perhaps I do not understand policy guidelines regarding edit warring. If you review the article you will note that Tcprocessor (and probably several socks) have been adding unsourced copy and deleting sourced copy in large edit changes for several days, leaving summaries such as "Why so interested in lying about this product and not others? Competitive product? Send me an email if you want to talk.", but never once using the talk page for discussion. On the other hand, he/she has contacted me on my talk page making comments such as "I will report you and make a case that will expose your hearsay knowledge and bias and then request you be banned from this. I am in the process of showing others who like me, have a realistic point of view and a balanced agenda. Thus you will start seeing others begin to post on this. If you insist on your non facts and continue I will proceed with my defense of this compound and will go to the wiki editors." I left an edit on the talk page each time I reverted his/her edits and I replied in a civil manner on my talk page. It might also be a good idea to review this editors edits, which have largely been an attempt to limit or delete any hazards of this insecticide that he/she says he/she has been using in his employment for the last 15 years. And lastly, it really does surprise me to find that I have been blocked for 48 hours whille Tcprocessor was only blocked for 24 hours. Gandydancer (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring, and while I do have sympathy with you, as you were working against a disruptive editor, edit warring is unacceptable, and a block is justified. However, I shall reduce the block to 24 hours from the time you were blocked, because I do not accept the argument that you were abusing rollback as well as edit warring. Contrary to a surprisingly widespread belief, rollback is not restricted to reverting vandalism, but is also acceptable in several other situations, and in my opinion this case is use "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor ...) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". (Quoted fromWikipedia:Rollback feature#When to use rollback.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your block is longer than that of the other editor because you not only edit warred, but misused your rollback too, in the process. I don't think those edits were clear-cut cases of vandalism and, therefore, using rollback was inappropriate. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Watson. Actually I didn't ask for the rollback, it was given to me. I just used it since it seemed easier. I don't really need it and will just quit using it if I continue to edit. As for the edit warring, since the other editor refused discussion and I left a note each time I reverted him, I was not aware that my behavior was considered edit warring. I would think that a warning would have been more appropriate than a block, but if I continue to edit I will avoid similar situations in the future. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If I had noticed that you weren't warned before being blocked I would have considered unblocking you completely. Concerning your sentence beginning "As for the edit warring...", you were right to attempt to engage the other editor in discussion, and that editor was uncooperative, which is one of the reasons why I said above that I had sympathy for you. However, repeated reversions on the same page are edit warring, and Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think you are right". As for rollback, it's up to you whether you use it. However, if you do go back to using it, it will probably be safer to avoid using it in any situation that might be regarded as a content dispute. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I am starting to get a little pissed off. I have been told that I can remove the gum from my nose and now I am again " welcome to make useful contributions". I've been here for about six years and if you'd check I've never been involved in an edit war. You could have easily checked and seen that I was not aware of what constituted edit warring and the fact that I was not warned. I should have been advised to read the Wikipedia edit warring page where I would find how to handle similar situations in the future (which I have now done and will follow the advise). Furthermore, I do not consider the other editor an asshole but rather a sincere person who really did not understand what is and is not OK for editing Wikipedia articles. If you want to understand how he should have been handled, read the note that MastCell left on his talk page. No more sermons please, I've had quite enough of this. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey Gandydancer. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Wikipedia:WikiProject Occupy movement

Hello User:Gandydancer. Some time ago I made a suggestion for this project.[7] A formal proposal has been made at the project council proposal page. If you are interested you may add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Occupy movement.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have commited informally to keeping my distance from Becritical and have requested he stay off my page and respect the same I hope you can take a moment to inform him as well so he may not be excluded should he wish to participate. I am only coordinating the project, I do not run it (as no single editor will) and don't want him to feel this is something I have control over. This project is to centralize discussion and collaborate on tasks.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I mention you in passing here, do please come along and have a say. Penyulap _talk 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Occupy Wall Street

An article that you have been involved in editing, Occupy Wall Street , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Amadscientist (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Gandydancer: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/16 March 2012/Occupy Wall Street.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Decline

Gandy, I've stayed out of these discussions because of their contentiousness, and because I am not familiar at all with the issues, I'd rather stay removed. However, I see no reason to reject the mediation attempt and want to wish you fair sailing. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. I really dread and hate arguments. This article has been exhausting, but I have high hopes that we can quickly come to an agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Colony Collapse versus pesticide effects

Hi. Simply put, the paper from Purdue does not mention Colony Collapse Disorder, and therefore pretty obviously does not belong in this article. There are literally hundreds of papers published every year on pesticide effects on different insects, including bees, and they are not relevant to this WP article unless they reference CCD specifically, like the Italian clothianidin study did. If you want to create a separate WP article for discussion of the effects of Clothianidin on bees, that might be a good option for the Purdue study, but it still doesn't belong on the CCD page. The authorities agree that CCD is a disease with causative pathogens, and communicable, and while pesticides can influence the effect of those pathogens, the two phenomena (pesticide toxicity and CCD) are not *synonymous*, and trying to combine the two topics on a single WP article is a bad idea. The CCD article should focus specifically on literature that discusses CCD, including links between CCD and pesticides, but not literature that refers to pesticide toxicity by itself. I don't really care for the present pesticide toxicity to bees article, but - realistically - that is the most appropriate place for things like the Purdue study; that, or a new page along those lines (e.g., the Imidacloprid effects on bees, which I think is too narrowly-focused). Sincerely, Dyanega (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much for your thoughtful post. Actually I was not sure and hoped for more discussion. Go ahead and delete it and I will give it further thought. Again, thanks for your note and I will get back to the discussion when time permits. Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Two points: (1) I try very hard to not revert good-faith edits without good reason, and at least a little discussion. In this case, I do think it boils down to limiting citations to those which do explicitly invoke CCD, if for no other reason than this: imagine an editor finds a paper on, say, how a population explosion of gnatcatchers depleted the worker force in some honey bee colonies in Arizona; would an editor be justified in citing this on the CCD page, even if the author of the study said nothing about CCD? I would say No, because the *connection* of that study to CCD originates with the editor, not the author, and therefore would constitute "original research" on the part of the editor. The bottom line is that I'm not trying to prevent you from adding citations, but hopefully we can agree that when an author(s) links a study to CCD, then it's fair game for the CCD article, but if NOT, then it should not be. Does that seem a reasonable approach consistent with WP policies? (2) If we're okay on that issue, then about the only other point of discussion (and one which is a little more delicate) is the fact that some of the authors of this research - like the Italian clothianidin study - use the term CCD in a manner that is not consistent with the definition given by the scientists who coined the name, and defined its symptomology. To use an analogy, imagine that we were talking about a human disorder, which has very specific definition and symptoms, like schizophrenia; if someone publishes a study describing something like Alzheimer's, and *calls* it schizophrenia (even though it does not fit the definition or symptoms), would it still be appropriate to cite it in the WP article on schizophrenia? On the one hand, WP policy would seem to indicate that excluding it is over-editorializing (the editor's opinion trumping the claims of the author), but on the other hand, including it exactly as the author presents it obviously contradicts the other material in the article. That's why, in this case, when I cited the Italian clothianidin study, I included the phrasing that explains that they did not address the symptomology that defines CCD; their paper has no explicit connection to CCD, yet they use the term, as do the news articles that cite it. The paper talked about pesticide effects, and said nothing about CCD except one sentence in the paper's introduction, where they imply that CCD is defined as "rapid losses" - which is not the accepted definition. The actual quote is this: "In the past decade honeybee colonies throughout the world have been subject to rapid losses in the order of 40%, in particular in southern Europe. This phenomenon, also named colony collapse disorder..." - and that is not the way the people in North America, who coined the term Colony Collapse Disorder, defined it! (As an aside, even at this late date, six years since it first appeared in the US, no publications from Europe have corroborated the full set of symptoms associated with CCD, so it's not even clear they have ever had any genuine CCD cases in Europe) Even at that, they do not come back later in the paper and say that the phenomenon described in the study is CCD, so I was uncertain whether it should be included at all (as discussed under point 1 above). I consider it a reasonable compromise position as an editor to give the citation, since they do mention CCD, but point out that the citation in question does not follow the same definition of CCD as other references cited in the WP article. I'm not sure quite how else to justify including it, or how to cite it, since it essentially screams that it has to be presented with caveats (maybe not as extreme as the stuff on cell phone radiation, but in certain respects they are comparable). I would definitely prefer it if other editors of the article were okay with that approach, and if not, I'd hope we can come to something mutually agreeable. Sincerely, Dyanega (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion and I agree that perhaps it would be good to draw a line that unless CDC is mentioned in the link it would be best to not include it. As for the second part of the discussion, it is my belief that the authors actually were not redefining CCD since it is now so broadly accepted that it is a combination of factors, but I will have to admit that the reading does make it sound that way. I would assume that they suggest that if the exhaust contains such a high amount of the chemicals it is reasonable to believe that bees are being exposed to sublethal amounts of neoncoticoids. Hoping that I could find more info on their study, I did google it some, but no luck. What I did was to just include one line of the info with a plan to delete the study all-together as written at the bottom of the section. I didn't delete it yet, waiting to see what you think... If you don't agree, perhaps we could ask for access to the article and read the entire paper. While I was looking for more info on the Italian study I happened to run across the Guardian article that mentioned the Purdue study and I included it. Let me know if you're OK with that. Would you mind if we copied and pasted our discussion on the article talk page? Best, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Maroons

I slept over your comments on the talk of Great Dismal Swamp maroons. (I am German and have a hard time following lengthy discussions, please understand.) I had one more idea presented there. But the article talk should only contain factual discussion, not personal, so I come here as well.

• Move: if a move is done with consensus, for example for a spelling error, it can be done in a simple move. If there is no consensus, it needs a discussion before. For an example see Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven).
• Your comment about the block of PumpkinSky doesn't belong on the article talk at all, even if it was correct. But it is also overly simple. You asked for links, see here, "68 Results of PumpkinSky copyvio investigation", there is reason to assume that the blocking editor was "involved", and the arguments given for blocking didn't convince me. During the discussion someone had to remark what I framed on on top of my user: "Every editor is a human being, and we need to consider regularly whether our view/approach to an issue brings out the best of humanity or not." (can't be repeated too much). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like he got a rotten deal-too bad. The entire atmosphere around here seems to have become toxic of late. I've never removed my words from a talk page but do you think it would be OK if I deleted my sock puppet remark from the page? Gandydancer (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like that :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you change again, to spell my name right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I keep thinking about the caps. There is Missa solemnis, solemn mass, for the general term, but once it comes to a specific piece with this term as its title, some people (not me) prefer Missa Solemnis, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is Gerda, I wouldn't even dream of offering my preference since I know nothing about that subject. On the other hand, in my opinion you apparently know very little about the process whereby escaped slaves, sometimes termed maroons, set up colonies in remote regions to avoid capture and formed societies that lasted for hundreds of years, and yet you consider yourself an expert. American slaves, removed from their African homelands, were stripped of their identity by owners who did not allow their captives to speak in their own language, practice their own religion or practice their own arts such as playing their own music. The slaves were given a new ethnicity and in English the term was negro. If a slave escaped, the name maroon was sometimes used. Finally, after many, many years, in my lifetime as a matter of fact, the word "negro" was finally given a capitol N. But if a "negro" escaped many years ago and found freedom and established a new "American-African" identity, according to you, who wants to change all the Maroon articles to small M's, he/she remains merely an escaped slave of his/her American owner. As I said in the article, I consider this sort of thinking blatant racism. Gandydancer (talk) 08:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You got me completely wrong in several respects, sorry:

• In the case of the Missa there is no conflict, nothing to prefer, nothing that should be the same all over Wikipedia: as long as it is a general term, is has to be lower case, Missa solemnis, but when it is a title of a specific piece, the composer decides if he calls that work "Missa solemnis" or "Missa Solemnis". You don't have to be an expert on the topic to understand that distinction.
• I never considered myself an expert on escaped slaves! Therefore I have to stick to the sources. I was given 3 more sources which I will add when I have time, likely next week.
• I don't want to change all articles to small! As in the Missa example, if there is a specific group name, the capital letter may seem appropriate, for example Jamaican Maroons, Leeward Maroons.
• I don't consider the people who lived in the Great Dismal Swamp such a group. The article explains that they came from different background, and we know too little to say much about their culture and organisation. For me, they are not a People, but people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Well...

I did what I could. If their sources mostly have it in lower case, I don't know what else to argue except that WP should be consistent... Sry... B^e——C_ritical 20:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It was good to have you write a few posts and I do believe that you did what you could. I want to say Be, you are one of my favorite editors because you have a good grasp of WP policy, you're damn smart, and you are able to see that the world is not black and white but shades in between, plus all the colors that pull our heartstrings this way and that - if you get what I'm trying to say...

I have backed off at that article, but I have not given up yet! I have only given up on the present set of editors. I agree that the best argument point is the fact that other established communities of escaped slaves/maroons that are referred to in other maroon-related WP articles and elsewhere on the web do use a M rather than m when speaking of a community. If one looks more closely at the refs for the article one can see that they are looking into the maroon settlements rather than speaking of a factual Maroon community of the GDS in the same way that more well-established communities are spoken of. But I can hardly expect to convince any of the present editors when I am dealing with the ghost of an editor as channeled by Gerda who also says that, as a matter of fact, all of the other WP articles are wrong but she does not want to change them to avoid hurt feelings... The Smithsonian is working on an exhibition of the Great Dismal Swamp Maroons, but it's not expected to be ready till 2015 - I hope it does not take me that long to show that the community existed and that they "deserve" a capitol "M" like the other communities around the world! Gandydancer (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

To add, the present set of editors speak of MOS as having settled the argument, while that is not my impression at all. I've read MOS several times and I do not see anything that would apply. In time I will follow up on that...Gandydancer (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Talk pages are where we talk about the article. User Talk pages are the better place for personal issues. If I were to accuse an editor of bad faith and bad behavior, I would address it on their talk page, and then go the ANI if it was that big a deal. Comity is better preserved this way. As it is, I don't know what you think of the Background section, but I am interested to find out, on the appropriate talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

Gandy, continuing from Scartol's talk page: please, if you have any input regarding the text of this article, go ahead and give it. At this point, it needs (I feel) some extra eyes to improve its prose. The more the better, especially here in good ole WP. So yes, feel free to copyedit and suggest to your heart's content! I will muchly appreciate it. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Swing votes on merging the "low hanging fruit" of occupy articles

Hello, after I invested way too disproportionate amount of time thinking I was cleaning up some of the various occupy articles, I found that I can't predict who will object or support the articles I selected as candidates for merging into the parent article Occupy movement in the United States (which I think is no judgment about the relative value of each city's movement efforts) and rather than blindly choose proposals, I sought advice from the other swing vote here. As part of my request, I humbly ask to get your advice about 1 more "easy merge" suggestion and then I will forever call an ends to this cleanup mission. It was way harder than I envisioned, but before I go, I would like your input about SilverScreen's proposal, and additionally I would like 1 "easy merge" candidate proposal that you pick out as unobjectionable from the "easy list" here. Not only will it help me save face, it will at least help me see that my "failed" effort had at least a handful (4 maybe 5) partial successes. As someone who knows the ups and downs of Wikipedia, I graciously seek your support. I just want out of my endeavor I brought myself into; and, going out I hopefully seek two recommendations from Silverscreen and one (maybe two؟) recommendations from yours truly. All I ever wanted was to gainfully assist in "cleaning up" some of the OWS spillover & how I underestimated that it was more than a spillover--it was the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and was bigger and more entrenched than I ever imagined. I initially thought I could bring the community to condense 49 separate occupy cityxyz down to 10 or 15. I underestimated how difficult it was to reduce this number by any practical significance; however, with your blessing, maybe you can endorse the impartial recommendations of Silverscreen and, in turn, suggest 1 "easy merge" proposal in kindness to your fellow struggling Wikipedian. I just want to make a difference; and, in this case it was "cleaning up" an uninhibited creation process whereby everyone is freely allowed to create, edit, and each defend their own Orwellian amalgamation. I hope you under the improbability I am up against, and will lend me your swing vote to better advance my escape hatch from this time-intensive crusade. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, maybe we can make a deal. You research Great Dismal Swamp maroons, Imidacloprid (as related to use in trees to kill the Emerald ash beetle), and offer criticisms on the Maya Angelou article. That is just for starters because I have several other issues that I would like to clear up. Turn your report in to me and then I will go about research on your issues of concern. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

완젬스 thank you for your thoughtful post at the GDS article but I was being sarcastic - I didn't really mean you should post at that article! Never the less, I appreciate your post because I believe that sometimes white people can't see racism that is obvious to people who may have faced discrimination. Gandydancer (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that unfortunate faux pas. I have a grandiose vision for how Wikipedia works (so I'm always prone to taking up other people's offers that seem "too good to be true") but I think it's totally fine to help another editor out when they are spread too thin. When your resources are limited, and you don't have enough intra-personal resources to accomplish all your various loose ends in a fast paced environment (such as wiki) then your proposal is the type of offer which one might be inclined to make.

Nonetheless, I was just trying to help and I hope you will soon be able to wrap up all your other businesses to be taken care of, and hurriedly get back to the only niche where your invaluable contributions might be able to help win an epic battle in the court of public opinion. As you know, the recent Trayvon Martin saga is now competing heavily against occupy's airtime, but I'm just assuming you're still fresh & up-to-date with everything. I hope it all works out for you, and you're able to get the M capitalized in the article I chimed in with. Have a great Wednesday, 완젬스 (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why so obsessed with this?

I don't think it's good at all. Remember we have a timeline/chronology section, did you even read how bad it looks as an orphan to the bottom of the encampment section? Are you even aware of how unintelligent an edit looks when it states "On March 17th, some protesters attempted to do something, but oh well, they tried, and there is a online news article about it, so therefore it is page 1 headlines above-the-fold" I mean seriously? Where is your thinking cap? (and if you want to add it back, please just think about it for 180 seconds and ask what attempted relevance it has to the overall movement) I don't know what's the big deal of "an attempt on March 17th" unless you were there or had friends in it who were arrested. Your edits lately have been unpredictable and I don't know if you have an idea of the big picture, or just think that "everything fits" if it is on a headline somewhere. Maybe the sentiment has changed since February, so I just hope April can be a more constructive month for the occupy article. Hoping you understand, 완젬스 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not obsessed with the article but perhaps you need to look at your recent editing and the suggestions by several other editors that your close association with the OWS movement may be having a negative effect on your ability to edit without bias. There is a movement in my state at three locations - I have not attended any of them and I do not follow them on Facebook. My only involvement is that I edit the article and I find it odd that you imagine that I must have been involved in the March 17 protest or have had friends that were arrested to make an edit about the event in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

3rr

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

• First revert: here
• Second revert: here

Please be advised, I moved your sentence over to the timeline article here. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behavior. Gandydancer (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

38 minutes after I posted this, Equaczion came in here and quelled the defensiveness I had on the issue. Forty hours of self-cooldown, self-blocking, self-foot(in mouth)'ing myself later, I want to reinforce my position with you on OWS. A friend of an enemy is an enemy; and, an enemy of an enemy is a friend. I'm thinking 7 of the 9 most active editors on OWS are white males, so we can identify on being minorities who are victims of being oppressed in a republican theocracy known as the United States. As my last attempt (which sadly failed) I'm tenaciously trying to reach out to you once again, as well as my adversarial editors with whom I have a strained relationship... What do you think I should do?

• WP:Vanish and start out as a new ip editor?
• Formally ask every editor that I clash with what I'm doing wrong?
• Reinforce myself and try to explain that I'm unequivocally pro-OWS? (which after some dedicated thought, I predicted was my best bet)

I just want redemption and to be thought of as the "party guy" like I was at the end of 2011 when we rallied against Dualus and overthrew a Lessig-spamming sycophant. I like your independence (you turned on Amadscientist when he was having a manic episode about reverting your edits senselessly; and, I like how you argue with passion which is great because it shows you got passion.

I've struggled with freelance work life ever since I quit my corporate gig of $40,000/year with no benefits, and I have to work 10x harder just to keep a steady stream of referrals, which means I satisfactorily use wikipedia & facebook (on OWS) to keep myself busy & full of energy, passion, and motivation. I just got finished with a decent gig, and now I want an uncontroversial path where I can work on Wikipedia and massively improve the coverage that relates to OWS. Since you can give me unbiased, outside perspective--can you briefly answer the same 3 questions I asked BeCritical here which are:

1. Is the occupy article currently in an "expansion" motif and I'm the only one in a "cleanup" motif?
2. Secondly, what is my "blind spot" i.e. what is the glaringly obvious flaw in my personality/persona that is a huge turnoff to other editors? (am I too passionate? what is my turnoff?)
3. Thirdly, how do I ask fellow editors what area of occupy wall street is relatively "drama-free" for me to dive into, make massive changes, and expect minimal reverts? (you can speak on behalf of everyone or just for yourself--any feedback is much appreciated especially on this question!)

With all that said, I'm struggling to find my place here. I'm a passionate Wikipedia editor who has tremendous motivation and (as a Korean) these positive traits have elevated my position through facebook within the OWS movement. (as an aside, I commented on who the two multi-multi-millionare donors were which we lost on Feb 11th on your talk page--they are [drumroll...] Ben Cohen & Jerry Greenfield) which hopefully you'll agree fit the narrative I've been desperately advocating about the movement. I'm all for Wikipedia, and I'm all for OWS. I just want other editors' feedback about how to maximize the effectiveness of my passion with candid, sincere advice which will re-light my torch so that I can once again edit freely under the presumed guidance of well respected, well established editors such as yourself. Thanks in advance, 완젬스 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been indefinitely blocked for breaking 3RR =O

Yes, I also prefer African American music rather than White music. Little Richard is one of my favourites in R&R, and I also like Fats Domino, but I only listened to his debut album. Domino's "Troubles of My Own" is one of the most kick-ass songs I have ever heard in my life (just listen to that bombastic backbeat :P), and I should probably also listen to his next albums. I never heard of gandy dancing (I thought it was just a wordplay). Haha, I did not know that American yodeling was influenced by African Americans, something else that I learned. =) I sadly never attended any live shows, but I can imagine the atmosphere. I think Redding is the best ever singer, at least here on earth. If Zelma would just agree to publish his photos, I would replace the current infobox pic with this iconic picture (Imagine it appears on the mainpage; it might break the record for the most views! :)) Or how about this? LOL. Also not bad. Haha, you know what? I will ask the painter to publish it in CC-BY and will replace that pic! :)GoP_T^C_N 11:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings to all my Wikipedia friends, but...

I am in Rochester, MN at the Mayo Clinic with my sis Judy. She is getting her second stem cell replacement for multiple myeloma and I will be with her as her care-giver. It will take 6 to 8 weeks. It is fun, boring, tireing, and sometimes stressful. She has one of the top MM experts in the world as her doc, so that part is fun and interesting. ;) I still follow what's going on here, but will have less input. My best to all, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes for you and your sister! Strength.

Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Give your sister a hug, a very soft one, as here. The Passion mentioned appeared on Good Friday on the Main page and made history. Take care! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes to your sister, and to you. Take care of yourself - being a caregiver can be incredibly stressful in its own right. Mayo is a great place, and I'm sure Rajkumar and co. are taking good care of her. Cheers. MastCell ^Talk 22:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, take care, I hope things are going well for both you and your sister! B^e——C_ritical 06:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How are you and your sister now? Ready for some Easter eggs, top of my talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Quiet sidebar about ows

I've felt "lost" by not participating on Wikipedia for a while in my full metal jacket, so I hope you'll recover well in your free time while not worrying too much about me or the various articles which give the next guy stress.

I just want to remind you to meditate and to internalize the world-class treatment you are receiving by the Mayo Clinic. Life is so precious and nobody can say definitively what treatments will work and which will not (as far as blood leukemia & lymphoma are concerned.)

Make sure your family knows how special you feel to them, and them to you. In life, you never just know when you have the opportunity to say something important that will resonate profoundly. I wish you and Judy the most epic comeback which is possible given your specific prognosis.

May you and Judy's life be blessed, cared for, and in our prayers, 완젬스 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

GMO Crops page

Hi Gandy, I am the advisor of the student on the GMO Crops page. In reviewing my talk page, and email, I do not see any attempt to contact me. I certainly do appreciate any constructive help you have provided to my students. The GMO crop page definitely needs some careful editing and additions. Waterbug42 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This kitten wants you to stay. I am trying to get Andy back; we desperately need people like him.

Arcandam (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

OWS and the 99% Declaration

A few editors, one of whom was actually present for a 99% Declaration AFD, are now arguing that the 99% Declaration and group should be given significant coverage (including, I believe, a listing of their demands) at the OWS article. This would seem to violate a wide prior consensus that the 99% Declaration was of somewhat questionable notability, but that due to its rejection by OWS proper, there should be a separate article instead of a merge.

Ironically, the argument seems to be that since the 99% Declaration article survived two AFDs, it is therefore obviously notable, and if it's notable it should therefore also be given significant discussion at OWS. My feeling is that, in addition to being inconsistent with the prior consensus, a substantial discussion of the 99% Declaration at the OWS article would greatly exaggerate the notability of the document (which seems to be very tenuous as reflected by the AFD dicussions), while also exaggerating its connection with OWS, thereby letting the 99% Declaration "ride the coattails" of OWS -- a clear undue weight violation.

I fondly recall your previous contributions and would be grateful for any insights you could bring to the discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my — I wrote the above before seeing the above note about your sister. I'm very sorry to hear about it and I hope all turns out well. Having gone through a similar experience within my own family, I'd just reassure you that whatever you do will be the right thing to do, for the right reasons. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and yes I agree. My sis is doing just fine but about a week after I returned home I ended up in the hospital for a few days myself! Other than losing a great deal of blood I an feeling just fine now too. Gandydancer (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Imidacloprid lede

Hi Gandy, I just saw your addition of CCD to the imidacloprid lede. I agree with your addition of a noteworthy aspect of the chemical, but given the tense history of this topic, I am concerned that some might consider two sentences about CCD in the lede to be undue weight. I would suggest a shorter, more general mention, something like "There are growing concerns about harm to non-target insects including bees and other pollinators." Please let me know what you think. – monolemma t – 05:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Mono. I've put a lot of thought into your suggestion and remain unsure as to whether or not it is undue weight. I thought that I needed to add one line re CCD since that is the real fear that is driving so much recent research and all of the research is using language which includes the CCD term and wording such as "may be related" even though recent studies appear to be beginning to strongly suggest that the neonicotinoids are responsible for pushing already threatened hives beyond the point of what they could handle and still survive. Perhaps you should bring it up on the talk page for more input from others? I'm very open to change if others (other than the COI editor) agree with you. Gandydancer (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey Gandy, thanks for your quick response. I have made a section on the talk page. Cheers – monolemma t – 03:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Edmonton7838 (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice! I have some for you too! Please try to think twice before you again decide that it is important for our readers to know that Warren was a nursing mother when she took her bar exam.

...Oh, I see you have ignored my advice already... Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoted

Hi, GD. Thought it would be polite to let you know that I quoted you at ANI (link/snapshot) about the ALEC talk page. You have mail, btw, about a likely sock at a different article. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)  this talk page temporarily watchlisted

Anarchism, David Graber, and OWS

Gandy, I wonder if you have any thoughts on this recent edit I made, which I have explained on the OWS talk page here. I don't think the edit itself is subject to challenge (the source plainly does not support the article text as it was written). However, I am interested to hear your thoughts on what I said at Talk; and in particular if you disagree with my rationale or anything I've said, please don't hesitate to say so. Cheers! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! Gosh, it looks like you removed a lot of stuff that I thought was backed up with refs... I guess I need to get more involved again and do some reading before I decide how I feel about it. I'm just so damn sick of that article, as I'd guess that most of us are. Thanks for the note - I appreciate it! Best, gandy Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I did just restore something that actually was substantiated by its refs, but I was looking at the wrong part of the source article (although this was due in part to a small error in the WP text itself). But mainly what I removed was the long bit essentially saying that Graeber organized the NYCGA or its precursor. As far as I can tell, the cited source just does not say that. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - Just to let you know, I do continue to follow every article and talk page change. I am again reading the source and I hate to even think of how many times I've read that article over the last few months! This has been a very tough article - by its very nature it is based on opinions of the reporters and which ever notable person they found that would give an opinion. Including slimeballs such as Mayor Bloomberg.

I note that you restored the NY Post info and the Post IMO is nothing more than a scandal sheet and it could be argued its not a reliable source...I guess... There is something similar that comes out of London (if I remember correctly) that writes the same sort of trash that was used in the objections section of the article. In fact, I remember that they showed photos of piles of sleeping bags and called it HUGE PILES OF TRASH!!!

But I do know that you have concern for presenting a reliable and fair article as your motive and I respect that. I'm sure that we can work something out on the talk page. See you there.. :) Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're talking about the Sun, although I could swear I saw a pic of "piles of trash" that actually was piles of trash. Regarding the Post, I would say a Post editorial ranks up there with a Fox editorial or a HuffPo editorial—i.e., you could really do a lot better—but for straight news reporting, I really don't see the problem. There's not as much room for dishonesty or spin. The main potential for spin would be for a paper to give attention to something that other outlets don't find noteworthy. But that doesn't even seem to be the case here: this precise material, including the poop complaint, appeared in numerous sources, many of which are reliable. Here's a selection from some brief Googling:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/occupy-protesters-defecating-our-doorsteps-nyc-residents-complain

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051718/Occupy-Wall-Street-Manhattan-residents-fury-protesters-defecating-doorsteps.html

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-21/local/30322167_1_pepper-spray-protesters-han-shan

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_streets_neighbors.html

https://secure.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?newsdate=2/26/2012&navigation=nextprior&category=STATE&storyID=1097535

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nyc-residents-complain-occupy-protesters/comments?type=story&id=14786599#.T8pZpTz6A8o

http://townhall.com/news/us/2011/10/21/nyc_residents_complain_about_occupy_protesters

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/they-are-defecating-on-our-doorsteps.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/10/occupy-wall-streets-neighbors-are-tired-drumming/43952/

http://gawker.com/5852275/neighbors-ask-occupy-wall-street-to-stop-pooping-all-over-everything

It's the same content and it's presented in the same editorial tone (residents are furious! protesters are icky!). I really don't see the problem. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And, it's good to know you continue to watch the page. Disclosure: I use you as a Wikipedia barometer and often finding myself asking "What Would Gandy Do?". I've never had a better experience collaborating with an editor whom I often disagree with (although admittedly we don't disagree that often). This is why I seek your approval even when I sense that we may be in disagreement ;) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that is sweet! And really hard to believe so I will need to use WP "trust good faith" whatever it is called. Oh I remember it is ASSume good faith - that's ASS as in asshole - because I really assume that anyone that points me to that WP guide is an asshole. It really is good to know good people like you that have the maturity and self-respect to actually like people that do not always agree with them. Best, gandy

As I said on the talk page, I am grateful to you for bringing this up. We may not agree about whether or not the source is adequate to back the copy, but I sure do agree that the source may go too far with "facts". I also want to say that I admire your dedication and the amount of effort you are willing to put into working for what you believe to be right. Gandydancer (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Mediation request re: "Formation of the New York General Assembly"

Gandy, regarding our article prose purporting to tell readers how the NYCGA was formed (notwithstanding the lack of any source telling us how it was formed), unfortunately I remain convinced that WP:V is being ignored in a destructive and unacceptable manner. I have requested mediation here. The request is still pending and I don't believe any discussion can yet take place, but I wanted to at least notify you of the request. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren, again, 05 June 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You can review all three of your edit war reverts here: (1) Revert 1, (2) Revert 2, (3) Revert 3, and (4) Revert 4.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

3RR

I have reported you to 3RR. You can review it here: here or here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmonton7838 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

BP lede/article

Hi Gandy, Please feel free to jump into the discussion at Dispute Resolution noticeboard. You've raised a good point about the lede. Your input would be truly appreciated as we rewrite the intro; an extra set of eyes would help us stay on track. As there is an ongoing debate, I'll stay active daily, but cannot continue to spend multiple hours a day on this matter as I have been.petrarchan47^Tc 06:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, my request requires a good bit of reading, sorry about that, I hadn't considered it. At the DR, we are focusing on the intro of the article and the possible problem with a POV editor, so you may be OK without studying the whole article any time soon. I suppose the entire discussion at DR would be good to read. Hope it's not too unbearable! Thank you for your input.petrarchan47^Tc 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Given that there are only 4 paragraphs in the BP lede, how would you feel about one of them being dedicated to BP's environmental and political 'issues', including a good mention of the Gulf spill as opposed to having the whole para dedicated to the spill? I responded to your idea at DR but didn't expand much on it so I thought to stop by here again. petrarchan47^Tc 00:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Gandy, just wanted to update you. I am doing some research right now getting ready to make a proposal for the third paragraph. Here and here are 2 of the articles I am looking at. I think if you looked at the BP edit history, you might find this interesting. It shows how the intro looked before the greenwashing. And here is the beginning of the series of edits which added the spin to the intro, all by the same editor I brought to Dispute Resolution, who was most recently deleting information from the article in the same biased manner as these edits. Do you know how Wikipedia deals with violations such as these? It seems unfair for editors to have to deal with this in the future. petrarchan47^Tc 23:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 03:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I must say, the BP article could really serve as the best example one could imagine on how to edit to slant an article to benefit a corporation. Looking back to what I thought at the time was an obvious omission at the Cracker Barrel article, compared to the BP article they were actually quite generous in their presentation of negative information. I note from the spill article: On 19 September 2010, the relief well process was successfully completed, and the federal government declared the well "effectively dead".[14], and on September 20 Rangoon deleted all mention of the spill at the BP article saying: "(Deepwater reference deleted from intro - now leak has stopped this is a breach of WP:RECENT)". He later "compromised" by prefacing mention of BP's environmental history with, "Like all corporations, BP has...".No, I really don't know how WP deals with such violations. Also, I can't see where dispute resolution has done any good - aren't the uninvolved editors supposed to say something? What good does it do to argue there rather than at the article if they remain silent? Gandydancer (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'd like to state that I expect our communications are being read, so these words are for everyone. But I didn't want to litter the DR with side talk, which is why I have come here. Yes, I did see where the oil spill was erased due to "recent". I have witnessed completely bogus excuses in the edit history and the most slanted edits had nothing but "edit" or "update" in the edit summary area. At the article no one is watching. If you look there you can see I did try to communicate there first, to no avail. I was batted around and told to 'go get a blog'. Once I brought it to DR, with more eyes on the matter, things turned around. The thing is, this isn't brain surgery. The bias is obvious and it's not legal at Wikipedia. It's been shown and that is perhaps why the editor is not engaging at the moment. With the edits I highlighted above, I believe there is enough evidence to support a topic ban for the editor, which I will pursue after the 3rd para is complete (I was hoping you might have experience with that). So now the focus is to get the 3rd para finished. Google "most polluting oil company" or "oil company, worst safety record" and see what name pops up. Even a watered down truth is not going to sound pretty, which will not be pleasing to the other editors. It's difficult with an employee of the company watching over us, and an overly enthusiastic, seemingly pro-BP editor ready to pounce. I wish the topic was something less emotional, like rubber balls. If there was a rubber ball that bounced 300 times higher than all others, due to some polymer, it would be easy to write up an intro that would assuredly include those facts. But here we have a company that has gone out of their way to control Google search results and definitely wants their Wiki page to shine. This company has 300 times more "willful and egregious safety violations" than any other and the reason has been discovered: neglect for safety of environment and humans to save money. Since this is an encyclopedia it should be as simple to add these facts as it would be to add facts regarding a rubber ball. But it's not - and that is an indication of the presence of biased editors and the vast amount of energy trying to spin their page. This is why it's been so tough to write up a proposal for the 3rd paragraph. What I have just described though, is written up in the conflict of interest page as a symptom of COI, and a reason COI editors may be banned - because they hurt not help Wikipedia articles.

Tidbits from COI:

Removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

Editing in the interests of public relations (other than obvious corrections) is particularly frowned upon. This includes, but is not limited to, professionals paid to create or edit Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest.petrarchan47^Tc 04:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)petrarchan47^Tc 04:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and that is another reason we are at the DR - to show the evidence and then get advice on where to go from here. Although no one is commenting, they are watching and will give their comments once we're done presenting our side/ideas. We've accomplished a LOT already that would not have been had we stayed at the article talk page. The removal of "major" from the 1st para re renewables, the addition of the oil spill are 2 great improvements. I think far more people, who will be helpful at some point, are watching the discussion than we might realize. Have faith :) petrarchan47^Tc 05:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I will try to have faith, but it is not easy. It is hard for me to understand that anyone may be reading the dispute and yet remain silent. I do note that Binsternet did leave a post today, and that was encouraging. Petrarchan, at the top of the BP article talk page there is a note for the WikiProject Environment/Environmental Record task force to "to ensure that the environmental records of policymakers, corporations, and organizations are accurately and consistently represented throughout the encyclopedia". Do you think that they would be of any help? The only editor I know is William Connolley - do you think that I could leave a note on his page? Gandydancer (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a great idea. At the top of the dispute, just under my first entry to the discussion, you can see Guy Macon said he is watching and waiting to comment until all the arguments have been made. Do you think it might be a good idea to work up a 3rd para together over the weekend then bring it to DR? petrarchan47^Tc 19:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Also, feel free to email me if you want. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is the link for your email? petrarchan47^Tc 21:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

On my user page under "toolbox" it says, "email this user". Gandydancer (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. You've got mail. petrarchan47^Tc 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Turns out we have an unlimited amount of time to hash this out at DR. petrarchan47^Tc 21:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Just an update - there is a 10 day limit for the DR. I've made a few comments at the blog to show what I'm researching; essentially my idea for the third para should be ready in a couple of days. I'll post it to DR and let you know. Would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks and enjoy! petrarchan47^Tc 05:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, Gandy, I posted my suggestion for the controversy section of the BP Lede at the DRN. petrarchan47^Tc 01:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering whether you felt there was a chance the task force or William will be able to assist? petrarchan47^Tc 19:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it is very problematic. I thought I'd wait till you presented your suggestion. I thought your proposal was excellent and even with the fact that you and I have a pretty much opposite opinion re what does and does not belong in the article, I was still very surprised to see it just rejected outright. It does seem to be problematic that so few editors are involved in the article. It is my guess that many corporate and controversial articles would be biased but for the fact they draw a wider editor involvement. You are doing good work and I remain convinced that the article will eventually represent what is right and good about Wikipedia rather than an article that satisfies corporate interests. Gandydancer (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Gandy. I was not aware we had opposing opinoins, but with NPOV as the guiding rule, it shouldn't (and doesn't) really matter. I was also surprised to see it blasted and still remains unsupported. I thought we could at least work out something that worked for everyone. What's interesting is that after all my research, I got a sense of how the company operates especially when defending itself. What the literature says is an exact description of the editor in question. I am glad you have such a positive attitude. I don't see how this will play out in the way you describe; it seems like Wikipedia is actually heavily slanted in favor of corporate interests as independent editors can't afford to sit around defending articles all day. I for one, need to call it quits very soon and get back to my real work. Do you think it would be helpful to continue the DR, or is it a lost cause in your opinion?petrarchan47^Tc 01:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't explain myself very well...I meant to say our position is at odds with that of Rangoon and Beagle. It seems to me that you have done most of the difficult and time consuming work of looking into the circumstances surrounding BP's extensive poor environmental record and now we must just be willing to believe that WP does not (yet anyway) function on the "might makes right" principle. Sometimes I think that that is all I've got going for myself--that belief and an unwillingness to give up when I know I'm right since I really do hate arguments and am not very good at arguing. Reading Beagle's absolute refusal to do more than insist that the lede should contain next to nothing related to their poor history of accidents, etc., and Rangoon's same old, same old, just leaves me bewildered and not knowing what to say other than the same old as well. What really is left to say, anyway? I will make a note on the dispute page and perhaps Binsternet will as well. Don't worry, this will work out because if it doesn't it would mean that WP has failed, and I don't think that it has...yet. Gandydancer (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You might enjoy Binksternet's note to me on my talk page. I had asked him about streamlining the path to calling out the inevitable attempts by big biz to spin articles. I don't know how open Wikipedia is to change and new ideas, but since Scientology and the Pentagon have been busted editing articles here, we have proof that there is reason to be on the lookout for it. There are pages that any idiot could realize might be targets. My idea is that on those pages (or every page) should be something like a 'whistleblower button'. A simple way to call for someone to come take a look. There should be a speedier process to deal with it, especially when it's this obvious. We'll see. I am certainly willing to fight for something like that. But to leave it up to little peeps to take time off work, to spend a whole month of their summer - is NOT a good method of dealing with corporate spin. And even though i have come across two other articles in need of the same attention (US Air Force will not allow anything controversial on their page, Exxon does not mention anything but positive in their Intro) as Tony Hayward would say, I want my life back! So I would rather spend my time fighting for a cure than battling each symptom I come across. It's funny I was the one telling you to have faith, now the tables have turned. Thank you for the encouragement!petrarchan47^Tc 05:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Petrarchan, the reason that I have hope is that you have done so much work and are able to present your arguments and thoughts so well. If it was just up to me I would have given up long ago. In fact, I've seen even good editors, a lot better than I, give up when they were faced with the fact that alone they were fighting a losing battle. (That would be MastCell, who I've come to see as the best of the best around here.) I spent a lot of time working on a long reply to Rangoon but when I got up this morning I could hardly stand to read it and decided that I have been led around in circles with a ring in my nose long enough and didn't post it. I left a note on WC's page and I hope that he will either take some sort of action or offer suggestions.

By the way, what does your name mean? I chose the name Gandy dancer because it represents a group of people working under difficult conditions but finding a way to bring cooperation, and some joy as well, into their efforts. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, I wanted to say, I also can't stand to fight. And I have wanted to just give up for about 3 weeks due to the fact that this DR is making feel ill, very literally. Then I think about the fact that someone would win due to the fact that they were able to withstand ugly confrontation the longest - and I can't stand that idea even more than I can't stand the fighting. Did you notice Binksternet's comment in the DR? He isn't planning on giving up. Editors at DR have been inserting comments in different places now, not at the very bottom as we're used to. So you may have missed a few good ones. I'll email you the reason for my name :) petrarchan47^Tc 20:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I continue to follow all of the comments at DR and look forward to discussion for a resolution. Gandydancer (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say thank you for your supportive words. I am hoping that my participation isn't required for this to move forward. Hopefully I will have posted enough information that the argument can stand on its own. I say this because next week I leave for a meditation retreat. petrarchan47^Tc 22:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What would you think of taking this to the Administrators Noticeboard? I feel sure the right move would happen if some Admin were able to see this and give input.petrarchan47^Tc 07:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the task force person has shown no interest in the dispute regarding the lede. I have no experience in bringing an issue to the "higher-ups" and am not willing to do it on my own. Do you think that it would be best to wait till you return from your retreat?

Connolley has opened many new areas of controversy which IMO is often considered to be a poor choice when an on-going major disagreement is yet to be resolved. Of course, others may have different opinions but I find it easier to try to work with one issue at a time. Gandydancer (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I think because of the activity on the page, the action should take place asap. I think the best idea would be to trust the process. Admins should be able to see the problem as easily as others have. By the time I return, that page could be completely different, and not in a good way. I'll initiate it, and like the DRN, others can add their 2 cents. I'll leave you a link here in case you feel to do that. petrarchan47^Tc 20:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I left ya hanging...

I never got back to getting those references together for the discussionat OWS. Real life has found its way back in to my life and I have been working on several Paintings the I began many years ago. One almost 25 years ago. In short...I'm using the other side of my brain at the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It is good that you are back to doing some art. I have gone through stretches in my life when I did a lot of drawing and painting but it has been many (too many) years since I have picked up a brush or piece of chalk. I have found that during the time that I am painting/drawing my eyes are more open to the grace and beauty around me. My extensive garden takes most of my time in the summer. I have recently read a few articles that clearly needed help but I just let the emotions pass by of late... Anyway, I value your friendship and hope you will continue to find a little time for WP when the time seems right. Gandydancer (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, Gandy. I've replied at my talk! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Connolley, since you seem to understand...

I refr you to User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleting graphs from Milk

In your edit summary, you stated that "this graph is WAY off" (there are actually two; I assume you have issues with both) as your reason for deleting it. I checked the date on which the graphs were added and found them to be fairly recent images (just a few months ago), and they seem to be from reputable sources, so I don't think they were out of date or grossly inaccurate, as your edit summary seems to imply. Can you explain what is wrong with the graphs? If not, I don't see any reason to delete them.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

They are very inaccurate. New Zealand is the largest exporter and Japan (or China) is the largest importer. If you want to include them please find a source that documents your figures. Gandydancer (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

They are not my figures; see the 'source' box on the graphs' file description pages. According to that, they are from the "Economic Complexity Observatory, MIT Media Lab and the Center for International Development at Harvard University". If that's not a source that documents the figures in and of itself, I don't know what is. Can you find a source for your figures?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 09:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

See Dairy farming. I realize that they are not your figures but you are responsible for them if you add the graph.Gandydancer (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even the one that added the graph. I merely put it back because your edit summary suggested removing material without properly checking it first. At any rate, the sources for that information in the dairy farming article are from 2007 and 2008. These graphs may reflect more recent information. Can you find any recent sources to contradict the graphs?  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious that New Zealand would not go from the largest exporter to exporting only a very small amount in only 4 or 5 years. Same thing for Japan and China - who incidentally are not even included in the graph. I should think that you'd find it odd that the graphs show Germany as both leading exporters and importers. Following the link for the graph one has no idea where they may have got their information. I believe that that graph was added to the article by an editor that likes pretty pictures. I'm going to remove it because it is obviously incorrect. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the editor that added the graphs, then? The page history shows that they were added by User:Doubleodd. I think it would be best to not go around assuming that some editors simply like to add pretty graphics to pages—presumably this person thought that the graphs were correct and relevant, and added them to the page for some reason other than to beautify it. Maybe it's best to leave the graphs out of the page until this gets cleared up, but I don't think it's a good idea to simply assume that the graphs are wrong based on an old statistic you read, and that editors only add pictures because they like the appearance.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 19:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says this may be the first time in five years that New Zealand, the world’s biggest dairy exporter, produces less milk, at a time when surging corn prices are raising costs for U.S. farmers. Dated July, 2012. [8] Gandydancer (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4