User talk:Michaelbluejay

DON'T LEAVE MESSAGES HERE.

If your message is about how I edited an article, please discuss on the *article's* talk page, NOT HERE. Only non-editing-related messages should be left on this page. MichaelBluejay (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T LEAVE MESSAGES HERE

If your message is about how I edited an article, please discuss on the *article's* talk page, NOT HERE. Only non-editing-related messages should be left on this page. MichaelBluejay (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetic realism

You wrote [1]: I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to leave this message but I could not find any other way to message you on this system. I requested that the "Aesthetic realism" article be locked and you did lock it, but unfortunately locked it to a vandalized version. The members of this group kept excising my addition that many former members consider it to be a cult, and the link to my site about it, [1] (http://michaelbluejay.com/x/). I think it's important to tell both sides of the story, of course. I've never removed any of their ridiculous gushing praise about their philosophy and their leader, I've just added my own very short comment. But they routinely go in there and delete it, since they want no public criticism. Actually, unless this changes, they don't have to do so any more, because their sabatoged version is now locked into place. I hope you will be able to add the other side back in. I added it to the External Links section but I expect they'll take that out any minute, if they haven't already. Oh, my username is MichaelBluejay. You can contact me directly at AR(at)michaelbluejay.com if you need to. Thank you very much for your help.

It was not locked by me, I do not have such rights (but maybe I asked admins to lock it). I remember I reverted someone who vandalised the page with text "Aesthetic realism is a cult", giving any futher explanation. I know nothing about the topic, I only do clean up after vandalism.

If you can contribute, please formulate it first on the Talk page, trying to reach some consensus (just one link or shout is almost guaranteed to get reverted). Usual practice is to have section like "Criticism of ...". Quite often this process works.

If that fails the article may be put under request for coordination (but this is slow, bureaucratic process with long waiting lines).

I also noted that the narrative quality of the article isn't the highest. You may rewrite it and put your version on e.g. Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Version_from_michaelbluejay or on your Talk page. This version may serve as starting point for possible disputes.

Pavel Vozenilek 01:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Thanks for your comment, but I don't think I can claim to have rescued the article. As you'll see from my comment on the AR talk page, I've followed your lead in giving up on trying to make it a good article.

I'm curious, though, about the size of the group. Is there any hard evidence anywhere? I would've thought it was bigger than the 120 that (I think) you estimated). My perspective may be bent, though, because I live in Manhattan, where I gather they're strongest. For a while I patronized a bicycle shop (Conrad's) where the "Victim of the Press" buttons were to be seen. JamesMLane 06:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Update on Aesthetic Realism article

I was on holiday w/o inet access so I didn't reply immediatelly. I do not know much about the topic - I am from Czech Republic and just have watch on the article because of some vandal long ago - so I am not the best person to make any judgements here. If its not possible to come up to some consesus meditation commitee could be used. Pavel Vozenilek 10:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page

I didn't find the note on my talk page that you mentioned. There may have been a problem when posting: would you mind posting it again? – Clockwork Soul 15:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Gentlemen,

I'm sending the same message to both Aperey and Michaelbluejay as a coutesy to let both of you know that I scanned through the talk pages in the small amount of time I have had available to me the last few days, and I've noticed a few points that I think that we can agree on. I know that both of you have very strong feelings about Aesthetic Realism, and that you both want the article to be as fair as possible.

Just a couple of quick things that you should both know about the mediation process:

If you like, either of you may choose to contact an advocate from the Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates to lend you a hand, publicly or privately, through this mediation.
You may contact me at any time through email (clockworksoul AT optonline.net), and all such emails are entirely confidential.
The first step in most disputes is to revert the page back to a state before the dispute started. If I do that, it will be sometime on Wednesday evening (Eastern Time).

To start things off, I would like to ask everybody involved for a couple of things. First, it would be very helpful if you would please send me an email, clarifying your position and points, as they relate to you and the article (not the other party). Second, it may be best if both of you disengage from the article for a couple of days: continuing a disagreement on the talk pages usually makes the mediation process much more difficult.

That's all for now. Again, please feel free to contact me at any time. – Clockwork Soul 22:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Just letting you know I'd replied on my talk page, in case you weren't watching it. - Outerlimits 20:57, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I thought you may be interested, and wanted to make you aware of this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Arnold Perey - Jonathunder 02:36, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

AR

Several editors are attempting to build a compromise version of the AR article which will be NPOV and stable. As you've been actively involved in editing, and have a distinct POV to contribute, you're invited to participate. Talk:Aesthetic Realism/temp Cheers, -Willmcw 21:07, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Editing your own comments

I recommend against removing your comments about Aperey as the author of the passages you disputed. You're right that it's a kind of revisionism; specifically, it would leave his response dangling with no antecedent, making him look stupid without justification. What some editors do in a situation like that is to ~~strike out~~ their own previous comment, with or without the insertion of a substitution (e.g., here you might add "TS" in each place). This preserves the record of what was originally said but makes clear that you've withdrawn the statement you previously posted. You can do it by inserting the <strike> tag at the beginning of what you're striking out and the </strike> tag at the end. JamesMLane 07:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Mass

Hi! Just to let you know that I've added a long and rambling reply to your question at Critical Mass. I hope that there is something useful in there. JeremyA (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I decided to try the Critical Mass page without the list. I think that it is possible that it can be exclude on the grounds of verifiability:how can I, or any other individual editor, verify that all these rides still occur? Instead I have made a note in the external links section of the two web pages that carry lists. If no one complains then I am happy to leave the page as it is now. JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin's Law

I noticed your mention that you knew Mike Godwin. You might be interested to know that he's edited and discussed the Godwin's law article. JamesMLane 01:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Aesthetic Realism so that we may begin the mediation. -- Essjay · Talk 02:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please start mediation already. -Willmcw 19:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that! I've left you a note on my talk page, but would add I doubt some of the superfluous facts Samivel just added. (Kranz, Harris, van Griethuysen, and Shields appear on David Susskind together with four representatives of the Gay Liberation Front. Is that true? They may have appeared on the same show, in separate segments rather than together? If they appeared together, how did AR censor them out of their transcript so effectively? Ah, well, that should only be the biggest error! - Outerlimits 21:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of changes that might be negociated...User:Outerlimits/draft - Outerlimits 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The transcript was of the Jonathan Black interview, not the Susskind interview--isn't that so? Nobody altered a thing.--samivel 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothesis

I added my edit summary (accusing the Wikipedia article of inaccuracy) before I read it, going on your claim. It turns out that you misrepresented it; the testability is specific to a scientific hypothesis. Hypotheses about angels are not scientific, thus don't need to be testable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism

This is precisely why I had a cleanup tag on the article. An anonymous user posting from a dynamic IP range has been adding nonsense to this article for a long time. Thanks for removing the junk. Unfortunately, the anon will just add it back in. --Viriditas 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comments

i can't edit the vegan page cause i'm new, but i liked your changes. good job! JamieJones 21:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your lighting addition

thanks for your good addition to the lighting article...i wanted to put this in and didnt have a reference at hand...do you have a reference for this myth versus reality thanks Anlace 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes i do understand the phenomenon and have some publications where ive measured it, but i was hoping to find a more independent journal article or textbook...lik you i didnt want to self promote with my own publication :}, best regards Anlace 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the thougnt, about your adding the ref, ill have to dig it out ...its not on line...its just in a dusty technical article somewhere in my archives cheers Anlace 00:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pages

When pages are deleted, they don't appear in contributions, as they no longer exist. You could check the deletion log, but in fact I came across them while patrolling New Pages, and they were all created within minutes of each other on the day that I deleted them (when I placed the message on her Talk page, warning her about it). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cult suicide

I removed the section you added to Cult suicide because it did not meet the criteria of the article:

Cult suicide is that phenomenon by which some religious groups, in this context often referred to as "cults", have led to their membership committing suicide. Sometimes all members commit suicide at the same time and place. Groups which have done this include, Heaven's Gate, Order of the Solar Temple, Peoples Temple (Jonestown), and the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God. In other cases certain denominations apparently supported mass suicide, but did not necessarily encourage all members to do it. Examples here include Filippians, the Taiping, and a few others.

The criteria might apply to Baird, but there is not verifiable info to prove that it does. It certainly does not apply to Siegel, who cannot be thought of as a member of the group, but rather as its leader. -Will Beback 04:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Optimization

Why would a internal wiki link the generanl accepted governing body of SEO be removed as Spam? It seems 100% relevant to me and an important link for newer folks that may be interested to find that such and organiztion does exist. I'm adding it back in at this point. -Jcsquardo 12:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you revert linkspam, be sure to tag the user's talk page with a spam warning. More info (standard invite): Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Gambling

Hey there, Michaelbluejay. We're organizing a WikiProject Gambling, and you're invited. Come on over (if you're interested) and add your name to the list of participants. It will be fun.Rray 02:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Seasonal energy efficiency ratio

For example, if an air conditioner provides 5000 BTU of cooling, and has an SEER rating of 10, then on average over the cooling season it will consume 500 watt-hours of electric power (5000 divided by 10).

This cannot be right. A 5000 BTU AC uses about 600 watts, and thus will consume 500 watt-hours in *less than an hour*, not *over the whole cooling season*! -MichaelBluejay 22:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, according to the Department of Energy website, the correct formula is the BTU's OVER THE WHOLE SEASON, not the BTU's per hour. I'll edit the article accordingly. -MichaelBluejay 23:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I think you are mis-interpreting what you read. The sentence you quoted is saying that the 500 watt-hr rate of power use is an average hourly energy use during the cooling season. It does not mean the total energy use during the entire cooling season.

Perhaps reading [2] and scrolling down a bit to the definition given there may help you understand.

However, since you mis-intrepreted what was meant, perhaps others will also do so. Can you suggest a re-wording for that sentence? - mbeychok 00:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Proposal

Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects#WikiProject Animal Rights and Welfare. Cheers, Localzuk ^(talk) 10:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Shame not a Reliable Source, per wp:External_links

Again removing Hall of Shame web link. This web link doe snot meet wikipedia standards. In this case, there are many reasons:

Nikki Craft put the web link here. I respect her, and her desire to do good. However, she is an activist, and has an agendum. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link" She does not have a NPOV, which is why she is a great (well known, and effective) activist.

Second, same link as above "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. " I have done an in-depth look at the article, and it is in fact a worrisome article that makes one think. But, it is a long an attack by Ms. Craft, based on her personal experience, and she gives numerous anecdotal data. None of it is backed by research. Also, the people that she has mentioned she claims are pedophiles. No causal link between nudity or naturism and pedophilia has been suggested by anyone other than Ms. craft, or a subject of any research. So, in fact, the site has factually inaccurate material, and is not considered to be a reliable source.

Please don't add it back in again, or I will need to involve an administrator to help resolve the issue.

Atom 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, after reviewing your web page, and your Wikipedia profile, you seem like a fine fellow. I'd appreciate it if you could just wait for other input from the RfC before you add the link back in. If you read wp:EL, and wp:Reliable sources it might help to clarify things. Regards, Atom 23:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Criticism of the clothes free movement‎ , you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Michael, I am trying very hard to understand your position. Every time I make a change to Criticism of the clothes free movement‎ , or nikki craft you revert my changes. I've stated in too much detail the reasons and wikipedia policy behind it. I asked nicely for you to stop, and then gave you a warning. I'm sorry that you perceive a legitimate warning as a threat. I'm only asking you to stop reverting legitimate work by others. Atom 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me

Michael, I've been trying to e-mail you with three different addresses (including the java one from your personal website). Please contact me if you have an e-mail address of mine or write on my talk page about the best way to get a hold of you. I can also call you you, I have Vonage.

User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the clothes free movement

Hey Michaelbluejay. Thanks for working to help make Wikipedia a better reference work; your efforts are appreciated!

I just wanted to state my opinion that edit wars usually are not very productive; it may be a better idea to see if you can come to an agreement on the talk page. And be careful not to revert more than 3 times in 24 hours because of WP:3RR.

Once again, thanks for helping out Wikipedia. Happy editing! -- Where 02:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music articles

Both the general guideline Wikipedia:External links and the very specific semi-guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/External linking discourage linking to fan sites. However, as you point out, good research requires using more than one source. External links are just there for readers to find more information. Sources are different. They provide the information we use for the article and we should have as many reliable ones as are available. The problem is that fansites are not normally relaible sources. Sometimes they'll have a copy of a reliable source, like a review (illegally) copied from a magazine. For a group like ABBA it's possible that some fans have banded together to create such a high quality site that it'd count. If so it could be used as a reference even if it weren't appropriate for an external link.

Regarding another point - previous consensus is not binding on current editors. We shouldn't just ignore good arguments from the past but if a consensus of current editors feel differently they aren't obliged to abide by a past decision. If you feel strongly about including a link you can try to rally support for it. You've already discovered how few responses RfCs can get. You could also drop a line over at the Music project, perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rock_music#Conflict_resolution, but I'm doubting you'd get a warm response there either.

Another option with Wikipedia is simply trying to outlast those with conflicting opinions. Even editors who are quite involved for sime time may wonder off after a while. So if there's opposition to the link now there might not be in six months or a year. Unless you're in a hurry I suppose the easiest thing to do is keep an eye on the article and try again when the time seems right. I hope that helps. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to soy protein

Michaelbluejay, I reverted your change to soy protein[3] simply because there are enough reliable sources to back up the statement that soy is a complete protein, meaning that As per WP:VERIFY, the statement is a valid inclusion into the article. Thanks. Yankees76 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Craft

I removed a comment of yours

On Atom's talk because the tone will only serve to inflame the situation. If you replace it, I'll do nothing. I did not remove it in any "official" capacity and am not at all suggesting any "consequences" if you don't listen to this advice, but please do listen: Use calmer language. Be "nicer" if you can. even if the other person doesn't seem to you to be being nice at all, don't fall to what you see as their level. We all want the article to be the best it can be while still conforming to the encyclopedia's standards, correct? - brenneman 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC AR4

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner - your reqest got lost in the clutter and then I went away for a few days. I took a look at the matter and there's little I can do to help. While I am interested in climate modelling in general I haven't followed the ins and outs of the current global warming debate and have no independent epxertise. Speaking generically, opnion pieces and LTEs have very low value as sources, pretty much limited to cases in which those have already been reported on elsewhere or where the writers are very noteworthy. The CFP is a fringe publisher and doesn't confer reliability on a piece that they reprint. If the viewpoint is notable it's possible that others have made the same criticism and then numbers add weight. Even fringe ideas are worth reporting if enough people believe them and NPOV requires that we incude all notable viewpoints, even the "wrong" ones. If I were you I'd ask the other editors how to cover that viewpoint in a way that's acceptable to everyone. If that doesn't work and if you are willing to devote the time and energy to see this through, you might try the steps outlined in WP:DR. But it's a contentious topic so don't expect easy sailing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users

Asking once is OK, but don't pester a user. Assuming they aren't trying to hide a long block record to other subterfuge, it's permissible for editors to stop editing under one name and return with another. I had asked because the user made an identical point as a previous user. But in a group sometimes folks think alike, so we shuold just take their word for it. Will Beback talk 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground. This isn't a place to settle scores, no matter how legitimate.

Separately, while Aesthetic Realism is an interesting topic, there are few reliable sources for it. If the conflict over the article continues I may recommend that it be "stubbed" down to a single sentence, and rebuilt primarily from reliable, secondary sources. It might end up being less than 500 words. I doubt that's what anyone really wants. Instead of fighting I suggest seeking compromises that are acceptable to everyone. Will Beback talk 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion therapy

I've placed an RFC over including Aesthetic Realism in the history section of the conversion therapy article. You could have done this yourself if you wanted to build consensus. Please do not continue to edit war over this. Born Gay (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Michaelbluejay, you told me not to comment on your talk page, but I am going to do so anyway, because I have little choice. The conversion therapy talk page has become too long and bloated, and I am finding it increasingly difficult to load it in my browser or to place comments there. Furthermore, the topic of Aesthetic Realism is only marginally related to conversion therapy, which makes commenting here more appropriate in any case.

You commented that my assertion that, "There are no sources that support the claim that Aesthetic Realism has anything more than a very minor relevance to the history of conversion therapy" was "patently untrue" and that I "continue to ignore the plethora of sources which show that AR's CT was *highly* visible, promoted on television interviews, two books, a short film, and multiple large ads in the largest newspapers in the U.S." You are, I'm afraid, entirely missing my point, evidently because you do not understand Wikipedia's content policies. None of the sources that you added to the article, which show that Aesthetic Realism's treatments for homosexuality were highly visible in the United States, discuss it as part of the history of conversion therapy. What goes in the history section of the conversion therapy article depends upon what sources that deal with the history of conversion therapy consider important, per due weight. Those sources do not consider Aesthetic Realism important, or even mention it.

Your comments, "How many times have I asked you for a definition of Conversion therapy and for your argument of how AR does not meet that definition?" and "Until you provide a definition of CT (which is incorporated into the article) and show how AR does not meet that definition, I don't believe you have any basis for removing AR from the article" show considerable ignorance. I've tried patiently to explain several times that there is no one "definition of conversion therapy" that can be offered. Whether Aesthetic Realism "meets the definition" or not is thus not an issue worth addressing.

Your comment that, "I reject your spurious suggestion that the topic is inherently undefinable. In any event, it's impossible to have an article on *any* subject unless there's some consensus of what the heck the subject is in the first place" is foolish and quite childish. Anyone properly aware of the reliable sources that deal with conversion therapy knows that there is no one, agreed-upon definition. If you truly think that it's impossible to have an article about conversion therapy if there is no agreement on what it is, then you should nominate the article for deletion, though I should warn you that doing so would be regarded as disruptive.

Regarding your comment that I "ignore, obfuscate, and keep changing [my] positions", please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Born Gay (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I laughed out loud when I read this. The very definition of a wiki-nemesis! This is the most entertaining post I have ever read. I'm sorry it was placed on your page! Hyper3 (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Conversion therapy, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to suggest references to the article on the article talk page. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?! How condescending of you to "welcome" me to Wikipedia, even though I've been here for years. And it's doubly insulting of you to say that I didn't cite sources, when I cited *multiple* sources. If you don't like my edits, discuss on the article's Talk page, and stay off mine. MichaelBluejay (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its the darn template, I apologise if it appeared condescending. The "nicer" one "welcomes"; those which don't welcome are harsher. I was trying to be a little nicer. However, your sourcing to a self published website is inadequate; please read WP:V AND WP:RS. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are the standardized warnings:

Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material	{{subst:uw-unsourced1}}	{{subst:uw-unsourced2}}	{{subst:uw-unsourced3}}	{{subst:uw-generic4}}

So you see the issues. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

71

Maybe my comment came was tone-deaf, because I meant the entire message as a glowing complement, acknowledging that you were deeply committed to your mission, so much so and that it sometimes shined through as a wiki editor--if not in the articles themselves, then in the tone and content of the comments. I have a good idea what you have gone through editing this article, and I'm sure that it's come from a deep commitment to routing deception in all its forms. That's all I meant. You're doing such a good job with your bigger mission that sometimes it might be hard for you to do the little stuff without your pov being apparent. And you're right that npov only applies to actual writing not people themselves or their opinions. I meant nothing at all critical by it and thought you'd identify "downright lousy" with your visibly dogged commitment, not your actual skills, which have never been in dispute. 71.224.206.164 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of vegans

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of vegans. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AR sources

Thanks for participating in the drafting process, and for contributing to keeping a collegial atmosphere. I looked more closely at your draft and noted some problems with sources. First, we can only link to material that has been published in reliable sources, so materials that are published originally on your wesbsite don't qualify. Second, we can only link to copies of previously published materials that don't violate copyright. You do have permission for the NY Post article, but I don't see permission for the NYT ad or for the National Lampoon cartoon, for example. Finally, please avoid adding any text that is likely to offend AR members. While that doesn't mean we need to "pussy-foot" or leave out verifiable information, we should avoid using derogatory terms like "changeling". Antogonizing other editors just makes the process more difficult. Will Beback talk 02:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can still cite the ad and the cartoon, we just can't link to them. I posted this here to avoid disturbing the discussion on the talk page, which now concerns the early history material. We can get into this more fully, if necessary, once we've dealt with that stuff. Will Beback talk 03:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Hi. Could you please explain your rationale behind this edit. Remember WP:BRD - a bold edit was made, and reverted. You have now repeated the edit. Please build consensus for your proposed change. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is for you, not the whole AR editing group, so I'm putting it here. I'm not too keen on your insinuation that I'm being fleeced by the AR folk. I'll leave it to sources what is or is not happening. If you have good sources on the homosexuality issue, then great. If not, I can't take your word for it either way, since you are not an RS and you have an enormous COI, although I do respect what you have done to publicize your experience and opinions. Sources first, presumptions about other editors' motives or understanding can be left out. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I thought you might be interested in trying to track down some of these sources. I take it the AR folks can provide plenty of inside publications and writings, but the mainstream/critical ones are fairly old and not as easy to get. Most are paywalled, but might be searchable. I'm not sure if some of them aren't already on the source subpage.

These are archived at various newspapers:

These are written by AR but are still interesting reading:

[11]
[12]

Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 11:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]