User talk:Feoffer

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the We Stand Tall page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

We can't consider the tate family legacy site a reliable source because it isn't independent, nor does it have neutral editorial insight. You'll need to find other sources for those areas of the article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bruce M. Davis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Feoffer, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce M. Davis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LaMona (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer,

I see there's a dead ref link on Scientology beliefs and practices: the ref called "urban2006" was introduced in this edit, but without a matching citation. Do you know how to fix this problem? Let me know if you have problems along the way. --Slashme (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:L Ron Hubbard R2-45 Racket Exposed ads.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was:

The Steve Marshall site, Biroco, is a personal site, thus not reliable and should not be used. Self-published books (e.g. Lulu.com) cannot be used as sources. You should include a short bibliography of his works rather than just a link. If any of the books he wrote have ISBNs, please include those (because they become links to libraries and bookstores). For book references that you found through Google, be sure to cite the book with a full citation, not the Google page. You can find good book citations at http://worldcat.org - at the top right there is a link to download a citation.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:C.F. Russell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.   Thank you. Grammar's Li'l Helper Discourse 22:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.F. Russell, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN has been opened concerning R2-45 naming you as a contesting editor. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Discourse 22:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 23:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Purpose_of_Wikipedia and a number of other points in that decision by your editing of R2-45 and failure to collaborate. The terms of that decision will be invoked if you continue in your present course of action. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article R2-45 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on îbehalf of Sfarney -- Sfarney (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those diffs - they'll be useful for preparing an arbitration enforcement request. Could I please ask you a favour, as I think you've been involved with the article longer than me? Could you dig out any diffs in which they've attacked Tony Ortega? Prioryman (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your info: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sfarney. Prioryman (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your further info: [2]. Hopefully the article (and the wider topic area) will have a chance to develop with a bit less disruption, at least for the next year. Good luck with your editing and thanks for your help with the diffs. Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Scientology R2-45: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 06:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article R2-45 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:R2-45 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. 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]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Still not satisfying our basic policies as the sources are only announcements and mentions.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Monique Yingling and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 17:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry M. Parkhurst, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elmina D. Slenker, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Typhonian Order into Draft:Agape Lodge. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agape Lodge, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For the great work on the Agape Lodge article. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eddie891 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

You are almost there, but just need a few more in-depth sources

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Louis Goldstone and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Monique Yingling, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cynthia Goldstone".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Louis T. Culling".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Louis Goldstone, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Louis Goldstone".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Monique Yingling, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Monique Yingling".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  » Shadowowl | talk 16:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. 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]

Friendship and Fratricide, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lisa McPherson into Scientology and psychiatry. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. There’s actually very little I remember about the Agape Lodge. I was a babe in arms when my parents moved to 1003 and about 3 or 4 when they moved to a house with my grandmother. I remember Ron Hubbard (I know he’s called L. Ron, but I remember calling him Ron) and Dr. Regardie quite well- Dr. Regardie was a regular dinner guest until I was 11.

I believe my parents were very upset about their time in Agape Lodge and spent a lot of their lives trying to make up for it. They continued their study of Magick with BOTA , Qabalah, Regardie and Paul Case and the rest of the Hollywood community.

What is your interest in OTO and how do you know about it? Pshill555 (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Foeffer: Here's what I remember about L. Ron Hubbard along with a brief history of my parents' involvement with Magick.

Rosicrucian Order, Agape Lodge, BOTA, Dr. Israel Regardie, SUBUD

My Mom, Margot, joined the Rosicrucian Order during the ‘30’s and moved to San Jose after studying Theosophy for awhile in Los Angeles. My father, Fred, also joined the Rosicrucian Order in the 30’s (along with his mother Clare Gwynn) and moved to San Jose from Los Angeles. They met and were married in 1941 within the order. I was born in 1943. Herbert Spence was my godfather (he must have been godfather to many, many of the order’s children)

My father was apparently a spectacular student and was encouraged by adepts within the Rosicrucian Order to join the Agape Lodge of OTO in 1943 or 1944 to continue his magical education. (I believe, but cannot verify, that there was a strong connection between the Rosicrucian Order and Aleister Crowley at that time). My father, mother, and I, as a babe in arms, moved to 1003 South Orange Grove Avenue. In time my father became the Lodge Secretary.

In 1946 or 47 my parents purchased a house in the Silver Lake District of Los Angeles where they moved with my grandmother. I believe they broke with the Lodge and OTO at that time but remained friends with a woman I remember as Alma. My father continued studying Magick with Israel Regardie, DC. My mother became L. Ron Hubbard’s private secretary and helped to edit the book on Dianetics.

Ron was a frequent guest in our house at this time. While my father was at work, Ron and my mother would practice some of the principles that were the core of his book – I remember - mind you, I was maybe 5 so much of this is very simplistic – there were “buttons” – hurtful events that had occurred in the past made “buttons” that, when “pushed” elicited a behavioral or emotional reaction. We also practiced “going back along the time tract” to erase these “buttons”.

They practiced hypnosis as a way accessing the "time track”. I was an available, and therefore frequent subject. A pendulum would be produced. I would be asked to look at it. An image would be discussed – walking backward, going down a flight of stairs, taking a journey, falling asleep. I’d be asked to look at my reflection in a mirror lit with a candle and report how it changed. My level of hypnosis would be checked by response to pain – a lighted cigarette would be stubbed out on my arm; a needle would be run through my thigh.

My father disliked Ron, even though I doubt he knew about the afternoon practice sessions and my role in them. When Ron boasted about having caused a complete stranger to trip by pacing him down the street and then altering the rhythm of the pace (I vividly remember this story), my father asked my mother to sever all ties. She did this. She then went on to ghost write and edit a book on Hypnosis.

My father, who had nothing at all to do with Ron Hubbard and his book (he would quip that inventing a religion was Ron’s way of becoming rich) studied with Dr. Regardie quite seriously and was initiated into Qabalistic principles. Dr. Regardie was a frequent dinner guest. I adored him. When my cat fell from a second story balcony, Dr. Regardie rushed over to straighten his spine. When I was exposed to polio, he stayed with us for several nights providing periodic chiropractic adjustments to make sure nothing settled in my body. Although I was forced into quarantine for a month, I merely developed a bad cold with no other symptoms. When I announced that my path in life was to dance and teach dance, he brought me psychology texts and discussed them with me weekly to divert my interest.

Both my parents, following the advice of Dr. Regardie, joined Builders of the Atydum, Ltd (BOTA), and became close friends of Paul Foster Case. We visited Dr. Case and his wife, Hilary, regularly because he had a lovely grand piano and my mother, a pianist, and he enjoyed playing duets and four hand piano pieces. Dr. Case also was an excellent stage magician and amused me with card tricks. I loved Dr. Case, his wife and little dog and was devastated when he passed on.

This doesn’t show up in Dr. Case’s biography, so it’s possible I’m very mistaken. My father told me that Dr. Case was, along with a musician and both stage and practical magician, a physician and student of Wilhelm Reich like Dr. Regardie. He said Dr. Case had been imprisoned for awhile for practicing non-AMA approved medicine. If this is true, Dr. Case had given up medical practice when we met him.

Ann Davies was Dr. Case’s secretary. She and my mother were good friends, so she often came to our home. There was another BOTA member who was a concentration camp survivor who was also a close friend – I don’t remember this woman’s name, but she had serious spinal issues and walked with a cane.

As a family we studied BOTA subjects on a daily basis. We worked with the meaning and interplay of color and sound – this was of particular interest to both my parents as my mother was a musician and my father was a sound engineer. We had a chart of the Tree of Life that had been carefully constructed with a protractor and ruler and hand colored with fine inks. I now understand this was a Chakra Chart. We carefully and meticulously colored the Major Arcana Tarot Cards with those ink. I still have my child sized cards – 3.5 x 5”- as well as my parents’ Tarot cards and their color cards. We were each assigned major Arcana cards based on our birthdates and personalities and were expected to study and meditate with them daily.

My parents remained Rosicrucian and BOTA members throughout their lives. They also, in the early 1960’s, joined SUBUD and remained active members until their transitions. Bapak changed my father’s name to Rafael. SUBUD offered a gentleness and camaraderie to their lives that the other organizations never encouraged.

I have inherited a significant collection of occult works from my parents. My cousin inherited other occult works from our Grandmother. Taken together, they amount to a significant collection.

Pshill555 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Peggy[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). books on the occult and letters that were preserved within them, personal memories, manuscripts of my mother's ghost writing.

Foeffer, I would love to talk with others about OTO, Rosicrucians, Hubbard (shudder), BOTA and SUBUD - but don't really know how to use those links. Help please! Peggy

Thank you for uploading File:ForbesMagazine October2003 FrontCover KeithRaniere.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chetsford was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Though elaborately referenced, the sources don't provide significant biographical detail about the subject, primarily consisting of quotes or passing mentions in cases in which he's involved. This doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marc Agnifilo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marc Agnifilo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at L. Ron Hubbard instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Timeline articles for individual people are not appropriate. Important information from this draft is already present at L. Ron Hubbard.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing why you have been reversing my entries on Scientology, as nothing of what I have posted has been shown to be unreliable. In fact, a number of these sources aren't even from CESNUR, which has not been shown to be unreliable only allegations of it as "unreliable" are thrown about without evidence, especially as CESNUR's own page has no evidence of this. Did you read the cited pages in the article to see the direct images of the letter and phone transcript in the UCLA archives before you reversed? Iamsnag12 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feoffer, please stop adding bare url´s as sources to CESNUR and other articles. Bare url´s are prone to link-rot and create verifiability problems in the long run. Please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs and Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to construct a full bibliographic citation. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feoffer, I do not want to start a war and I agree that controversy often improves articles. However please see the talk page of CESNUR about James R. Lewis. Everybody who follows the field knows that Lewis, although participating in CESNUR conferences (but so did many others who are certainly not “CESNUR-affiliated”), has a different approach, notably on China, Falun Gong, etc. and this not recently but from many years, That he was “affiliated” with CESNUR does not show up either in his or in CESNUR’s Web sites and should be proved. Also, on the 1997 CESNUR conference in Amsterdam, either the incident about the New Acropolis speaker is not mentioned at all (it becomes a major part of the article, perhaps exaggerated, while CESNUR has been involved in other similar controversies not mentioned there), or if it is, the fact that her participation was cancelled is relevant and should not be omitted. The fact that the participation of this lady was cancelled does not support the idea that CESNUR “defends” New Acropolis. Finally, accusing somebody of defending the Order of the Solar Temple is a very serious charge. You are accusing CESNUR of aiding and abetting criminals. I found only articles “critical” of the Order of the Solar Temple by CESNUR-affiliated authors such as Introvigne, Melton, etc. I know you quote “L’Humanité” but we can perhaps agree that this article was part of a heated controversy and relying on a single source to accuse a whole organization of what is technically a serious crime is grossly unfair. Aidayoung (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree with you move, but moved it again to Murder of Wu Shuoyan - that seems to be unambiguous. Guy (help!) 10:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Scientology. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

JimRenge (talk) 11:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Marc Agnifilo, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Timeline of L. Ron Hubbard".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to say that I've requested for an independent admin to look at the merge closure for the crash articles, and I mentioned your name there as part of what unfolded. I'm assuming good faith in the part of all participants, it's just a request for a fresh pair of eyes, to see if the discussion can be closed early. The discussion is here: [3] Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Killing of George Floyd does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Love of Corey (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a recent edit based on WP:SAID and WP:NPOV. The evidence certainly appears overwhelming that tear gas and/or pepper spray were used. And your proposed subhead may well prove accurate. However given official denials, it's worth giving this another day or two to let the fact checkers dig deeper. - Wikmoz (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Assault on Martin Gugino.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Masem (t) 12:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Assault on Martin Gugino.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for documenting the emergence of PACT. Your work and your diligence are truly important--they are noted and appreciated! Ocaasi t | c 01:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 July 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Roy Den Hollander, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Marc Agnifilo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chad Wolf, you may be blocked from editing. Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to White House outbreak of COVID-19 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!  — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 06:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your creation of the article White House outbreak of COVID-19. Taking that initiative was a very good idea and is much appreciated by someone like me who is looking for a timeline of events. --William Graham ^talk 16:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@William Graham: Thanks for that!!!! I recognized I was being quite bold, but it seemed crucial to the discourse that the events NOT be characterized as a biographical sub-article. Thank you for recognizing this, it meant the world! PS, great name. Feoffer (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should anyone else get author credit? --evrik ^(talk) 19:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of White House COVID-19 outbreak at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 19:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is going up on the main page in a couple of hours. I pulled the figure of 36 confirmed cases from the infobox. Could you add something in prose to the article, like: As of October 7, there are 36 confirmed cases. and source it please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I see the chart. Are there 36 confirmed cases there, or more? Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Please self-revert this edit. Per WP:BRD, this is content I removed that was decidedly added boldly. We can then discuss this on the talk page if you would like. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion begun, but you have an uphill battle. It's a very hard sell to try to argue that we shouldn't cover the Speaker of the House publicly questioning the president's mental state.  :) Feoffer (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is more a "battle" for you, as this article is covered by WP:1RR. I'm asking you to self-revert so that you're not unintentionally breaching. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article White House COVID-19 outbreak, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a COVID-19 outbreak at the White House infected at least 35 people, including the President, First Lady, three senators, and a governor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/White House COVID-19 outbreak. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, White House COVID-19 outbreak), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer, just wanted to let you know that when you made this revert to White House COVID-19 outbreak, you also reverted a few of my edits that fixed some bare URL references and an incorrect reference tag. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Exposed in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tested positive in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Symptomatic in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospitalized in White House COVID-19 outbreak has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not remove visibility of borders in the header row of the table at White House COVID-19 outbreak#People_who_tested_positive_for_COVID-19, because such removal of border visibility seriously affects usability. People have to know where the cells are, and which cells are clickable for sorting. -Mardus /talk 10:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at White House COVID-19 outbreak, you may be blocked from editing. You've admitted to restoring bold content that was reverted by someone else here, and after I removed the bold content again here, you again restored the content with this edit. This article has one-revert-rule restrictions in place covered by WP:ARBAPDS. I'm asking you to self-revert fully as you are in clear violation of 1RR, potentially more than once, and to cease un-reverting when your bold edits are reverted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really having trouble understanding why you refuse to go to the article talk page, propose a change, and talk it over with the other editors. I have seen dozens of WP:STATUSQUO rollbacks, and in every one of them except this one everybody involved "gets it" and takes it to talk. If your proposed changes really are uncontroversial, nobody will object to them.

You are putting me in a bad position. If Onetwothreeip voluntarily stops editing and takes it to talk while you keep editing, that isn't fair to Onetwothreeip. If I tell Onetwothreeip that it's OK to edit, we get a resumption of the edit war. Again I ask you, PLEASE TAKE IT TO TALK. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: I am doing my level-best not to edit war, but my job is to continue improving our articles with novel constructive edits believed to be to be uncontroversial. Your unkind words ("you don't belong here" or such) do not reflect well on you and they certainly don't serve the project. As you request, controversial changes will be proposed on talk (as they have been in the past), but constructive edits are always welcome on our articles, though I may increasingly employ self-reverts after my constructive edits while disruption is on-going. Feoffer (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say they are productive. That doesn't make it true. At least one other editor disagrees. That's why I asked you to take it to talk, to resolve that disagreement. I hereby revoke your license to decide all by yourself that your edits are "believed to be uncontroversial". You have gotten that wrong far too many times. New rule: at least for now you need to ask first. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know why I (and someone else) removed the RfC template you posted about whether to include the September 10 event in the article: RfCs are not to be used every time you want to talk about something at the talk page. If you want to discuss something or get other people's opinions, just start a new thread and discuss. RfCs are for when the issue has already been discussed at the talk page but a consensus has not been reached (remembering that consensus does not have to be unanimous). Per WP:RFCBEFORE: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." -- MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I see I am not the only one who has had to fix your archiving. The {[archive top}} tag should go BELOW the section heading or subheading, and above the text of the discussion. Even after the section is archived, the section heading needs to be visible - not under the archive cap. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Nice work on File:NXIVM influences.png. When you have a minute please correct the spelling of Erhard. Best wishes. MJ (t • c) 17:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Howard C. Cross. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 4#Howard C. Cross until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original title was not at all neutral. Plus you spelled States wrong. I fixed it. ... discospinster _talk 03:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster: Good new title, thanks. Feoffer (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the notice above says there is no implication of issues with your contributions, I am greatly concerned with your approach to BLPs at Emily W. Murphy and its talk. I trust you'll remedy your approach into one which follows our core content policies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--—valereee (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Callanecc, I'm about to impose a two-week topic ban for that article and its talk page on this editor. Too much disruption. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the ongoing disruption on Talk:Emily W. Murphy, as an uninvolved administrator I am topic-banning you from that article and the talk page, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, which allows administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on those whose edits are impediments to the normal process of article improvement. Specifically problematic edits include this, in which you betray a lack of knowledge about WP:RS in general and the articles under discussion in particular; this, which is a really unacceptable personal attack; this, which again shows a lack of knowledge of our policies on reliable sources; this, another personal attack; this, and the earlier edit from 14:28 that started it, which again shows a lack of knowledge of reliable sources; and this edit--more of the same. These interjections, most of which show that essentially you do not know what you are talking about, disrupt the editorial process and waste other editors' time.

If you wish to appeal this sanction, you may do so via the process outlined here, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Obviously I'll respect your ban, though I'll admit I'm a little disheartened to see what look rather like personal attacks in your statement wherein you criticize me for personal attacks -- in future with other users you might consider whether that's optimal or suboptimal. Anyway, I stopped editing the article and actually made conciliatory statements about taking lessons from your earlier feedback, so it's an easy ban to comply with -- it's not as if I was about to edit that page or similar ones anytime soon! Not for all the tea in China as the saying goes. I'll continue drawing lessons from recent experiences as I move forward in other spheres, as I'm sure will we all. Feoffer (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any personal attacks: saying something is a personal attack when it's a personal attack is not a personal attack. At any rate I am happy to see something good may come out of this. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Wilson. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer,

Please do not move an article in the middle of a move discussion, especially one that has only been running a few days. It is disruptive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ryan McCarthy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on 3RR. I’ll take a break. Happy new year Haerdt (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Haerdt (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Music (2021 film)".The discussion is about the topic Music (film 2021).

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer, hab' gesehen, dass Du Dich für die Architektur oder soziale Kartografie des 6/1 interessierst, Christopher Miller /Kash Patel/ Anthony Tata/ Ezra Cohen-Watnick; Barr → Jeffrey A. Rosen. So mag dies Dich auch interessieren:

• von Dave Troy, einem "Network analyst, disinformation specialist" → https://twitter.com/davetroy/status/1360992025848524800

• hier ist er im Gespräch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd4AoRFsHi4

--217.234.66.207 (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Go Phightins! 22:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2021 storming of the United States Capitol into Paul D. Irving. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Template:QuoteTweet sandbox, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. User:GKFX^talk 20:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know an article you created has been nominated for deletion. Please join the discussion: List of police violence incidents during George Floyd protests 👨x🐱 (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Roswell Incident (book)) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously pointed you at the reliable source where I learned the American government's definition of "insurrection", as we were discussing, as a courtesy, because I can't paste links, nothing more or less. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: I understand. I apologize if I got impatient with you. Feoffer (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did, and I'm fine, peace! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit of yours, re-instating the information about Ashli Babbitt's past criminal history. Why do you believe that one event from one participant's past should be included in the article? We do not have the criminal histories of the other people who died. This seems to be WP:UNDUE, as a weak example of this one person being violent at some other time in their life, and it is completely unrelated to the events of the day (January 6). - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get how one might argue that it's unrelated, but reliable sources routinely make mention of the prior violence in reporting on the fatality. Feoffer (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was a biography about her, that would be understandable. But it is completely unrelated to the attack, and is therefore UNDUE. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is completely unrelated to the attack what can I say, RSes cited in the article disagree with you. People want to understand the perpetrator's motives that day and the prior history of violence is clearly relevant. Just as an example off the top of my head (NOT comparing article topics at all), a perpetrator of a Boston Bombing was connected to a triple homicide, and if you go look at our article on the bombing, I'm sure you'll see mention of that fact. (again, not to equate the topics or acts, that's just what popped into my head). Feoffer (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One mention in one article about one "alleged and unproven" incident 5 years ago, is completely irrelevant to the events of January 6th. It reads purely as gossip, and is completely WP:UNDUE. Your argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does nothing to provide any evidence that this information belongs in this article about the storming of the Capitol. I have removed this line again now, and I am requesting that you gain consensus that it needs to be included before restoring without discussion. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer. Can you cite any policy that requires non-admin closures to be re-opened if one person objects? Usually a close can be challenged after the change has been actioned. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onetwothreeip:I think this falls under WP:NACD: "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement." If we didn't need an admin, I wouldn't go looking for one, but we do. Feoffer (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just an unanticipated technical issue, WP:RMT was the right place for Onetwothreeip to go looking for an admin. Unilaterally reverting the close was unnecessary and out of process. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: By all mean, undo me or do whatever is necessary to rectify the situation Feoffer (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what 162 said here; undoing it would probably just complicate things at this point especially since others have commented. Just wanted to give my two cents and discourage you from handling things this way in the future, that's all. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer, please undo the action yourself. It is fortunate that you have the opportunity to do so before it becomes a bigger problem. This also had the consequence of removing comments I added to a talk page. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I express thanks to you for your prompt actions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2021 United States Capitol attack (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on your mick west request. It seems the page is quite political, with a lot of editors resistant to any change in the way the article is written. I agree, The Mick West stuff, in my opinion, is a bit "out there", and completely not in line with the Pentagon Report and various other articles. But the page has a lot of fanatics on it who I think aren't prepared to shift, or acknowledge the shit in attitude to the US Government. Anyway, it was good you posted it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in complementary and alternative medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot of Officer Daniel Hodges crushed during Jan 6 attack.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk (talk) has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else vanilla ice cream, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Sorry for stressing you lately, Feoffer. We may not agree on a lot of things, but I think we can safely say having to defend something we believe in is never fun. Important, maybe, on some arguably deeper level, but August is supposed to be a time for lesser worries and tastier tasks. I got you vanilla because it was all they had, but you can imagine whatever topping you want on it, even ludricrously expensive stuff. Or stuff you were afraid to order as a kid, don't have to ask, just think about it! And if you think this is a "good cop routine", some sort of "Trojan horse attack" or simply laced with "artificial online toxicity", I'm pleased to report it is not, but will understand if you want to throw this in the trash (or however Bremenites are supposed to dispose of wasted ice cream).

To spread the goodness of vanilla ice cream, you can add {{subst:Vanilla ice cream}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

@InedibleHulk: Wow, thanks for hte kind words! No worries whatsoever, sorry if anything I said gave you the impression you were causing stress. Feoffer (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cringe-inducing euphemism" seemed a bit vitriolic, that's all, a little spicy, kind of barbed. Nothing to be sorry about, though, even if I read that correctly. At least you were polite enough to not crank it up to "puke-filled sugarcoat" or some harsher words! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: I certainly didn't mean that to be a dig at the author of the phrase, especially if it was you. Per BLP, we have to be very careful with 'insurrection', but "riot targeting congress" felt like putting our thumbs on the scales to declare an insurrection in all but name. Feoffer (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what that idiom feels like. I don't want to declare it an insurrection, by any rose. Regardless of that, I still have a hard time imagining a more brutally true but reasonable construction for MelanieN's phrase...does "melee measuring up lawmakers" suck as much as I think it does? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer. I understand you are a native speaker of German. I will be grateful if you will offer an English translation of the byline of this Deutsche Welle article, and as much as the remainder of the article as you have the inclination for (paragraphs 3, 4, 5 are the most relevant for WP purposes). It's for use in the article Julian Assange.

Google translate gives "A key witness for the indictment against the imprisoned Wikileaks founder revokes his testimony and MPs from almost all parties appeal to US President Joe Biden - but also to Chancellor Angela Merkel."

Thanks for your help. Cambial foliage❧ 13:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to revert your edits but an FA quality article needs better referencing than bare URLs. JJARichardson (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JJARichardson: I've restored them with better formatted citations. In future with other users, I would encourage you to just directly correct them yourself or wait for your fellow editors to do so, rather than revert the contributions. The refill tool can assist you. Feoffer (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on the UFO pentagon videos page, Feoffer, very much appreciated. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Phenomenon 2020.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Phenomenon 2020.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article No Can Do (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 18:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JFK-UFO conspiracy theories is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JFK-UFO conspiracy theories until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Orange Mike | Talk 02:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kenneth Arnold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ray Palmer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from UFO (1956 film) into UFO conspiracy theories. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your bold move that contradicts and effectively overturns the RM outcome: Special:Diff/1073222839. It is mandatory that process is followed, and the correct venue for what you want to accomplish is Wikipedia:Move Review. RM is one of Wikipedia's formal processes, and it takes another formal process to overturn the outcome of a formal process. Please don't do it again! If I hadn't done this now, someone else could have, at any time in the future, and passage of time would only make the issue worse. You still have room to express your objection using appropriate venues. Regards, tw^sabin 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: I am pinging you to this discussion as it pertains to what is originally your action. Thanks for input. tw^sabin 16:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your position, but I cannot share it. This is a BLP issue. Per nom: I wasn't sure about including Ashli Babbitt here, and probably shouldn't have, as it is an admittedly more controversial case. If we can agree to move the rest, I'll strike it from the nomination. Feoffer (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the disruptive activity. tw^sabin 17:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive --- the nominator clearly removed this title from the proposal. Someone boldly moved the page by mistake to a new titles, and it has been moved back. If you truly believe the new title has consensus, your proposal to move it should be speedily accepted on talk. Feoffer (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the move. The nominator mentioned they would be willing to remove the title from the proposal; they did not actually do so. I stand behind my closure, if you believe it to be wrong, then take it to move review. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tw^sabin 17:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quotetweet chootrump has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer, your revert of Introvigne was unfounded. Introvigne is not spam, but a scholar. See these references:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/center-studies-new-religionscesnur

https://euasu.org/academicians/massimo-introvigne-39

Jesuitsj (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit summary, I am not sure you realize what I was doing. I was not “pulling attempts out of chronology”. I was pulling out *alleged* coups and *alleged* coup attempts, and putting them in chronological order in a separate section. That leaves the section listing verified coups and coup attempts, without mixing up verified coups and coup attempts together with alleged coups and alleged coup attempts for which we only have verified claims without verification for what is claimed. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: No worries. I understood what you were going for. Feoffer (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I already reverted because your edit summary indicated otherwise. Anyway, please explain at article talk why *alleged* stuff should not be listed separately. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you don't know, WP:LISTCRIT are required for list articles. I don't care about the revert but you BLANKED my first attempt. Please self revert and make changes to address your top two big concerns? Be bold! If there are more concerns, we can deal with them later, though they may go away as we make further tweaks responding to your top two. And of course others may have their own biggie they want to bring up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS LISTCRIT explicitly mentions using WP:NOTABILITY in selection criteria, and the kind of language I used here survived for 10 years on a dubious article before the article was (correctly) deleted for OR/SYNTH problems. ('list of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change'.) So defining inclusion criteria with reference to Wikipedia P&G is not a vio of WP:SELFREF and not a reason to delete. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do. The big factor in removal was the claim the every entry has its own wikipedia article, when the bulk of the earliest and most agreed-upon entries don't have wikipedia articles. I don't mean to discourage you from working on getting LISTCRIT nailed down in the lede. Feoffer (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the morale support. Can you suggest some language that would let us list ones with no article from before some appropriate year, but requiring articles in more recent historical times (on the rationale there are more lay sources available) ? The reason for requiring an article is that it will in theory encourage passionate editors to create articles before stirring up a fuss at the list..... and that way they'll be compelled to present sufficient RSs before dropping any dramabombs. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... and FYI, I didn't do that edit-selfrevert on purpose, and appreciate you doing the kindness of acting on it anyway with AGF. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way I would have done that is to take on the category in a straightforward way by listing wherever we discuss WP:Categories for deletion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Oh, that's next. Feoffer (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer

Thank you for creating Alfred Kalberer.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Feoffer, I've noticed you created a dozen or so Flying disc craze image map templates (such as Template:Flying disc craze of 1947 map of reports - Jul 1). Are you planning on transcluding them into any article soon? Templates that aren't transcluded into articles will eventually get send to WP:TfD. Gonnym (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: - The templates were used to create File:Flying disc craze of 1947 - no labels - animated.gif and I bet their long-term preservation will be beneficial to the project. Where would be the ideal place to store them long-term, outside template namespace? Feoffer (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As sub-pages of your user would be a valid option. Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.Feoffer (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed Template:Flying disc craze of 1947 map of reports - Jun 25. Gonnym (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the information you want to know, what was included, excluded, what's missing, is in the draft article and the few comments when I posted it. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Talk page guidelines: “The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flight 105 UFO sighting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flight 105 UFO sighting you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Flight 105 UFO sighting for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 18:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Flight 105 UFO sighting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flight 105 UFO sighting for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rhodes UFO photographs you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ජපස -- ජපස (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer,

Thank you for creating The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

There are some quotations (in the lead and main text) that are missing inline citations. Per WP:V: "All quotations ... must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bennv123}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bennv123 (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Edward James Ruppelt at Bluebook.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Twin Falls saucer hoax you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Twin Falls saucer hoax you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax and Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Twin Falls saucer hoax you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax for comments about the article, and Talk:Twin Falls saucer hoax/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Etriusus -- Etriusus (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to clip your citations to WP:Newspapers.com. As it stands, most of the citations for Twin Falls saucer hoax are not accessible to readers without a subscription and would not be saved by an archiving bot. SounderBruce 19:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm on it! Feoffer (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a DS in effect at the Biden laptop page called 24 Hr BRD that says “If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.” Personally I don’t like this one but you may want to self revert and let the discussion play out. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: There is an ongoing dispute that was not addres by the RFC months ago. You have been caught misrepresenting sources -- I'm content to address it as a content matter, but if you want to elevate it to a behavior issue, I welcome the additional eyeballs on your contributions. Feoffer (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DS is pretty straightforward. I really prefer not to escalate things. Given a current discussion at AE it is crystal clear what is currently in effect at that article. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By re-adding the 'dispute tag', I believe you may have breached the 1RR/24hr BRD, on that page. Highly recommend you undo this. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did it again. Breached the 1RR/24HR rule. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay:, I'm sorry you appear to be having 'wikistress'. While I applaud the initiative of the non-admin who did their best to close the earlier discussion, I think you were poorly served by that interaction. It presented you with the illusion of choice over something that editors actually had no latitude over. We operate under US libel laws, we don't get to vote on reality and publish our best guess -- every single contentious sentence affecting a living person needs a reliable source, and we can't cite ourselves or our own backroom discussion. It has nothing to do with Hunter Biden, it's about us and our reputation and ultimately even our foundation's ability to function. I too fully believe the laptop probably was Bidens, but I don't get to make that call, I need a RS. I've legitimately done my best to try to and location a source -- I can't find one. I've asked the admins at BLPN to help, they also haven't been able to find one. I'm going to keep looking, and if I find a better source at some future, I'll be happy update the article with it. But I can't just let people reinsert unsourced contentious content just because I happen to be sympathetic to the claim -- BLP is clear on that, I'm supposed to remove it without discussion. Feoffer (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't explained, why 1RR/24HR doesn't apply to you. It's obvious now (if not before) that you're blatantly ignoring it. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020.” From The Guardian which Ive already showed you and was discussed in the RFC, along with the other Guardian piece using the language “almost one disputes its authenticity” language (in fact I cited that in my RFC comment). Mr Ernie (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if you can convince the admins over at BLPN that an offhand mention is good enough for WP:V, more power too you. I don't know how to make that case when we have in-depth coverage explicitly saying the device might not be his, just a copy. Their only guidance to me was to use 'purported', which I think is way too weak. Feoffer (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC) I'll add -- if you can generate support for using "almost no one disputes" into the lede, I'll happily support it too. It's just about having text our readers can check up on. Feoffer (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single editor raised BLP as a concern in the RFC survey. It wasn’t an issue then. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What can I say? I'm sorry I wasn't there. I was busy debunking the 1947 flying disc craze. :) There's no doubt that BLP is implicated and "presenting it as fact in Wikivoice is inappropriate" (Strictly speaking, if you search the RFC for "BLP", you'll find it was raised). Feoffer (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody used BLP as a rationale / support for their !vote in the RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Though you may not mean to. By (re)adding a dispute-tag to the sentence in question at the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page. You're putting into doubt the sentence itself, which was already dealt with at the last RFC. This may appears as a rejection of the RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on talk -- the word "allegedly" has indeed been rejected, but DN, Val Jean, and many others have expressed concerns about the current article, so there is a very active ongoing discussion that we want fresh eyes on. Feoffer (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only hope is that this continuing bickering at that page over that 'one' topic, doesn't end up with sanctions being handed out. IMHO, the RFC decision is being ignored. Anyways, I hope eventually the bickering will end. Like I said, that page may be in for a tone of changes, after January 3, 2023. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, surely you know, as a longtime editor, that article improvement tags are WP's way of soliciting fresh uninvolved advice on matters of concern. You may not mean to, but you may be making Feoffer uncomfortable or defensive about freely volunteering their efforts. That would not be very bad. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer, you’ve violated the DS again today and if someone reports you to AE you could likely be sanctioned. The version I restored is the RFC consensus version, which is one of the strongest forms of consensus we have. If you are disputing that, the WP:ONUS is on you to get a new consensus for yo ur changes. I get that you don’t agree with the RFC but that isn’t a valid reason for your changes. I tried to propose a compromise that got a little bit of traction, but once challenged the situation reverted to the last stable consensus - from the RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in linking to the discussion, when it's directly below where I've pinged the rest of the 'survey' editors. But anyways. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Twin Falls saucer hoax, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Twin Falls "saucer" was later proven to be a hoax created by four teenagers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Twin Falls saucer hoax. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Twin Falls saucer hoax), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 17,048 views (710.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2022 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 08:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Lear you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Lear you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:John Lear and Talk:John Lear/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New religious movements in the United States you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article New religious movements in the United States you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:New religious movements in the United States for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of offline discussions on Talk pages like this, but this is short, so ... "laptop data" is not accurate or justifiable. The appropriate term right now is "data" or "data dump". I have not seen any reliable article which provides evidence that the data came from a laptop. It clearly came from a computer, and it is claimed that it came from Hunter Biden's laptop, but it could have come from any computer.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any reliable article which provides evidence that the data came from a laptop. "Laptop data" is the term used by CBSNews. While it remains an open possibility that the device is inauthentic, it does seem clear that Biden owned a laptop, used it over an extended period of time, and that data from that laptop found its way into the hands of CBS News, which was able to authenticate much of it and saw no signs of tampering. Feoffer (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feoffer. In this edit you seem to have changed more than the oversite you correctly removed in order to restore the standing version. I'm thinking that may have been inadvertent? SPECIFICO talk 14:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! That was a mistake, thank you for fixing it! Feoffer (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Lear you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:John Lear for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of RecycledPixels -- RecycledPixels (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rhodes UFO photographs you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Rhodes UFO photographs for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ජපස -- ජපස (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hunter Biden legal team Image of 'Infamous' laptop via CBS news.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2020 Portland Place brandishing incident.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fred Crisman: Cave of the Space Nazis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews, all notices about playing at film festivals. Tagged for notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot of Alien Prop from Roswell, The UFO Cover Up (1994).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roswell incident you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Feoffer (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jesse Marcel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rjjiii -- Rjjiii (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for taking a look at the sources. I've gone through the writing. My initial review is complete. Let me know if you have any questions or disagreements, or just let me know when you're finished and I'll take another look. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for al the work you've done on the Jesse Marcel article. I have a question: Is the book that you cited in this edit the one that provided his middle name? If so, can you tell me which page that was on? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roswell incident you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Roswell incident for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jesse Marcel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jesse Marcel for comments about the article, and Talk:Jesse Marcel/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Rjjiii -- Rjjiii (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jesse Marcel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jesse Marcel claimed that he recovered extraterrestrial debris from a ranch near Roswell, New Mexico? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jesse Marcel. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jesse Marcel), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Keith Raniere you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jerome Frank Disciple -- Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Keith Raniere you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Keith Raniere for comments about the article, and Talk:Keith Raniere/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jerome Frank Disciple -- Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Roswell Incident by Charles Berlitz and William Moore cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roswell incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WKRC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hollow Moon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 00:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Keith Raniere, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Keith Raniere co-founded NXIVM, a multi-level marketing company that has been described as a cult? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Keith Raniere. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Keith Raniere), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer. I've finished looking over the L. Ron Hubbard article, and I've put it on hold. See Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard/GA2 for detailed comments, though the summary is that the article needs editing and organising to make it more readable and accessible, and I feel it would take some dedicated work over a substantial period of time, so my recommendation is that the review is closed to allow time to develop the article, and then to resubmit it. If you agree, I'll close it straightaway. SilkTork (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you copied some text from L. Ron Hubbard to Early life of L. Ron Hubbard in this edit. It's good that you noted that the text was copied, but you didn't specify which page it was copied from in the edit summary, which is required. I've since attributed the copying with a dummy edit. Although it's not required, it's good practice to add the {{copied}} template to the talk pages of the articles that the text has been copied from and pasted to, as I did in this edit. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feoffer, I've just done some fixing of reference errors following your import of material into History of Dianetics and Scientology. If you don't already know about it, may I recommend installing this script? It highlights duplicated and missing sources in Harvard-style ({{harv}} and {{sfn}}) references – I find it extremely helpful when working with articles that make use of that reference style. Thanks for your work on the article, and best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and thanks for the recommend of the script! I'll install it. Feoffer (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also reviewing your edits on the project and have fixed one of the 'missing sources' (which I don't mind doing). Grorp (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Section link Cheers. DN (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent work on the Hubbard article. Just a heads up that the readable prose size is getting close to 100kB (currently 96). Happy to help copyedit to cut this down (without removing content) when you’re done. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words! And yes, the current revision of the bio has lots of problems, including length. My plan has been to ultimately split the bio into 4-5 sequential subarticles ala how we handle Joseph Smith, with the nitty-gritty blow-by-blow details being split off into those subarticles. At the end of the line, the main article should be relaying summaries of the relevant time periods and the prose should be way less than 100kB. Feoffer (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		With thanks for your work at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hollow Moon/1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited L. Ron Hubbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engram.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. Thank you for your work on Planning of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. User:Tails Wx, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good work! Reviewing.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 12:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Preliminary plan of the January 6 Capitol attack posted on December 28, 2020.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ирука, I've updated the rationale and accompanying text to make the image's significance more apparent -- it was a historic image that triggered alerts within law enforcement and is discussed in 2023 reports on the intelligence failures ahead of Jan 6. Take a look and see if you'd be open to un-tagging the image. Feoffer (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not completely convinced, but I'm removing the template.

I also ask you to indicate the source for each image in accordance with WP:NFCC#4/10a (or at least a link to an image on WP) and {{bsr}} for the File:Oath Keepers convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning January 6 attack.png. — Ирука¹³ 02:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Alien Autopsy Fact or Fiction vhs cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. Thank you for your work on Predictions of violence ahead of the January 6 United States Capitol attack. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC § File:Alexandria Virginia sheriffs office photo of Enrique Tarrio.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alexandria Virginia sheriffs office photo of Enrique Tarrio.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like markedly poor judgement. We use promo pics that are free all the time, and it's not like the author has edited the article, have they? VQuakr (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an active discussion about possible COI on talk, I'm just trying to get more eyes on that discussion. Is there a better-worded template that would accomplish the same purpose?

Feoffer (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a section about COI or any policy-based rationale for the tag on the talk page. Shall I remove it? VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so BATTLEGROUNDy -- you know we're talking about COI as part of the RFC. Feoffer (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one tag bombing articles once edit warring your preferred version against existing consensus didn't work. You have ignored all requests to frame your reasoning in the context of policy. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another reminder -- please assume good faith.I'm not even the one who raised the subject -- Jason Quinn is the user who alerted us that "single-purpose account that uploaded this photo likely has directly affiliation with the article's subject which compounds the question of this photo's neutral status".

There's no deadline, and COI tag is just a reminder for vested contributors to come talk, there's no reason anyone should be upset one way or the other. :) Feoffer (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has come along and redirect-ified the last of the series of L. Ron Hubbard biographies. It almost looks like you started—but didn't complete—the last one (1975-1986). Maybe take a look at it. I'm guessing that all that needs doing is to the 'summarize' the section L. Ron Hubbard § In hiding, and restore (from redirect) Life of L. Ron Hubbard from 1975 to 1986. Since you were the primary editor on that project, please take a look at this. Thanks.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your fast action and fine work overall on the L. Ron Hubbard articles! Reywas92Talk 00:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second that.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both for the kind words! @Reywas92, if you ever wanted to do a peer review / GA review of L. Ron Hubbard, it's a very 'important' article in terms of 20th century US culture, but it takes outside eyes to spot ways to improve an article or certify it as "Good". Feoffer (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fulton County Georgia booking photo of Sidney Powell.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is awkward. I didn't realize that you were the one who had uploaded Powell's mugshot until I saw your comment at the FFD (I used Twinkle to start the discussion, so it automatically left this templated notice without me noticing which talk page it went to).

I just wanted to leave a message because I realize it could seem like I was rifling through your uploads as a sort of petty response to being on the opposite sides of the dispute at Talk:Enrique Tarrio. In reality, I saw the discussion at Talk:Enrique Tarrio#Mugshot, which reminded me of some mugshot deletions I did in October when a newbie editor who apparently didn't understand that Georgia mugshots are copyrighted was trying to upload the Fulton County mugshots, which reminded me that when I was doing those deletions I saw that Powell's article already had a different copy of the mugshot, which then made me wonder how that was possible given there's a freely licensed photo of her in the infobox. No hard feelings, I hope. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None whatsoever. I confused Georgia with Florida, it's a good nom. Feoffer (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this was an exceptionally thoughtful comment. I never for a moment even thought to question your good faith, I've seen all the work you put into this place. Feoffer (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:FT/N. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you really need to read wp:agf and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC) You also need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After updating the article and the article's sandbox, I went over to FT/N. I thought about posting something there to just clearly indicate that I don't think you're pushing fringe nonsense. But then thought I'd rather let a thread full of bad blood die. So I'm leaving this spaceman of support on your talk page instead. Take care, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your spaceman. Going forward, my primary concern for the article is to not ASSERT as fact what is clearly a very well informed opinion, so that's my new focus. It likely would no longer be productive to continue trimming/polishing the extant draft until the current instability is resolved -- every word of context is valuable and needed when the article misrepresents as historical fact what is actually historical conclusions. Feoffer (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow -- a single user has been edit-warring to insert this change since the year 2014! Feoffer (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A huge debate on the talk page at that time too. I've done some recent edits to clear up references but nothing significant on the live article.

Rather than trying to polish anything, I've taken a swing at heavily rewriting that section in the sandbox.[4] I'm sure I'm losing some things and making mistakes, but I'm trying to search for a wording that better captures the sources. I think a point you were making that I didn't catch at first was that even reliable sources disagree on (a) was it a coverup and (b) if so who was responsible. I feel like there's probably a way to assert in Wikipedia's voice what we can and still use attribution for what we cannot. Also, something about Flight 4 likely being the object is missing from that draft, but it's getting late here. If any of this seems useful feel free to merge it into the live article.

I'll probably be too busy with Christmas soon to get much done on here, and hopefully all the dust settles by then. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said here [5] that I'm "still arguing for the use of the controversial promo image uploaded by an SPA". Can you please provide evidence for where I have ever said this? If you cannot find evidence, I ask you to strike your comment as I consider it a serious misrepresentation of my position that amounts to an extreme personal attack. I am certain I have never argued for the use of the "controversial promo image uploaded by an SPA".

First and importantly, while I did come to the view that given the arguments I saw in the RfC when compared with the normal considerations when deciding between images that I've seen, especially from my experience at BLPN, that the grey background suit image seemed the better. However I intentionally avoided ever saying this for several reason.

One is my main comments were at the AN and I did not feel my feelings were enough to say that the RfC results should not be a no consensus. Ultimately I felt that from what people had said, it would be too much of a supervote for me to say either image was clearly rejected.

So that is what I said at the AN, that I felt the result was a no consensus for either image. I also emphasised that I felt that the result of a no consensus should be the status quo just as I would say for engvar, or article titles, or BC/BCE, or date styles or reference styles or infoboxes or yes any other image dispute or whatever else where we ultimately need to chose something. While I cannot rule out this is influenced by my view that the grey background image is the one more supported by our policies and guidelines I do not believe this is a significant factor.

I'm fairly sure I argued before that Burma should be the title of the article for status quo reasons when RfCs failed to find a new consensus despite my extreme dislike for the name since Wikipedia existed, feeling Myanmar was the correct title in accordance with our policies and guidelines with Burma reflecting an extreme Western bias for a country that was located in south east Asia. I also find arguments against infoboxes nonsense but think I might have also argued before that if it's the status quo then yes it should remain until there is consensus for something new. I'm fairly sure I'd do the same since I consider this an important part of stopping Wikipedia going to hell.

Note that I also clearly said the status quo only had to be respected until a new consensus was achieved which was the desired outcome. As always, editors who prefer the status quo cannot simply ignore any attempts to find a new consensus, they need to engage in good faith in such discussion; although I admit I didn't make this clear but I felt it should be obvious. My posts can be wordy so I do sometimes try to limit what I say when I feel it's obvious. But in this case, for completeness I'll acknowledge there does come a point where we have to accept no consensus is likely in the immediate future unless something new is found and so it might be necessary just to stick with the status quo. No editor should ever desire this outcome but I do understand why for an editor who does not support the status quo it's the dreaded result, but for a supported it's more of a meh.

The other thing I said at AN was that I disagreed with one of the comments assessing the strength of arguments. My view was an is that the argument is not very strong since it's simply not how we normally treat such issues. Promotional or being different from what the subject is known for or the subject's everyday life isn't a big consideration in pretty much every time this comes up that I can recall offhand, at least compared to the importance given to is the subject clearly depicted.

(I'd note that it is a normal part of BLPN that when someone complains about an image of the, one of the suggestions is they go through the process to release a better free image, with the full recognition this is likely to be professional and promotional. Indeed some editors even seem to think it's acceptable to purposely annoy people with bad images so they may release free images, something I consider unacceptable per BLP despite my strong support of NFCC. A lesser variation which I can sort of get on board with is that while we should never include images for the purpose of annoying subjects, if that is the outcome because the only image we have is terrible, and they do release a free, and probably professional and promotional image because of it that's ultimately a good thing.)

I mean if there are two images of someone and in both of them the subject can be clearly seen etc the less promotional might be considered but even this IMO isn't that clear cut. I've seen plenty of times people prefer an image of a politician etc that is some sort of official portrait despite it being far less representative of what this person is known for (since plenty of politicians don't actually wear suits that much).

Note that this by itself doesn't mean that such arguments are clearly rejected however it does mean I don't find such arguments particularly strong and so I said as much at AN. I intentionally used small font because I did not want to get into a big debate over it especially since I felt ultimately it wasn't productive to get into a big debate over it for the purpose of that thread. I mean if people wanted to respond that was up to them but I did not and do not continue to discuss it further even having seen people did respond. But also, to emphasise I did not think my comment should get much consideration from anyone assessing if the close should be kept or modified.

The final thing I did at both AN and the talk page was to point out that there is no way a NFCC image of a living person would be accepted simply to show what they look like especially when there are alternatives, and yes this applies to both the promotional and derived ones along with the protest ones.

It's a fundamental part of Wikipedia that I consider very important and which clearly override any attempt at a local consensus. It's why I emphasised it so much and came to the talk page to further mention it. I'm fairly certain that any cases where NFCC images are used just to show what a living person looks like are extremely rare and where they do exist are most likely because someone hasn't noticed or very very very very very very rarely because the subject is a recluse or otherwise cannot be photographed and an extensive search has been done for free alternatives. Even there as I said at AN, I'm unconvinced a well advertised discussion would find consensus in favour of keeping such an image.

You'd note that I never made any comments about anything other than NFCC on the article talk page. I was obviously aware that there was still some ongoing discussion on the better image but I intentionally did not participate in anything but the NFCC aspect because I honestly did not give a fuck about which image was used provided it wasn't an NFCC one. I still do not give a fuck. Yes I had views on which arguments were strong and which image is what we normally choose in such situations, and yes these views were the grey background one but this doesn't mean I cared. I did not and do not.

Again the thing I cared most about was NFCC. The second thing I cared about was the importance of respecting the status quo. Finally as I very often do, I nitpicked an argument I felt was flawed or not supported by our policies and guidelines, and normal consensus outcomes but this wasn't a big deal to me hence the small text etc. (I mean even less than my normal nitpicks.)

Ultimately the thing which will make me happiest of all is if editors are able to achieve a new consensus which respects our policies and guidelines. (So again no NFCC images.) If that is for some protest image great! If that is for some variant of a promotional image, that's great too but not because I want such an image since I don't but because I really want a consensus outcome as the best way for everyone to be happyish.

A final comment, I'd note I'm even more confused by your apparent suggestion I wanted to the flag image. At the time I wrote all comments, I wasn't even thinking this image was still being considered. My impression is the image uploaded by the SPA had been largely rejected by all sides. Instead the images being considered were that grey background modification made by User:nagualdesign of the image uploaded by the SPA; along with a protest image. The one with the grey background instead of with the flag.

As I had not investigated a great deal I initially thought I was confused, but now that I've looked it, it does seem to me that it is the modification by nagualdesign that was being considered and which some editors consider the status quo. The flag image does seem to have been largely rejected.

You could still say the grey background image is promotional but it's clearly not uploaded by an SPA. It's a modification of an image uploaded by an SPA. (I assume you are not accusing nagualdesign of being an SPA since if you are I would suggest that's another serious personal attack.)

So I'm even more perplexed why you would think I'd support the flag image as all the time I was writing I was writing as if only the gray background image was being considered, never the flag one. I admit, because I thought it was so clear, I may not have made this as clear as I could have, however I'm unconvinced I said anything to suggest that I thought the flag image was better than the grey one especially considering my other point.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While I've calmed down a bit, I'm still annoyed enough about this that I will probably be away for quite a while. I feel however I've been clear enough that should hopefully be no need for followups. If by chance I wasn't and you still feel your statement is an accurate representation of what I say, I ask that you at least strike your statement as a courtesy as I really don't want to return in a few weeks only to find I need to stay away for another few weeks. Nil Einne (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nil, I want to confess I haven't read all of this, but I am very sorry that my words gave offense. I certainly didn't mean to misrepresent you -- we all know you were supporting the gray background image and you're correct that it wasn't literally uploaded by an SPA. I've happily struck my prior words and replaced them with ones that are more precise.

My general point stands -- to my eyes, the RFC clearly demonstrated there is no consensus to include the unrepresentative Tarrio image(s). If I think you're incorrect on problem #1, it makes me less likely to accept your conclusions on problem #2 until I've checked your math for myself. That's all I was saying -- for all your insistence that the foundation itself would never let us use a mugshot of a living person when we have free alternatives, the project is actually full of counter-examples.

Sorry to have upset you, and happy to strike and correct the words that weren't as precise as they should have been. I apologize. Feoffer (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fred Crisman has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident for issues which need to be addressed. Prhartcom (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident for comments about the article. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Prhartcom (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feoffer!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:JFK-UFO conspiracy theories has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on Joseph Gordon Vaeth; not many aeronautic engineers with a collection of such published books! Klbrain (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, some of your recent edits, specifically this and this, make me concerned about your lack of neutrality, and that you are editing Wikipedia with the apparent aim of promoting/encouraging a pro-pseudoscience POV. The first of those edits, which I reverted, is a clear violation of WP:TPG, being an attempt to not improve the article but to promote yourself in the eyes of the pro-pseudoscience community. The second of those edits, in which you inappropriately attempt to 'speak on behalf of Wikipedia,' seems to me a clear attempt to also promote yourself to the pro-pseudoscience community, specifically to Elizondo and his associates; I note also this edit, in which you express a certain familiarity with Elizondo by referring to him as "Lue." You can try to ingratiate yourself with that community all you want of course, there's certainly nothing wrong with that. But Wikipedia is the improper platform for those efforts, and I suggest most strongly that you stop using it in that way. I also suggest that you review WP:NPOV (especially its subsections WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI), WP:TPG, and perhaps also WP:OWN. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine comment to revert -- I was recruited to the page by LuckyLouie who jokingly described me as member of the GSOW Cabal. Since I know there are people watching our discussions who don't "get the joke", I wanted to correct the record, lest anyone actually believe I'm really part of some skeptical group that coordinates off-wiki to address a hidden government-backed agenda. I'm not trying to "ingratiate" myself anyone, I'm trying to defuse off-wiki harassment of Louie and Susan by making it clear to people that our editors are not monolithic.

I would invite you to really closely re-read the comment I wrote on the AARO talk page -- it never actually says what you probably think it says. I was consciously AIMING for a perfect middle-ground to ease tensions between the outside 'believers' who worry we're all in cahoots to spread lies and our valuable Skeptic editors (who serve as our project's essential immune system, allowing the project to exist).

I would also invite you to take a close look at the rewrite I did of Travis Walton incident, wherein we basically explain "how the magic trick [hoax] was done".

I apologize if it was an error in judgement to talk about the elephant in the room after LuckyLouie raised the topic -- I thought he was asking for my assistance to help defuse the witchhunt against himself and Susan, and I did my best to be a good teammate. I hope I didn't "overcompesate" and lead you to lose faith in my judgement.

you express a certain familiarity with Elizondo by referring to him as "Lue." This is embarrassing but I forget how to spell Luis; I don't know why I can't keep it in my head. I first learned about the GSOW conspiracy theory on FTN when LuckyLouie tagged me to encourage me to continue working on UFO-related articles -- I have no 'familiarity' with anyone other than my fellow Wikipedia editors.

I thought I was summoned to be a peacemaker and mediator, and I tried my best to be that. I have no dog in the events of 2024, my interests are in 1947-1952, when the new UFO religions and faiths were first forming.

{{tq|With all due respect, some of your recent edits, specifically this and this, make me concerned about your lack of neutrality... [[6]]

Susan, who was targeted by off-wiki harassment, personally thanked me for that edit. Nobody here meant that subject any disrespect by saying he was born in Florida not Texas, people out there deserve to know that! A journalist messed up, not us.

Anyway, I'm sorry that my attempts at defusing the attacks against my fellow editors led you to lose faith in me and my edits. Please remember that I mostly stay out of the 21st century unless I'm recruited by people like Louie who ask me to help them out. Feoffer (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie and Sgerbic:, I've been trying to help defuse the off-wiki attacks on you two by reminding your critics that we mean no disrespect when we innocent;y repeat the errors of RSes and that we're not all a part of the same clubhouse. In contrast, my efforts to defuse the attacks have apparently led JoJo to lose all trust in me, which really sucks. I didn't seek out these 21st-century topics, my interests lie in the 1940s and 50s. JoJo seems think I'm promoting or ingratiating by these comments; For the record, I've just been trying to help defuse your off-wiki critics and that's all. Feoffer (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Feoffer, I have struck thru the joke comment [7] which I admit in retrospect wasn't appropriate for an article Talk page. Given the off-wiki drama that appears to fulfill Carl Sagan's foreboding, I can see why you'd be sensitive to such misperceptions. I'm aware you have a solid understanding of editorial policies that govern fringe topics, and ultimately I think you're a good asset to the project, so I sincerely hope you'll continue your work here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had wondered about the comment you had made about letting the UFO community know that we meant no disrespect, but I knew your heart was in the right place. This isn't my first rodeo of being attacked off Wikipedia and also on Wikipedia so to some people I'm sure it appears pretty scary. As you mentioned, we are going about our business editing and in the back of my mind I know that they are also reading these messages and probably misinterpreting and missing the humor and very likely cherry-picking the quotes to use later. I am not a professional anything and tend to see things in a optimist view, so I can be flippant and humorous which I'm sure will get me in trouble eventually. Feoffer please take JoJo's snap as a learning lesson and nothing more, we know darn well you are here to help and have done so. And please don't fret about being called GSoW, you aren't but it is nothing to be ashamed of if you were, I no longer can brag about their accomplishments publicly as I don't want them bothered and harassed as often happens to me (and I use my real name) but I assure you that I've never been more proud of any group of people than my GSoW team. The quality of their work, the breath of their knowledge and their thoughtful kindness amazes me that they came from my training and consider me their leader. Mick .. I mean Louie will tell you that we have peacefully existed amongst the regular forces (as far as Louie knows) and rarely engage in admin or policy activities, just get work done. There is still a lot of work to be done, please feel free to tag me if needed. Sgerbic (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While writing an article on UFO conspiracies (off-wiki), I trawled through multiple Twitter and Reddit discussions and listened to several hours of podcasts (I spend a good deal of time driving). The CIA/CSI/Wikipedia conspiracy guys have looked at a lot of Wikipedia material without understanding many terms and practices that are secondhand to editors including: rollback, undo, reverting, admin privileges, diffs, edits, blocks, bans, archiving, and noticeboards. Some people, Elizondo included, characterized getting his birthplace wrong as a part of a PsyOp to humiliate and discredit Elizondo. There does seem to be a subset of that group that takes jokes about our "cabal" as evidence.

Also, it's a shame you get such a hard time mentoring new editors, Susan. People talk about the difficulty of recruiting and teaching new generations of editors here. However, the two prominent formal mentorship programs (GSoW and WikiEd) are both maligned. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feoffer. Thank you for your work on Have We Visitors From Space?. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

An interestingly impactful article. I had wondered about a merge to 1952 UFO flap, but on balance I think that its reasonable to keep this separate. I've worked on consolidating some references, and expanded one. I'm not sure which Peebles book you've used for your citation (worth adding in the usual way).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Thanks for the feedback! I've updated the article with the full cite! :) Feoffer (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]