User talk:Civilizeme

July 2010[edit]

Removed warnings, my apologies. Please use edit summaries so beat up old vandal fighters have more of a clue. Thanks, and good editing. Jusdafax 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks please[edit]

Hi, just a reminder to please limit your talk page comments to the content being discussed and avoid giving your personal opinions about other editors behavior. [1] If you have concerns about editor behavior then please take it to the appropriate noticeboard or other appropriate venue. Accusations of ownership and COI on the Transcendental Meditation articles were levied by both camps in great detail in the recent TM ArbCom and there was no finding in the Final Decision in favor of these accusations. [2] However, if you feel it is an issue that needs to be addressed, you may want to pursue it on an Admin noticeboard rather than a talk page. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and Welcome Back! :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the ArbCom did address the issue of COI editing.[3] Will Beback talk 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed, but as far as I can see, not satisfactorily. I liked the statement, over at the ArbCom discussion, that "the process of restoring neutrality to articles could better be appreciated if it is seen as a pendulum. The [editors of] non-neutral articles [...] will feel like they are swinging in the opposite direction [...] [When]neutral editors like myself are simply attempting to bring some sorely biased, poorly sourced articles "back to center"."Civilizeme (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Skepticism WikiProject asking for look at Theosophy entry[edit]

Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back after, oh, a while. Is Theosophy still a page of interest? Civilizeme (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baby shoes[edit]

You didn't by chance use an IP to make a very similar edit last summer, did you? If not, I'd advise you to take heed of the discussion in the followup edit summaries. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me, no. Though I do see that IP editor's point. I am not accustomed to looking through edit summaries to reconstruct discussion about editorial disputes; is this now a thing? In any case, I've opened the discussion on the talk page. --Civilizeme (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You want discussion? See here, here and here.

Thank you for the links. By discussion, though, I'd meant if the matter of the utility of the photo was discussed on the Talk page; the adminstrative discussions you link to seem to be mostly about the edit warring rather than the reasoning involved. Though I did see (maybe it was you?) one observation that the IP editor was failing to "be bold". --Civilizeme (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What other accounts have you been using? I find it really coincidental that you and some anonymous IP, six months apart, pick the same issue in a rather short, somewhat obscure article, one you haven't shown any interest in editing before, and you have not removed other images on similar grounds. In short, I don't believe you when you say it wasn't you. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made similar edits in the past when I come across articles with similarly irrelevant or misleadingly literal images, but as you say, I haven't been on this page before. I came to it today after thinking to link to it on a personal blog post about six word stories. I encourage you to presume good will in this case; you're simply barking up the wrong tree in thinking I'm the person you seem to have tangled with in the past. To repeat my original question, which I ask with good will: is it now "a thing" to discuss editorial reasoning in edit summary labels rather than on the Talk page? --Civilizeme (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (The Historical Praise of Reason) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating The Historical Praise of Reason, Civilizeme!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please expand beyond mere mention of existence: what was the impact of this work? Why should it have an article?

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]