User talk:Littleolive oil

WP:RETENTION This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi Olive! Do you have an idea if it's o.k. for me to communicate over the Prem Rawat article on editors' User pages, like this one? BTW have you observed if battleground behaviour has ceased since the culprits have been identified and banned? One should expect so, shouldn't one... ;-D Please don't get frustrated too easily. I know that to encounter such unexpected belligerence and hostility can make one feel sick. But then remember, it is not just a BLP, but a biography of a person whose emergence has a strong direct impact on the lives of millions of people, so the standards are extraordinarily high. Standards of patience, understanding and persistence. And BTW, that sentence you added and DeCausa has reverted was a bit awkward and can certainly be worked over; that's how I read DeCausa's objection.--Rainer P. (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I wouldn't have an objection to e.g. "but he is also often referred to as":... "a charismatic leader" or "Ambassador for Peace" or "a an insightful guide" etc etc if that is so, and is reliably sourced. I don't know if he is or isn't - but that type of thing. Saying what he wants or likes or something about him that indicates he's a nice person isn't a counterbalance or has any relevance to the reference to him being referred to as a "cult leader". That's why I said it was peacocky and a non-sequitur. By the way, I'd never heard of him till this blew up a couple of weeks ago and I have zero interest in him or the topic of "new religions" generally. My interest is a strong aversion to WP articles being used as a promotion tool. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in either direction. I guess, that's what NPOV is about. Ignorance is not really a requirement for neutrality.--Rainer P. (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an argument that Wikipedia editors do their best work when they edit articles on subjects "they don't care about". Someone said that to me when I started on WP, and there might be something in it. DeCausa (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. But don't care is not equal to don't know. And, @Olive, one more thing: There has been a sensible agreement after extensive discussion, carried by both opposing fractions of editors, that Cagan’s book may be only used for uncontentious issues. It is not a scientific work. There are indications that Cagan has received travel expenses from a Rawat-related organisation for doing on-site research in India, so it can not be counted as a completely independent RS, albeit not self-published.--Rainer P. (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC) We are actually really being nit-picky here, but I believe it is necessary. I am also sure that if you really hounded scientific authors in medical, chemical or whatever publications for receiving expense, not much would survive of science as we know it...--Rainer P. (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll comment more here later, but the standards for sources unless we are talking about research do not need to be "scientific". As well, there is nothing in Cagan's book(the forward) that indicates she was paid, nor did I see that in an interview I saw and can't seem to locate now. However, I am willing to discard the source based on consensus. And yes it could very well be a weak source. I don't have an issue with that. The quality of the source was not cited as reason for removing content on the PR article; that came later on the BLP/ NB.(olive (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

I also knew nothing about Rawat or the article editors (with one major exception) when I came into the discussion on PR. What drew me in was a post on Jimbo's page that led me to the talk page where I saw an attack on an editor. I had no idea who was on which so-called side, but I could see that some editors where being dealt with in a personal, very negative way, and that whatever they said was considered POV pushing. In fact the points being made, if on most other articles would have been considered legitimate discussion points. I realize there is a long history on this article and frankly I don't care about it. I do have enough Wikipedia experience to look at sources and to be aware of the state of NRM articles on Wikipedia. I have to deal with the present and what is going on, and if things get too heated or frustrating I have no desire to work there. Life is way too short to spend in such environments . So I do tend to move on when things are ugly, and if I can help settle them or they become settled I 'm happy to stay around. I'll see how that goes. Thank you both for your comments. (olive (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

By the way, no one said Rawat is a nice person. However, for a spiritual leader to focus on world peace is informative. Nice = spiritual leader's focus is not an accurate equation. That said, I agree completely that a more extensive summary could be used. That was most certainly not the impression I got when I introduced this topic on the talk and so I used a very simple few words to add context thinking it would be more palatable to those opposing the addition of contextual material.(olive (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC))

Olive, I've read what is said about topic bans on WP. It does not explicitely mention our personal User pages, but I guess they are covered, too, for discussing the topic. So, to avoid trouble, I will retreat and wish you the best.--Rainer P. (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Rainer. You may be right. You're always welcome here.(olive (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

GOCE November drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 38 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy-edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. All the barnstars have now been distributed. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing November and December 2011 from the backlog. For the first time since the drives began, the backlog consists only of articles tagged in the current year. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2690 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 56 requests outstanding before November 2012 as well as eight of those made in November. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the October 2012 competition, and prizes have been issued. The November 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The December 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. Coodinator election: The six-month term for our fourth tranche of Guild coordinators will expire at the end of December. Nominations are open for the fifth tranche of coordinators, who will serve from 1 January to 30 June 2013. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE mid-December newsletter

End of Year Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The December 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best December copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. From Sunday 16 December to Saturday 22 December, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} from January 2012. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. January 2013 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2012. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in January, February, and March 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. Coodinator election: Nominations are open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January to 30 June 2013. Nominations close on December 15 at 23:59 UTC, after which voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Hi Olive, There is a discussion regarding a NPOV tag that you had placed on the main TM article some time ago. There is a proposal to remove it. Could you please comment here when you have time? Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Hagelin

The article John Hagelin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Hagelin for comments about the article. Well done! Tomcat (7) 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

GOCE 2012 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2012 Annual Report The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations! Our 2012 Annual Report is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i'm waiting, what's contentious about stating that she was in touch with cuban interests section personnel and citing one of foremost authorities on internet connectivity in cuba?--Huysmanii (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

i agree entirely with your assessments olive, though i would just like point out i was not edit warring, the content i added was new or radically modified. I will of course not be reverting those reversions yesterday undertaken by you and the other editor. Just keep in mind that anyone can edit wikipedia, i'm gradually learning how the process of editing works and i'm getting better as i think are my contributions, which are of coourse grounded in indisputable fact, Yoani Sanchez met on several occasions with US officials, the leaked diplomatic cables demonstrate this quite clearly, and, relatedly, Sanchez's reporting and ability to report have also been critically analyzed by published experts in relevant fields, including the director of New Mexico University's Cuban news research center; it's ok for an article on dissenting and controversial personages to include authoritative viewpoints that may be critical of said personage; also it's ok to mention the fact that Sanchez was mentioned in leaked US diplomatic cables; and it's ok to cite an expert who queries and wonders what funding sources Sanchez has access to and who points just how incredibly difficult it is for someone to logistically and financially operate a blog, such as Sanchez's, in Cuba. It's ok to mention all these things, indeed, they add greater depth, dimension, and impartiality to the article.--Huysmanii (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)