| Revision as of 00:37, 2 May 2012 editBruceGrubb (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,222 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:20, 18 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (92 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == '''The Olive Branch''': A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) == | |||
| {{Archive box|search=yes| | |||
| * ] <small></small> | |||
| * ] <small></small> | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in ] (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are ], but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to ]. | |||
| == RfC == | |||
| ] | |||
| In this issue: | |||
| * '''Background''': A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. | |||
| * '''Research''': The most recent DR data | |||
| * '''Survey results''': Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey | |||
| * '''Activity analysis''': Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums | |||
| * '''DR Noticeboard comparison''': How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August | |||
| * '''Discussion update''': Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate | |||
| * '''Proposal''': It's time to close the ]. Agree or disagree? | |||
| <div style="text-align:center; font-size:larger;">]</div> | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| Please see ]. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Quotes== | |||
| Bruce, we have never directly crossed paths or corresponded to the best of my knowledge. I happened to notice your two ] on the list of restrictions (when I was reviewing my own). I read over the incident reports at AN, and I think you may have a case for a modification of your ban restrictions as follows: 1) The scope of your ban from all Christianity-related topics is overly broad. There is scant evidence of problematic editing across the category of Christian articles broadly construed. Therefore, I suggest you consider asking for the ban to be narrowed to the two articles on ] and ]. 2) Similarly, a ban from all fringe theory-related topics is overkill. This could be constrained to the single article where the problem occurred - ]. You may also want to consider asking for the following changes: 1) 6 months probation to prove you can comply with your modified ban restrictions, and 2) a 1RR editing restriction in place of a T-ban. I suggest you appeal your bans directly to ]. No need to reply. Good luck. ] (]) 05:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| These are excellent Bruce. Will definately be using them in my defense. Many thanks.] (] · ] · ]) 18:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Time travel in fiction == | ||
| Please mind that citing a manual for a roleplaying game is not a ] when it comes to discussing fiction in general. A scholarly book ''about'' fiction, a research paper, an article from a reliable encyclopedia, or a newspaper article might be a better choice. ] (]) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Burke's in Day the Universe raised an interesting question-- does data drive a theory or does a theory determine what is data.--] (]) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == May 2016 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| == MLM == | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>of the publisher unless special arrangements to the contrary are made."<ref>Dragon #1</ref></nowiki>{{red|''')'''}}<nowiki> that had been printed in ''Dragon'' over the years and Paizo Publishing's policy that creators of</nowiki> | |||
| *<nowiki>and Dungeon magazines </nowiki>{{red|''')'''}}<nowiki></ref>, the ''Dragon Magazine Archive'' is out of print and very hard to find.</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (-1, 0, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 13:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Complaint about your edits at ] == | |||
| Thanks, Bruce, for your good and continuing work in preserving the ] page. ] (]) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Please see ]. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, ] (]) 17:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==AfD== | |||
| There's a straight-forward guide at ]. Let me know if you have any questions. <b>] ] </b> 18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2016 == | |||
| == New Christ Myth Theory FAQ == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for persistent ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ]] 17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> | |||
| ] That I am working on. | |||
| :Thanks for this one. A few personal thoughts: It seems to me that it is exceedingly difficult to have an entirely dispassionate opinion on this issue that is not (suspicious of being) coloured by vested interests. That atheists, opponents and critics of religion in general or Christianity in particular should find it attractive is expected; that believers and people sympathetic to Christianity will reject it is expected; that experts of the subject will reject it will surprise no-one, as accepting it would negate their research; and the opinion of non-experts, even historians, is not taken very seriously, since they have by definition not studied the subject enough to form a valid opinion. It looks like a vicious circle where everyone is caught in their preconceptions and everyone is driven towards answering the question "Did Jesus of Nazareth (as portrayed in the Gospels, even if only very generally) exist as a historical person?" ''before'' they can assess what little evidence there is, and all, or virtually all of it is contested (i. e., its authenticity, or its relevance). In short, everyone has a compelling ''personal'' reason to believe their version of the conclusion ''before'' they can even ''think'' of how to get there. | |||
| :But skimming through the FAQ, it seems to me that many (secular or at least non-conservative) relevant scholars are, to an extent, ''mythers'', because they all agree that the Gospels are, to a considerable degree, suspect as a historical source and thus ''mythical'' – as you say, the real issue is ''how much of it is mythical?'' – and what is (in their eyes) certain about the life of the person portrayed in the Gospels is so little that it would hardly matter anyway, and bear only the slightest resemblance to the figure portrayed in the Gospels. (As opposed to other historical personages which could almost be described as "semi-historical", such as Alexander the Great.) OK, perhaps there was ''really'' a spiritual teacher and healer called Jesus in Galilee in the first century of the Christian era, but how many figures like him (as recognisable to a contemporary) would have existed back then? Perhaps such figures were as common back then as they are now, and if one of the charismatic leaders around now ended up founding a religion (or spiritual movement) dominant two millennia into the future, we would have no way of knowing because he and his (or even she and her) following would appear to us as "yet another religious nutcase" or "yet another guru" or "yet another faith-healer" or whatever. In short, it seems that nothing really meaningful can be said about Jesus of Nazareth that can be regarded as certain as agreed upon by mainstream historians, and nothing really meaningful in terms of the historical person can be extracted out of the Gospels, which is a conclusion so thoroughly negative (but, to atheists at least, liberating) that it essentially amounts to the same as the Christ Myth Hypothesis (as it should properly be called). | |||
| :That said, my suspicion is that if Jesus of Nazareth really existed, he was nothing like most people imagine him, or want him to have been. --] (]) 21:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Chick publications== | |||
| Thanks for helping to clean up the article! The tone was beginning to sound a bit like the material being criticized! (I was worried that Chick might issue a pamphlet on Misplaced Pages! And it would be totally factual! :) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Having said that, the article still needs citations, just like every other article in Misplaced Pages, whether "the sun shines during the day" or "this way is up." Making mere "claims" to refute Chick "claims" is hardly encyclopedic. One loud voice against another. Please respond on article discussion page. Thanks. ] (]) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Hey == | |||
| Hi Bruce, there's a question for you at ], in case you missed it. Cheers, <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Templates == | |||
| Bruce, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't add citation templates to that article. Writing the refs out by hand makes loading time, particularly for preview and diffs, much faster, especially when there are such a large number of references. Also, per the MoS, punctuation goes after ref tags, and it's really not good form to place ref tags inside sentences if it can be avoided. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I ''am'' following the MoS: ]--] (]) 10:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ethnology == | |||
| I think by "historical anthropology" you mean "ethnohistory" and not "ethnoloby." ] | ] 09:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :The three are closely related to the point they are called by the other names. When I learned anthropology the term was "historical anthropology" with "ethnology" thrown in for a pseudonym.--] (]) 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Buxton University== | |||
| Hi BruceGrubb, | |||
| I saw you commented on my claim about wes.org's WENR newsletter not being a reliable source. You seemed to be one of the people who actually talked some sence. I am not arguing against a connection between Buxton University and instantdegrees.com (there seems to be enough evidence for that from reliable sources) | |||
| I am asking for evidence that they are also connected to Canterbury and Ashford, as is claimed in that WENR "article". That is quite a claim, so how is this mediocre WENR newsletter sufficient grounds for this to appear in encyclopedic content? I ask you, its crazy. Would appreciate your two-cents on the ] article discussion page as what goes in that article seems to be getting controlled by people with an agenda. Thanks ] (]) 14:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| {{talkback|EyeSerene}} | |||
| :Further reply on my talk page. ]<sup>]</sup> 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == MonaVie Article == | |||
| Hi thanks for your help on the Neutrality noticeboard I had no idea that article carried so much weight in the articles POV and proved without a doubt that everything in the lead paragraph is the truth. I left a reply on the board again can you reply? | |||
| If we are to resolve the edit war I just need to know if there are any other sources there or if it is just that one that I need to look over better. Thanks ] (]) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010] (]) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==NPOV noticeboard== | |||
| Are you guys still holding a discussion. If not aren't you suppose to close it? --]<sup>]</sup> 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Refactoring of others' comments== | |||
| If you believe your removal of the collapse templates in is appropriate somehow, please follow ] rather than edit-warring over it. You are interfering with others' comments, not your own, even in your prior removal of them . Note that in response, I collapsed only my own comments. If you believe I don't have the right to do so, follow ] and get some consensus on your side. The second time I did this, I simply restored the collapse templates, as all the material in them was either my own comments or added by others while the templates were already in place. See ] --] (]) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Tag == | |||
| All OR issues aside, the {undue} tag has nothing to do with facts or even verification. It's about ] and ] and the question is whether mentioning a fact is giving too much attention to it, more than reliable sources do, and in a way which gives the impression the fact is seen as more important than sources see it. Of course, there's ''too little'' weight as well as ''too much'', so it depends on the sources, the claim, and editorial discretion. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == More work. == | |||
| In addition to your anthropological excursion at ], I thought you might be interested in expanding/checking ], which is in need of some attention, as well as ], which I just started and needs it even more. Also, I noticed that ] makes zero mention of any craze or controversy ever. The article is like a Dental office pamphlet. Maybe you'd want to try some conservative additions regarding the history of tooth extractions and any controversy or criticism that surrounded/surrounds it. Cheers, ] <sup>]</sup> 10:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Nielsen Ratings == | |||
| Bruce, in , one of the sentences just doesn't parse right to me. The specific part that is unclear is {{talkquote|the Nielsen ratings one TV per household three perhaps four network model}} I would have clarified myself but I don't know what you're trying to say.. can you reword it? | |||
| I didn't put that in so I have no idea what it trying to say either.--] (]) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Knight 1909, 1906, etc == | |||
| Hi. Not sure what the point, or information, was that you were trying to get into the article. Could you concisely describe it here? Just curious. --] (]) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I wasn't trying get anything in the article. I merely pointed out the reference was wrong using RS and the other editors jumped on the assumption and OR bandwagon. However the reasoning that was presented by some editors shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what OR even is and a major disconnect between OR and NOTOR and ''that'' is the real issue.--] (]) 17:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::If that's all that it was about, i.e. pointing out that the RS was wrong and the info shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages, I'd tend to agree, unless someone could give some reason why the evidence in the 1906 RS might possibly not disprove Knight's claim about 1909. | |||
| ::If you don't mind, may I ask you about another one of your messages? What do you mean by "objective truth" in that message? --] (]) 17:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::James Burke spends about 5 minutes explaining it but in a in a nutshell "objective truth" is the idea that there a form of truth independent of your view of how the world works. For instance once it was the truth that head size was evidence of intelligence--this is where the idea of super intelligent beings having large heads comes from. In another example Burke gives it was the truth that the peasant stories of "these here rocks falling from the sky" were the product of imagination--then France had itself a revolution with the peasants in charge and 'suddenly the stories became astronomically vital data'.--] (]) 17:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just looked at that James Burke episode on Youtube. It was broken up into 5 parts on Youtube and here they are with my compliments. --] (]) 19:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Conspiracy theory article problems == | |||
| Thanks for your note. I've been away from the computer or I'd have responded sooner. First, I'd say that it's a touchy issue, and there's a history of problems which probably makes veteran editors there especially leery of bold changes. Second, there are so many scholarly views of this topic that gaining a consensus of them may require more than four citations. Third, it's often unhelpful to use arguments like "But Smith and Jones disagree". Relying on editors to track down the sources and find the line you're referring to may be asking too much. Instead of a general citation, it's often better to quote the actual text. What I've found to be a good way of working through issues like this is to invite everyone to assemble excerpts from sources first. If you have a dozen or two definitions on hand then it's easier for everyone to see the most obvious ways to proceed. Fourth, it's good to remember that this is a term in popular usage and we shouldn't give just a narrow academic definition. The lead should cover how the term is seen and used. Also, remember that the lead should summarize the text. If the definition isn't already there then it shouldn't be added to the lead yet. Fix the body of the article first, then rewrite the lead to summarize it. And lastly, be patient. <b>] ] </b> 02:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == concerning verifiability == | |||
| Bruce, I hope you will assume good faith on my part and not see this as an atempt to disrupt the discussion at the V page. I write this not because of anything you have ever written to or about me but because of comments others have recently made. | |||
| Also, you may not agree with me but it is clear to me that there is not yet a consensus concerning Blueboar's proposal, and the discussion concerning it is not yet over. | |||
| I have been going back over past discussions with you and it seems to me that your major concern (aside from operationalizing what are "reliable sources" and how to use them) is that WP not include misleading articles or material. In fact, I think that this is something that motivates many of the people who have been participating in discussions concerning verifiability. | |||
| Am I right? I ask because it is only now that I have really begun to think of this, not in terms of misleading statements, but misleading articles which I think is the ultimate issue. | |||
| If I am right, it seems to me that this gets to the very notion of what an encyclopedia is. | |||
| Which leads me to why I am writing here. I don't know about you but it has always puzzled me that WP does not actually have a policy that this is an encyclopedia. You have to go to ] - which is about what WP is NOT, right? - to find what WP IS, namely, an encyclopedia. | |||
| Maybe this is just all to obvious, that WP is a wiki (see ]) and WP is an encyclopdia. | |||
| But when I look back over all the discussion you were heavily involved in at V, it strikes me that maybe we really do need a policy on WP is an Encyclopedia, or a new section "WP is not misleading". It seems to me that "misleading" is an issue that deserves attention independent of V. I am NOT saying that this necessarily means V cannot or should not be improved. I am just saying that while "verifiability" ''may'' be a means to ensure that articles are not misleading, I think V has other purposes, and also that V is not sufficient to guarantee that articles will not be misleading - not even V+RS+CS. I am now thinking that we needs something in addition, to address the question of "misleading." Maybe a section in NOT, or maybe as part of a new policy on what an encyclopedia is. | |||
| Since my discussions with you sparked this line of thought, you are the obvious first person to turn to for feedback; if you think this is a bad idea, I figure most others will too. Moreover, if you think it is a good idea, I think you would have the most ideas about how to write it up. | |||
| You don't need to reply immediately if you want time to mull this over. ] | ] 12:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I full agree with the idea of "WP is not misleading" though in some respect this dovetails with NPOV. If go over to ] you will see another example of where WP:V breaks down--the majority of the sources are reliable but the article has major SYN problems even after mammoth efforts to clean it up. The problem there is not with the editors but with the ''material''--many times it is not clear just what point the various authors are making and if the pro and con sides are even debating the same issue. As a result you have what is still a meandering mess of an article. | |||
| :The ] article is another place where WP:V breaks down as many of the more modern source are debating how Price's work is used by others rather than how Price himself used and presented his work. As a result you have a somewhat misleading article that avoids the reason why Weston Price is important now and the misuse use of his work.--] (]) 15:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I guss my question then is, do you think that we need an actual policy (a new policy) saying "Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia" to spell out what we mean by "encyclopedia?" Or, as an alternative, to add to the ] a new subsection, "Not misleading?" ] | ] 18:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think "Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia" would clarify anything as there are many ways for a Encyclopedia to be structured. For example my "Out of this World" (1978) Encyclopedia is written like a series of individual pieces than the way the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' is set up and they are both different from how ''Anime Encyclopedia'' 978-1880656648 is set up but they are all Encyclopedias. Also the term "Encyclopedia" doesn't promise accuracy which is our main problem (''Mysteries of the Unknown'' comes to mind) | |||
| :Now the addition of a 'Not misleading section' under ] with a tie back NPOV I think is a great idea.--] (]) 05:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation Cabal: Request for participation == | |||
| ] | |||
| Dear BruceGrubb: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the ], which is a ] initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation. | |||
| The request can be found at ''']'''. | |||
| Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort. | |||
| If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the ], the ], or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their ]. ] (]) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:V mediation straw poll == | |||
| Hello Bruce, this is just to let you know that we are having a ] about how many drafts to include in the proposed RfC about ]. The result of this straw poll will have a large effect on the direction the mediation takes, so if you could let us know your preferred number over at the mediation page, I would be very grateful. I am thinking of leaving the discussion open at least until 10am (UTC) on Thursday, March 22, and possibly longer if we require more time to reach a consensus. Best — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:V mediation compromise drafts == | |||
| Hello Bruce, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the ], I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at ] on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 17:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:V mediation step five == | |||
| Hello Bruce, this is another update about the ]. We have now started ], in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the ] to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dispute resolution survey== | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <font face="Verdana">] ] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| ==ANI for User Ronz== | |||
| Concerning a pattern of behavior not suitable for Misplaced Pages, by a user you've had dealings with, please list examples ] ] 22:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Merger of essays == | |||
| Bruce, there is a discussion at ] on whether to merge the essays ], ] and ] (as they appear to cover very similar topics). Since you were a major contributor to one of these essays, I thought you should be informed of the suggestion... and have a chance to share your thoughts. Please join the conversation at ] ] (]) 12:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts == | |||
| Hello Bruce. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at ]. Thank you! — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">] <sup>]</sup></b> 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sources that fail verification== | |||
| Following which you performed, a message was left on that article talk page to the effect that the sources you added are known to fail verification, as had been discussed before. You need to explain the addition of these sources as requested there. ] (]) 09:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:20, 18 March 2022
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Hello
Bruce, we have never directly crossed paths or corresponded to the best of my knowledge. I happened to notice your two editing restrictions on the list of restrictions (when I was reviewing my own). I read over the incident reports at AN, and I think you may have a case for a modification of your ban restrictions as follows: 1) The scope of your ban from all Christianity-related topics is overly broad. There is scant evidence of problematic editing across the category of Christian articles broadly construed. Therefore, I suggest you consider asking for the ban to be narrowed to the two articles on Christ Myth Theory and Josephus on Jesus. 2) Similarly, a ban from all fringe theory-related topics is overkill. This could be constrained to the single article where the problem occurred - Conspiracy Theories. You may also want to consider asking for the following changes: 1) 6 months probation to prove you can comply with your modified ban restrictions, and 2) a 1RR editing restriction in place of a T-ban. I suggest you appeal your bans directly to WP:BASC. No need to reply. Good luck. Ignocrates (talk) 05:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Time travel in fiction
Please mind that citing a manual for a roleplaying game is not a reliable source when it comes to discussing fiction in general. A scholarly book about fiction, a research paper, an article from a reliable encyclopedia, or a newspaper article might be a better choice. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dragon (magazine) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- of the publisher unless special arrangements to the contrary are made."<ref>Dragon #1</ref>) that had been printed in ''Dragon'' over the years and Paizo Publishing's policy that creators of
- and Dungeon magazines )</ref>, the ''Dragon Magazine Archive'' is out of print and very hard to find.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Complaint about your edits at WP:ANI
Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BruceGrubb editing in violation of topic ban. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
August 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mkdw 17:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)