User talk:Littleolive oil

For your very kind words. Penyulap

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.

GOCE February blitz wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Blitzes/February 2014 wrap-up Participation: Out of seven people who signed up for this blitz, all copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 16 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Instead of just mashing the keyboard to edit war your changes in, you would be better advised paying attention to what you're actually doing. Starting sentences with lower case letters and commas doesn't improve the text, it damages it. Alexbrn (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I was in process of cleaning up punctuation after the changes I made given the computer screen I have, but I have to do this is in multiple steps. However, you reverted so quickly I couldn't finish the job. No worries; if you prefer the choppy text I have no interest in dealing with this further. It is always funny to see someone reverting text then accusing someone else of edit warring as if the policies and guidelines only apply to others.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC))

That seems odd seeing as you reverted to your wrong text as-it-was. There is a "Preview" button, and so no need to edit "in multiple steps" - and quite what the "need" to leave such errors in place is, I can only wonder at! Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's clarify this. I reverted to my text, text that I had begun to copy edit for punctuation, but there was an edit conflict. I can't easily see some of the small text in the editing page so at times miss it even with the preview. I'm not sure why I even bother to explain this to someone whose automatic reaction within seconds was to revert, and then to come over here to complain about edit warring. I did think a copy edit was needed and did one, and was in process of cleaning up my own copy edit. I don't care at all if you understand this given your edit warring complaint. In light of your own behaviour I doubt there is good faith. So, let's leave this. I have nothing more to add. If you believe the text in the lead is acceptable, great. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC))

RfC on paid editing

I clarified a couple of things in the RfC, so please recheck your vote. Sorry. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No probelm.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC))

Holiday card

Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas, Littleolive oil!

"Here's hoping that the worst end of your trail is behind you That Dad Time be your friend from here to the end And sickness nor sorrow don't find you." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1926. Montanabw(talk) 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me Montana. I love the card and the article about the artist The happiest of Christmases to you and to your family.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC))

Please comment on Talk:Deadmau5

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deadmau5. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom process

Hi Olive and a Happy New Year to you. Thanks very much for your supportive words over at Arbcom recently. Even before your post, I was thinking that the appeal process is very much flawed. Some of the arbs seemed to think I had not indicated what they were expecting to read. However, it is very unclear what they were expecting. I am wondering whether the appeal process template should ask questions the arbs would like to see answered. Questions such as "How have you been positive to the project since the sanction?" "How have you changed your editing since the sanction?" "What have you learned from your sanction?" I know there will be other questions, but I thought I would ask what you think about the idea of the appeal template containing questions. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dr Chrissy. Happy New Year to you too. I've been thinking about AE and AE clarifications for several years now and have meant to lay out some thoughts, but never quite got around to it. It will take me a few days to put a comment together but have begun and will post something here within the week. (Littleolive oil (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC))

I'm quite happy to put something together to send to arbcom. It would not be any great detail because I think the template questions should be decided by Arbcom themselves, if they were to agree with this in principle. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Something curious has happened. Your talk page is on my watchlist but your reply above did not appear on there. Probably just a minor glitch, but if you are expecting replies from other people, it could be problematic. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• @DrChrissy: A draft of a long set of thoughts. I am deliberately avoiding the word harangue.:O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A warning, a request, and a plea

Hello, reinserting a clear WP:PSCI violation into an article[1] ("not a product of the brain") after an editor specifically pointed it out on the talk page[2] and in the edit you reverted[3] is a classic example of the kind of disruptive editing that often happens in topics covered under discretionary sanctions. Fortunately Sarah had the good sense to revert you.

Your ongoing and unfounded aspersions against me are even more alarming, however. Considering the recent one[4] as well as your three previous sanctions in the topic area -- an editing restriction shared with another COI editor and two topic bans for tendentious editing -- it would seem I need to address this.

Please read the following carefully. I will no longer tolerate baseless aspersions against me, including but not limited to calling me insincere,[5][6][7] questioning my motives,[8] calling me dishonest,[9] or hinting at some conspiracy in which I secretly obtained a deleted link.[10][11][12] If I see any of this or similar from you again, I will proceed to arbitration enforcement and ask for you to be sanctioned a fourth time.

Further -- and this is the constructive part of my post where some actual good can come from it -- I ask that you finally read the AE request, the one you refused to read even after it was pointed out to you four times,[13][14][15][16] and finally realize that there is no such conspiracy and that I have not been dishonest. I have made clear that to protect your privacy I will not say more than "read it".[17] I then ask that you to add apologies to the talk pages where you have promulgated these falsehoods about me ({{small}} text is fine). That would go far in reducing the toxicity levels around here. Talk page archives aren't usually edited, but exceptions can be made in cases like this one.

Lastly, I would make an appeal for basic human decency. It would seem I have direct experience of what MastCell described in his reprimand of you: you and other affiliated accounts flout both site guidelines and common-sense prohibitions on COI editing, and then question not only the arguments but the very humanity of anyone who tries to hold you accountable.[18] I would ask you to stop doing this. I would ask you to treat others with respect and kindness; assume good faith; recognize that we are all in this together; kumbaya; and so forth. Nobody -- including someone who does not share your point of view -- deserves such aspersions, especially aspersions based upon falsehoods, and especially-especially aspersions based upon falsehoods where direct evidence proving them false was repeatedly pointed out to you while you refused to look. Manul ~ talk 13:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Manul. It is never my intent at any place in my life to hurt anyone. That said, I will not be harassed or bullied. This is a false narrative. Will there be people on Wikipedia who believe this story, probably. Wikipedia often fails badly in that its very structures can support the surface level narratives set out by editors whether true or not and whether they believe them or not . I'm not going to rebut the comments you make here which glaringly leave out the comments you made which led to my responses. I will point out that your opening paragraph accuses me of reverting content as if I had added that content in the first place and as if there was no agreement for the kind of content it was. We have an excellent neutral editor on that page who has explained as have I that there are places for explanation if there is going to be fringe content. Yet you reverted her. My revert was back to her as you well know and while she did remove some content - a few words - she did not remove the source. This whole narrative has the same level of mischaracterization. Slim Virgin asked you this: Unless you respond, which you haven't (and I've asked you this question too), I wonder of this is an effort to cloud the issue and to side step her question.

I've removed that link, which I only just noticed. Manul, how were you able to link to a deleted revision from years ago? SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I will not respond further to this post Manul; I am busy in real life and try to use my little Wikipedia time with matters that are life supporting and that might make a tiny difference to someone or something. Nothing can be gained by trying to argue against what falsely characterizes in the first place.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC))

First, Manul, I was the one who added "not a product of the brain", then removed it because I knew you'd object. It's correct, though, and clearly what is meant. Failing to use common sense about these things just makes everything tiresome.

As for the other issue, I see what happened now. Manul copied the link from an AE report in 2013, in which an Arb gave an editor the link to a deleted revision. That shouldn't have happened (neither the posting to AE nor the copying of the link to the templates) because it violates WP:OUTING. If the link needed to be discussed, it should have been dealt with by email.

Littleolive oil, if you ask a functionary, they may be able to suppress it. I've removed two (not deleted, just removed), but I don't know where else they've been posted.

As for the COI issue itself, that's perhaps best discussed separately, so I won't comment on that here. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)