User talk:Xtian1313

Welcome

Hello, Xtian1313. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started.

You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people.

Ask for help. Talk to us here, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

Play in your user area. For example, create user:Xtian1313/test.

I suggest that you try to improve a few articles first, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better.

When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references.

Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page.

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia!

-- Chzz ►

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

-- Chzz ► 02:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

I saw what you posted to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katr67&curid=5456794&diff=279497342&oldid=279302225 . What a nice introduction. In the spirit of helpfulness, if you would like any assistance, please feel free to ask myself or others. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Xtian1313. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome

Hello Xtain, and welcome! I am sorry to hear about the problems with that article, we try to keep our content accurate, but when everyone can edit there are inevitably some bad edits. If you could let me know about anything problematic in the article I will deal with that situation as quickly as possible. The links on the welcome template above provide a good intro to Wikipedia, but if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me! Cheers, Prodego ^talk 02:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you seem to be fine. No one should expect you to know every single rule on day 1. I think you are doing great. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xtian1313. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re. best practive

Hello again,

Thanks for your frank reply. All I can suggest is, the same thing I have suggested to the other user - follow procedures and policies, and there will not be any problems. I'm truly sorry to hear of problems you've had outside of Wikipedia, but this is not an appropriate platform for a discussion of them. The only reason to edit on Wikipedia is to improve the quality of the articles - any other motive is likely to lead to problems down the line. Focus on the content, not the people. If there is a specific edit that you want to make, then post it to the talk; if others disagree and a consensus cannot be reached, follow the dispute policy. If you have concerns about others, with respect to COI or other matters, then there are places to raise your concerns and get them dealt with. Assume good faith is one of the cornerstones, and one of the most difficult things to achieve. If I can help advise on any issues, please contact me again. Best wishes, -- Chzz ► 23:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from User talk:Chzz

I don't know who invented this little catch phrase, but I don't appreciate it. I am not tearing down anybody. Did I not mention that I'm her husband?

Please note that I am not accusing you or your wife personally of doing it. I have, as far as I know, no actual, personal cause for enmity with you, and would appreciate a civil discussion.

However, the editor(s) who sparked all this discussion (KurtneyLovelace and 69.239.114.107) certainly is/are tearing people down. Would you consider these edits to TC Smith to be constructive editing? 1 2 3 4

Please review the types of vandalism. These edits violate at least:

1. Page lengthening

2. Silly vandalism

3. Sneaky vandalism

4. Abuse of tags

5. Gaming the system

I'm pretty sure I can guess who are? Michigan IP address? Nice Jack Off Jill edit btw.

A) Please read the policy on outing other users. Since you're new here, and as a sign of good faith that I'm actually interested in talking about these issues, I'm not going to report this. However, this is twice 1 2 that you have attempted an outing of another editor. Please don't do it again.

B) I have attempted to be scrupulously neutral with my edits. My edits have always been intended to improve the encylopedic tone and informative qualities of Wikipedia, or to correct misinformation or vandalism. Specifically, my recent Jack Off Jill edits included:

1) reorganizing the list of associated acts in the following order

a) by prominence in the band

b) by output post-JOJ

c) by length of association

This obviously places a higher hierarchical importance to Scarling and TCR over novelty acts, bands where the member is associated with a single JOJ show. This ordering is more encyclopedic and useful to a reader who is looking for the definitive post-JOJ acts by the major band members.

2) editing portions to remove breathless magazine-style writing and trivia/cruft, to reduce link redundancy, and to request citations for unsupported statements.

As a rule, I Assume good faith with people I care about-and if they mess up I'm there to fix it.

Excellent. Then given those edits to TC Smith above, I hope you'll make good on your word and ask this editor to cease this style of vandalism; this is the sort of mess that has led directly to this situation. I am looking for a solution to this problem so that we don't have an issue like this in the future. I'm sure you're a busy man and have better things to do than police Wikipedia, and reducing acts like this will help cut down on the time you spend doing so.

I am asking, in good faith, for your help in convincing the editors, who you claimed to know here, to stop making disruptive edits. I sincerely appreciate your help in the matter.

I'm not retracting anything. Now who's being a bully? I am asking for a third party, that's not you or Godblessyrblackheart.

I don't know. Has anyone accused you of bullying? I'm not trying to bully you; I'm simply asking that you withdraw the statement that Godblessyrblackheart and I are pals. We're not. I am trying to assume good faith, and I'm trying to maintain a calm and civil tone... so I'm pretty sure it's not me being a bully.

Please try to get beyond who you think I am and take my words at face value, and we can try to have a fair and civil discussion to resolve these issues. Thank you. Snuppy 15:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xtian1313. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Chzz ► 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)...and again, in user talk:Chzz/All edits [reply]

Hello, Xtian1313. You have new messages at Snuppy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Introductions

Thanks for introducing yourself and sorry to hear about your issues regarding that article. If there is anything I can do to help please contact me or one of the other users above, they're all good :). You may be interested in the Adopt a User scheme to help you get the grasp of wikipedia more quickly from a more experienced user. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come and say hello

By the way, although it is noted in the helpme template, you may not be aware that the talk to us live thing really works; there's several people, including myself, sitting there all the time, more than happy to help users with any Wikipedia questions. Pop in and say "hi" some time.-- Chzz ► 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. removal of text

I have removed the first and third items of text, as you requested. However, I have not removed the second and fourth; this is because, when I realized that the pages were in the archive of Prodego (talk · contribs), I asked that user via online chat if they minded my editing their archive, and they requested that you email them about it. Sorry I couldn't help more in this case, but I'm careful about editing other peoples archived talk pages, as it's a delicate matter, so please email Prodego to discuss it. -- Chzz ► 21:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your message regarding the removal of certain text from the 2 prementioned articles. It seems that Chzz has bet me to it however for the record you would have been well within your rights to remove those lines yourself (if you know how). Cheers, «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talkback

Hello, Xtian1313. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chzz ► 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post uncivil invective on my talk page

As I noted there, your complaint is with policies like WP:RS and WP:BLP. Neither you nor the woman you identify as your wife can control the article about her or insist that it include promotional material about her and her friends. That violates wikipeida policy. Given that, according to comments made on User:Tallulah13's talk page, yoru are attempting to complain about this in some formal way, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Clint_Catalyst.2C_Jessicka.2C_and_COI-implicated_editors_who_refuse_to_abide_by_WP:RS_and_WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't uncivil in the least. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's wikipedia page. Removing that section in the article wasn't even your edit. [1]

I am fine with the edits made by User:Piano non troppo, as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands. Please don't deflect. I am stating facts. I am asking you to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking you to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section. If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search .

If you are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of COI with these articles.

I have been very open about my conflict of interest, Here's an example: [2] Xtian1313 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Jessicka_edits, policy for biographies of living people is actually more conservative, towards removal of uncited information, not cite tags. See Seigenthaler incident for what happened almost three years ago. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My point is why not try finding the references first? That's all. I am not questioning anybody's authority nor am I asking that special attention be made to any of the articles I have mentioned. I don't believe that I have behaved in an uncivil manner towards User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. After reading their talk page this user has been quite disruptive here and has been banned from editing for 48 hours. [3]

"interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene,"

My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and her article is well sourced.

That fact that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz made that comment in their introduction here:[4] just proves that he or she has some sort of axe to grind with the articles I've mentioned.

I just want edits to be fair. I have no problem with removal of images nor do I have an issue with removal of content but certain sections were removed without even trying to look for the sources.

Wouldn't it be better to have constructive user(s) edit those articles not somebody who clearly has a conflict of interest. I myself am not editing those articles for this very reason. I like the wikipedia community and dislike seeing one bad apple spoiling the bunch.

Thanks for your response, Xtian1313 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just an uninvolved person who saw the debate on ANI. Our BLP policy is to prevent undue harm to a person, so unsourced and potentially harmful material is to be removed on sight. Then, when sources are found, it can be re-added with the proper citations. We don't leave potentially libelous or damaging material in the articles until sources are found because, often, they never are. This is an instance where we must err on the side of caution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understandable! Nothing that was removed was potentially harmful. The sections removed could have been easily referenced with a simple google search. There was even a section that was removed because of a dead link... [5]. Rather then take a minute to find the new link User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed the section.

From WP:BLP -- "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The unsourced claim that I removed was a claim that the woman you identify as your wife had been arrested on a "solicitation" charge commonly associated with prostitution. I don't think any reasonable editor should question this one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just pointing out what a few other's have on [6] User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's talk page. This user is often disruptive and if they have some sort of conflict of interest in editing the articles I have previously mentioned then perhaps it's best for them to leave those articles for constructive user(s) to edit. +

Take care,

Xtian1313 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for disruption, no less than Jimmy Wales said I was in the right in that dispute. "The user in question was engaging in perfectly appropriate blanking of a serious BLP violation. To call someone a "spammer" is a very serious personal attack, remember WP:NPA, and he was using a (misspelling) of the real name of a known critic. The block in this case should have been handed out to User:Calton for violatio of policy, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz could possibly have been thanked for right action.--Jimbo Wales" [7] Your repeated, unfounded accusations also violate WP:CIVIL and {{WP:NPA]]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deflecting. I am asking you now for the third time. If you are so interested in my wife's wikipedia article, why not help the legitamacy of the article and help find proper third party sources? They clearly exist. I am asking you in good faith to try to be reasonable. Clearly you must have an interest in my wife's career if you are constantly editing her page.

I await your response. Xtian1313 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments made here: [8]

"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com."

My wife isn't a "minor-league" internet celebrity- - she's a notable musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com. If you have some issue with her legitimacy, might I nicely suggest that you leave editing her wikipedia page to user(s) who have no COI and have neutral third party opinions. This reason is why I myself do not edit her page.

"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [110], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)"

The episode was filmed in LA not Germany.Germany's Next Topmodel, Cycle 4 You know what people say about assuming. A little research on certain topics goes a long way.

"A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka."

I have no idea what promoting business you are talking about. The end of your ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what you are alluding to. I am telling you it's simply not true. I am coming to you in good faith. If you have some issue with my wife, Clint Catalyst, or anybody whom you assume they are friendly with being legitimate and deserving wikipedia pages, might I suggest that the best course of action is for you to allow user(s) who can be 100% neutral, fair, and willing to do research to edit their articles.

Please read this Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

My wife's article clearly meets these guidelines. Wikipedia:Notability I consider your rant above slanderous towards my wife. Why is it OK for you to assume and spout false accusations?

I have declared my interest I have been 100% honest. I believe that you have a COF in editing my wife's article. If believe your edits violate neutral point of view.

I await your response to this as well! Xtian1313 (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption Offer

{{adoptoffer}} Hi there! Please either accept or decline my adoption offer by clicking here. I can't wait to get to know you better! :) --♥Soccer5525♥Talk To Me! 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. As soon as I have a little more free time I'd love to have a chat.

Xtian1313 (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback - Chzz

Hello, Xtian1313. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chzz ► 18:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scarling.2.jpg

Hi there,

Regarding the picture File:Scarling.2.jpg, the pasted email is not sufficient for permission. You need to send an email declaring that you, as copyright holder, explicitly give permission; this is sent to Wikipedia, logged, and then the reference added to the image.

For details fo the text to send, see WP:CONSENT.

I've added a tag to the image page, indicating that such a confirmation is pending.

Cheers, Chzz ► 15:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sending the email over the weekend. Thank you Chzz. Xtian1313 (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got this response today. Dear [email protected],

Thank you for your email.

05/01/2009 20:19 - [email protected] wrote:

> I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scarling.2.jpg ]. > > > I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE > > >

>

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

This template should only be used on file pages.

If this file is eligible for relicensing, it may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license.
The relicensing status of this image has not yet been reviewed. You can help.

- for works released per the GNU Free Documentation License by

their creators.

> I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a > commercial product and to modify it according to their needs, provided > that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable > laws. > > > I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the > right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. > Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. > > > I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the > content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. > > > May1, 2009 Christian Hejnal >

Xtian1313 (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtian1313

"Conclusions

I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser."

Xtian1313 (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard

Hello, just a note that I've moved your message on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard to the main noticeboard page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, where it will attract more attention. Deor (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank-you

Xtian1313 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.

To all editors dealing with article Jessicka/Hullballoo's aggressive edits

Let me weigh in here : I undoubtedly believe user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a bias and is making disruptive edits on both Christian Hejnal, my wife Jessicka, and anything related to us or our band Scarling's articles here on wikipedia. User_talk:Xtian1313#Please_do_not_post_uncivil_invective_on_my_talk_page He even went as far as to conduct a sock puppet investigation against me [9] no evidence was found. Comments made by Hullaballoo toward editors who edit the pages mentioned above (as well as article Clint Catalyst ) are needlessly aggressive and borderline uncivil. Calling editors socks, spas, fanboys, and vandals and referring to the articles these people are editing disparagingly, does not fall under these rules:

Be polite.
Assume good faith.
No personal attacks.
Be welcoming.

I concur with what both user:Swancookie and User:Doktor_Wilhelm are alleging. I'm not sure what the proper course of action is but I am asking that an administrator take a close look at user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 's uncivil talk and disruptive edits or at least refer me to a place where I can make a proper complaint. Though they are cleverly masked within wiki policy, they are disruptive none the less. You can confirm my identity by sending and email to [email protected] I will provide anything you need even a phone number where you may speak to me directly. Xtian1313 (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to post this at the related WP:AN3 thread instead of in an obscure place such as here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. Unfortunately, I don't have alot of time left today. Should I just post what I wrote above or do I need to back up up with talkpage and link evidence? Xtian1313 (talk)

Evidence is always helpful in any argument but you must do what your time allows. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping what User:Doktor_Wilhelm stated is enough for today. Doing my best. I just want this to stop for good. You are clearly way more wiki knowledgeable. Do have any other advice? Xtian1313 (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None at this point.. await the outcome of the related WP:AN3 thread. If that doesn't cool the situation, I'd advise you or anyone else to take the issue to WP:RFC. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome was "(Result: wrong board)". What does that mean exactly? I know how incrediblely annoying I must come off but I'm tired of being bullied by Hullaballoo and would really like this all to be over. At the very least Hullaballoo should receive some sort of reprimand for his uncivil behavior? Swancookie (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Hullaballoo_vs._a_group_of_editors_who_desire_to_expand_music_articles Swancookie (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my own recent run ins with Hullaballoo I found him to be very unreasonable and unwilling to compromise. His singular goal seems to be to get articles deleted, not to improve them. I suspect that he has a sock account Bigdaddy1981 (a frequent "buddy" of his who uses the same tact) but I am not sure how to ask for an investigation on that. Dogtownclown (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballo saga continues/ Any word whether he is a blocked editor?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doktor_Wilhelm#I_still_need_help_with_this He just going to continue harassing if he is not reprimanded. Swancookie (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benjiboi#Hullaballo_saga_continues.2F_Any_word_whether_he_is_a_blocked_editor.3F

Swancookie (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors/ Hullaballoo situation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swancookie#To_all_editors.2F_Hullaballoo_situation

Swancookie (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Marx

I am requesting a third party opinion. I think the Marx article lacks balance. Other political/economic thinkers are criticized, but not Marx. Can any sort of criticism of Marx be permitted from Bakunin or Bertrand Russell or Richard Pipes or Piketty or anyone?Jimjilin (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]