User talk:Screamliner

If you have any questions about the project don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page here :-User_talk:Lumos3.

Happy editing,

Lumos3 (talk) 10:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC) , Wikipedia Welcoming Committee.[reply]

Welcome Screamliner!

Hi Screamliner! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 20:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Please carefully read the following notice:

This message is to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions for topics relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, which you may have edited. The Committee's decision can be read here

.

Discretionary sanctions are intended to prevent further disruption to a topic which has already been significantly disrupted. In practical terms, this means that uninvolved administrators may impose sanctions for any conduct, within or relating to the topic, which fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, expected standards of behavior and applicable policies. The sanctions may include editing restrictions, topic bans, or blocks. Before making any more edits to this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system as sanctions can be imposed without further warning. Please do not hesitate to contact me or any other editor if you have any questions.

This is merely a notification, not a reprimand. vzaak 23:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for repairing my source edit errors in the article

Hi MrBill3, Not a problem and thanks for the reference you have found. I will have a look and see if I can help improve the article more when I get a bit of spare time. I have already improved some of the references you flagged up. Thanks again Screamliner (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Screamliner, I have added an additional comment on the talk page. Thank you for your contributions to the article. I think you are making substantial improvements. I just wanted to drop you a note re the WP process and let you know although there may be some contention, WP editing is a consensus process engaged in with good faith. I hope myself and other editors proceed with courtesy and respect contributing to your enjoyment of and encouraging your editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to ProQuest and may be able to email you material (For your own personal research, not to be distributed, to be destroyed upon completion of your research). I think this qualifies as fair use. I will post material I find in the Sources section on the talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for your kind words and yes that would be fantastic MrBill3, is there any way I can send you my e-mail address privately? If not I could post a temporary e-mail address here just for this purpose Screamliner (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you email me from User:MrBill3 (left side of page, tools menu, email this user link) I will get an email from the email address you used to register on WP. I can email you back at that email address or you can put the email address you want me to use in the body of the email message. Let me know which sources you are interested in. Your certainly welcome for the kudos, I think you are making great improvements to the article.

A few notes:

I think the material from the Schultes 1993 review needs to be paraphrased. A little overquoted there.

In general ASINs are discouraged. If you think adding the one for the CD version of Alien Dreamtime should be added back as verification of publication of the CD version. The idea behind discouraging ASINs is that it is a link to a single commercial website.

There are still a ton of cites to McKenna's books, speaches and other works as references. I think most of the material can be found in secondary reliable sources to the citations should be changed to those. Policy

Speaking of the Thought section, boy that needs a ton of work. I think Jenkins (2009) covers much of the "Novelty Theory" and "Timewave Zero" material. It seems some of the books you have found cover "Archaic Revival" and touch upon "Stoned Ape". The section needs to be cut way down. I think the Watkins Objection has to go, where is it discussed? Sheliak and Watkins material is self published original research not encyclopedia material.

Well enough already. In the future most of this type of discussion belongs on the talk page of the article. Again thanks for your contributions. You have provided some excellent references and done some good editing. The article is much stronger now and the support for the content is getting good. McKenna was an important figure and he has been written about fairly extensively by a variety of authors. As an RN I find that Jean Watson discussed him in Postmodern Nursing and Beyond particularly intriguing. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help and advice MrBill3. I couldn't find the link but you can e-mail me at [email protected] I am going to have a go at re-working the Stoned Ape section over the next few days so if you've anything related to that or food of the gods in general that would be excellent, although I've got quite a few good sources to go on. I have done quite a bit more editing on the article today. In my view the only sections now which are still in need a lot of work are the 'Stoned Ape' section and 'Novelty Theory and Timewave Zero' section, 'early life' section needs a bit of work too. I've got quite a lot of information regarding novelty theory in the John Major Jenkins book and also in the Mavericks of the Mind book but it is a big task so I'll have to see about doing that section, maybe some other editors will chip in as well. Anyway thanks again Screamliner (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be a help. You must be quite the McKenna scholar by now. Great work on the article. I am going to remove all three tags and have stated so on the talk page. I have also notified vzaak and TRPoD, they will likely have some input (some clarification and context of mainstream scientific consensus and the status of McKenna's ideas as fringe, which are appropriate, and those two editors are good at providing such as well as insistent upon it). I will email you some of the material when I get a chance, RL and various computers and all that. I am going to pull the Watkins Objection to the talk page. When I get a chance I will do a detailed discussion of the sources I have tagged on the talk page and an attempt at consensus on what should stay or go...

Great work the article again. I hope you are enjoying editing and will continue to do so. There may be some pushback on this article and in the future on other articles you and I may be in positions of contention, as ever AGF and best wishes. - - (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrBill3 sorry only just seen this message I did just ask you about one of your tagged sources in the talk page. Anyway thanks again yes it's been an enjoyable experience. I agree some well sourced criticism would be beneficial - I have added a bit myself today. I'm going to have a little break from editing, but I will get the page numbers for true hallucinations done in time and I may even have a go at the novelty theory section in the future. All the best and look forward to the e-mails thanks Screamliner (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - it's Matthew Watkins here, just wanted to correct your section on what TM called the "Watkins Objection" (the article is locked, so I can't change it myself). I did my PhD at the University of Kent at Canterbury, NOT Cambridge (I think McKenna himself got that wrong somewhere in print). I started looking at the Timewave in '95 or '96, not '94, and that was *after* I completed my PhD. The description of my "objection" isn't entirely accurate, but five years after 2012 I don't think anyone's that interested! I can clarify if you like [[email protected]]

129.12.212.56 (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC) MW[reply]

Hi Matthew User:129.12.212.56 thanks for getting in touch. WP is only bult on information from published reliable sources, so even if you sent me the correct info by e-mail it would not be able to be included in the article, so i have just removed the potentially problematic information from the article. Thanks Screamliner (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you editing. I think you are a good editor and I encourage you to edit other articles. You have developed some real skills in WP editing and you write well. I hope you find other subjects interesting and contribute to them. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much MrBill3 and thanks for your support. Screamliner (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision.

This is just so you are aware of September 11 discretionary sanctions that are allowed following the above arbcom case. This isn't a sanction or warning, just a notice so you can familiarize yourself with differences between these articles and others in WP and don't find yourself being sanctioned without understanding the special rules set by Arbcom. --DHeyward (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 4everevolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Terence McKenna may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:

• {{Rquote|right|<small>It's clearly a crisis of two things: of consciousness and conditioning. These

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, Screamliner. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Screamliner. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• You have received the above alert because of your controversial edits to and around the page David Icke. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.  Bishonen | talk 14:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• (And the same with this one, of course. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC).)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being

]

WP:BLP "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." So it was perfectly justifiable for me to revert the contentious edit on the topic directly been discussed at Talk:David_Icke#Antisemitism Screamliner (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at David Icke. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Screamliner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was the one using the talk page and attempting to reach consensus other editor did not even engaging on the talk page even when asked to. I reverted one edit which appeared to be pettty vandalism, and the other which is potentially in violation of

WP:BLP "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment...The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." So it was perfectly justifiable for me to revert the contentious edits on the topics directly been discussed at Talk:David_Icke#Antisemitism & Talk:David_Icke#Holocaust_denier I am the only editor bothering to quote wiki policy to show the justification of my actions Screamliner (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

You clearly edit warred and exceeded 3RR, which is not justifiable. Being correct, if you are, is not a defense. Looking at the dispute, I don't feel that the BLP exemption applies(and would be a matter for

WP:EW. Unless you are willing to concede that you erred in edit warring, I don't feel you should be unblocked before the block expires. As such, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Note: Screamliner, an uninvolved admin will be along to assess your unblock request. But the
  3RR rule is a bright line, and you had been warned. The history isn't very easy to read, so I'll supply the four reverts inside 24 hours that you made in my opinion: [1], [2], [3], [4] (the last is a partial revert of Izewhiz's edit here.) Bishonen | talk 18:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC).[reply
  ]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Screamliner. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

April 2020

tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Managing a conflict of interest

FAQ for organizations

for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross How is this at all suitable, or relevant to post on my page? Thanks Screamliner (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant because most of your contributions are to Icke's article. I note that you haven't addressed the question, would you please do so now? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller I haven't counted all my wikipedia edits per page but I think if you did you would find I have made more edits to the Terence Mckenna article overall, which was the first page I made any serious contributions to. There wasn't a question asked, it was a statment as far as I can tell, so I didn't presume an answer was required. If you are asking if I have conflict of interests in regards to David Icke, the answer is no, and I really hope anyone seriously looking at the content of my edits in an unbiased fashion would see that. Thanks Screamliner (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller No problem. Screamliner (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Covid19 sanctions

{{gs/editnotice}} Doug Weller talk 17:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using

Template:Tl on the use of this editnotice as soon it will cause an error if left as a template call. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]