I've removed the usenet reference - I had already added an alternative source with a web link. I've left the John Pearse account in because it is an interesting story and it would be a shame to lose it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Roche (talk • contribs) 09:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC) I've read your subsequent comment and followed the link you suggested. If you applied the "self published" criterion consistently in the way you have used it here then firstly most (if not all) of the article in question should be removed and secondly the same would apply to large parts of the remainder of Wikipedia. I can see that you are a long standing and well respected editor and I have no interest in continuing a debate I will not be allowed to win. This is a pretty insignificant jot of human knowledge and losing it because you unfortunately lit upon it with a fervor of bureaucracy is just one of those unfortunate "shit happens" events in human history. Perhaps while you were doing this something more valuable was escaping your attention. All the best Nick

Yworo are you retiring from Wikipedia? I hope not - I rely on your expertise! Please stay even if just part time. Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the same thing, too. Please reconsider your retirement, Yworo. You have been a valuable and trusted contributor and I appreciate all the work that you do. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, editing Wikipedia was simply not compatible with a multi-state vision quest journey in a motorhome. Now that I've (more or less) reached my destination, I expect I'll be doing some more editing… Yworo (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yworo - so happy to hear you will be editing once again :)! Welcome back... Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 02:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Yworo (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be great to have you back on '60s stuff! Learner001 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Morning Yworo. Welcome back! [1] There is a long growing list of supposed "disciples" of his. Shouldn't that be in the body of the page with references proving they are disciples? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's not quibble about what an infobox should or should not contain. I tried to resolve the ambiguity in the MOS last year, but could not get a consensus for clarification. (Interestingly, Norwegian Lundehund has an infobox that gives classifications & standards that are not in the text (FCI & UKC). But that infobox/article is used as an example at H:IB.) Besides, in the Manning article, I proposed textual support for the awards. Cheers. – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me. I apologise for not writing the most extensive article in the history of wikipedia right off the bat. If you would give me just a chance to continue editing it, to improve it and add things not already said in other articles (and there's a lot that can be said, it's an extensive topic that would require a full article when complete). Alyxr (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yworo, Thanks for your message. I work for the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) and am trying to get involved in Wikipedia because of my dismay over the years about the lack of information and rather poor overall quality of articles about New New Mexico on WIkipedia.I'd like to start getting editors trained and organizing scan-a-thons and edit-a-thons. Please let me know if you live in New Mexico, know other editors who work on articles about New Mexico, or who would be interested in being a Wikipedian-in-Residence with the DCA. This fall I will have an intern working on a project about properties in NM on the National Register of Historic Landmarks and our New Mexico HIstoric SItes to get images and documents uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but many will need articles and he's a designer not a writer. User:Mimi.roberts 10:36, 22 September 2014‎

Hello, I'm sorry for accusing you of bias, I deal with it constantly on here, but may I suggest you be more explanatory in your summaries. I was under the influence that you were changing the font status simply out of opinion. I am well aware of WP:MOSBOLD's terms; American Horror Story is an exception among other series due to its anthological nature. Therefore, the "subject tile" is the season title and the series title, validating the bold font. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, because the series title is included in the article title. We don't bold Wikilinks. Yworo (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm inclined to agree. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I hate pointless arguments. At least it didn't get wikilinked from the bolded title, which is also discouraged. Mentioning it again in order to wikilink it is certainly correct there. :-) Yworo (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Skyerise. I've been editing The Hum along with a chap called Brummfrosch, who it turns out is the same Frosch who authored the article that he used to justify changes to the Spontaneous otoacoustic emissions section. That potential COI is in hand as it seems likely that he'll email me a copy.

The issue we're currently having is that his article was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is a fringe journal, as was the Deming article that is used throughout The Hum entry. The JSE would, I believe, fail were it to go to the RSN (indeed, although only 5 commented, it didn't do too well last time it went there). I'd left Frosch & Deming in a sentence that referred to "scientific literature" but added a sentence after that drew attention to the fact that they were both published in the JSE and that there are potential issues with it, i.e. Further, there has been little mainstream attention; both Frosch and Deming were published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which has been accused of promoting fringe theories and ignoring contrary evidence. Brummfrosch cut the second part of that sentence, thus removing the warning about his and Deming's articles.

I've reverted, but as you've been monitoring The Hum page I'd like to ask you for your opinion here on the inclusion/exclusion of that detail on the JSE to head off a possible edit war. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 9#Template:Modern Indian religions writers. By the way, nice username. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear Skyerise, I invite you to express your opinion about the article for deletion. --Rossi101 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Rossi101

Hello once again. Someone is deleting the 2 volume commentary by Yogananda from this page. I thought wikipedia would want to give the reader full knowledge of all significant volumes available. I just realized I need a secondary source. [2]Red Rose 13 (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Also there is a discussion here [3] about the use of the AY current cover on the Autobiography of a Yogi & Paramahansa Yogananda page and Abecedare has pinged you to join us because of you participation in our looooong discussion. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a consensus being held right now [4] - please come. Red Rose 13 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just an Fyi I guess you forgot about the discussion we had and the three month intervention to create this page. You then said it was fine to leave the current edition cover - in fact you placed it where it has been for about a year or so now. Also, it is free and was already proven so. Is it normal for Wikipedia to have a consensus that lasts under 24 hours which doesn't allow any discussion? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was decided that it was allowable under the "Fair Use" policy: that is, it was acknowledged as being under copyright but that there was a legitimate reason to use it. It's certainly not in the public domain. But the "Fair Use" policy only applies when there is no public domain or freely usable image, which there is: the 1st edition cover. So we were wrong to allow its use. And yes, use of copyrighted material discussions are often abrupt in venues where most of the participants are more knowledgeable about the letter of the law and scrupulous about applying it. That's the way the cookie crumbles. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your honest & kind response. Wish there was more kindness on Wikipedia. Red Rose 13 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I try. Sometimes the more hard-nosed Wikipedia editors annoy me too. Skyerise (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi - I'm quite new here (sorry) and I'm trying to update some of the trans refernences and also setup the page for Sparkle (charity). I can see you've been active on the Transgender page - would you be kind enough to just give me some pointers on this User:Urbanfox73/Sparkle_(charity). Thanks. Urbanfox73 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Washington Tilth Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Tilth Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful changes to this page, however the bold to italic formatting change didn't work, as for some reason Wikipedia is displaying multiple inverted commas rather than interpreting them as a formatting command. Looking at the Morgan Holmes page, for example, bold does appear acceptable as a format for journal article titles, so I may revert to that. Hope that's ok. Trankuility (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

My formatting worked perfectly and Wikipedia has standards: article titles are enclosed in double quotes, not formatted. Book and journal titles are italicized. Please do not revert my changes again. See the Manual of Style. And the fact that another page is formatted incorrectly doesn't mean anything other than that it also needs work. Skyerise (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

However you have reverted other substantive changes to the text. That was not necessary and not very friendly. Trankuility (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

In face, 5 revisions by 2 people were reverted with a diff of -986 bytes. Reapplying the preferred formatting after restoring those changes resulted in a diff of -54 bytes. Trankuility (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)