User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 9

Nifty Stub For Scientists

Philomath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.127.205 (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I enjoyed reading it! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I have tried to actively promote civility for many years. Thank you. Phil Burnstein (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome; and thank you for actively promoting civility, too. I wonder what I did specifically to earn your thanks this time. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I trust in the interest of fairness you will also file an RfC for Avi, Jayjg, and JakeW. -- DanBlackham (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would consider it, if the situation seemed to warrant it. I've commented to each of the users you named about messages of theirs, but on balance I have had considerably more issues with messages posted by Blackworm. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I'm curious about what you think of these edits in the context of this discussion. Blackworm (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that Wikipedians vary in their opinion of how long ago a diff can be and be considered to represent recent behaviour in some sense. I pretty much restricted myself to diffs in the last 3 months, thinking that few Wikipedians would consider more distant ones to be recent. As the Serenity prayer says, it's a good idea to accept those things we cannot change, and as a friend of mine pointed out, everything that's in the past is in that category. Another friend advised "staying in the present," which sometimes means not complaining about anything from more than a few seconds ago.

Whether a diff is relevant depends partly on what it's being used for, not only on the numerical value of how old it is. The mere fact that I pretty much refrained from using older diffs myself doesn't mean I think it's necessarily wrong for someone else to do so.

I think that if a medical association doesn't want a 10-year-old document to be cited as representing their policy, then they can issue a new statement; that if a Wikipedian doesn't want an old diff cited as expressing their views then they can state clearly that they no longer hold those views and what their new views are; and that if a Wikipedian doesn't want old diffs cited as representing their behaviour then they can state in what way their practices have changed to preclude such behaviour being repeated. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Options

Hi. Thank you for your insightful message on my talk page. It is much appreciated. I did realize I could've done something better when it became clear that I was in danger of being blocked as well. I don't fault you for filing a 3RR report, because you did what you felt needed to be done. I already spoke with another editor regarding the "rvv" edit summary, and I know that it was incorrect. It was knee-jerk, and I was mostly concerned with the page being disrupted for as short a time as possible. The additions violated WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, so I did not feel leaving the content there for the sake of not violating 3RR would benefit our readers, the editors of the article, or indeed, anyone other than the IP who posted it (and I use that word because it was basically a message board rant). Next time I encounter something like this, I will initiate a talk page discussion. I just hadn't encountered anything like this before, as in my experience, whenever editors are slapped with a warning they stop doing whatever it is they're doing (I know I do). I should've known better since circumcision is a controversial topic. Thanks again. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody was around at the time. The awkward situation came about precisely because no one else was there. Although, another editor made the first revert, so that should've sent red flags to the user. In other words, I was the other person. I explained to the anon that the content in the article was arrived at by consensus to be NPOV, and that his edits violated that (which they did). A normal editor's neutrality is the POV-pusher's POV. If there is any POV dispute, it's that the article is too biased in favor of circumcision. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image

To list at WP:PUI: Image:Louis vd Watt (238x320).jpg. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Testing my signature: ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

William Green

Hello,

Why did you delete the information I posted on William Green - It's all correct.

Kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.170.15 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your courteous note. I deleted some information from William Green (painter) because it was essentially word-for-word identical with information on a website (http://fp.armitt.plus.com/william_green.htm) so it may have been a copyright violation. It's fine to include facts from a website, if you write about those facts in your own words. Sentences or phrases can't be taken from a copyrighted source without permission. We generally assume websites are copyrighted. If you want to try to get permission from the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Please don't re-insert the material again unless copyright permission has been obtained according to Wikipedia's requirements for such permission, and a note placed on the article talk page describing what was done (but don't post email addresses there). Please feel free to ask me any questions you may have about how to edit Wikipedia. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Tigris

I am sorry I hurt your feelings, I ment IMPATIENT, and was not towards you, but only the 4 users that started this hole thing. Now could you let it go. Geez-o-weez! Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

You can strike out your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris using <s></s> and replace it with just "impatient". That would be much better in my opinion, although "impatient" is still a comment on other editors. My feelings were not hurt; I didn't think you were talking about me. I was following DefendEachOther. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree image

Hi, normally wp:pui would be best way for this image, since it seems permission only. But it is an image on Commons, it can't be listed here. I will list it there in the near future. Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm not very familiar with images. I had been under the impression it was on Wikipedia, or maybe I forgot to even try to check whether it was. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User Arilang

Coppertwig, thank you for your note about User Arilang.

I am sorry if my comments on Arilang and his edits have become over-critical. My problem with User Arilang is that his edits are quite unashamedly partisan. That is, he has admitted POV, and he has openly admitted going in to make edits based on this POV. And he refuses to be stopped.

I appreciate that he is "enthusiastic", but this kind of editing on the part of an English speaker would not be tolerated. In the case of User Arilang, it is tolerated because he is Chinese and seems able to go in and find interesting material not accessible to an English speaker. However, I don't agree that he can make better edits simply because he is Chinese. I may not be a "scholar" as Arilang discovered, but I know enough about Chinese history to realise that Arilang's edits reflect the prejudices and biases of a strongly anti-Manchu strain of thought present in certain quarters of Chinese intellectual life. As Arilang says, this has become a major issue on Chinese-language forums and blogs. He is highlighting certain issues (with very little surrounding context) because they have been highlighted on the Internet. Moreover, much of what he writes is not necessarily balanced or well-sourced; it merely represents the assorted information that anyone can pick up from an Internet debate on a controversial topic. Unfortunately, viewpoints that are taken for granted on Chinese forums are not necessarily based on fact. They are often heavily based in emotion and ideology. The kind of comment found on the Chinese Internet can be just as racist and biased as anything found in the West.

Given the type of edit that Arilang is making, I am simply unable to stand aside while he goes in and makes POV edit after POV edit based on the emotions of Internet forums. Unfortunately it is impossible to tell him that he is POV because he is so convinced of the rightness of his cause that he will not admit to it. Since he refuses to be restrained, it becomes extremely frustrating to deal with his edits.

His attitude in the face of my attempts to rein in his blatant POV is telling. I am a "white man" who doesn't understand Classical written Chinese and therefore cannot understand Confucian thinking. That apparently disqualifies me from the right to judge Arilang and his POV. He started by calling me a "scholar", and the reason is pretty simple -- I knew things that he didn't expect a "white man" to know. When I admitted that I can't read Classical Chinese, he tried to use that to discredit my attempts to stop his POV edits.

If you look closely at Arilang's edits, you will find they consist mainly of two types:

• His own summary of what he believes the accepted facts are. This is largely based on a particular POV, namely that the Manchu period of history was a kind of dark ages for the Chinese.

• Cherry-picked quotations from primary or secondary sources. These are either left to stand alone and speak for themselves, without comment, or they are prefaced with comments that reflect Arilang's views and are not supported by the wider context in the sources from which he is quoting.

I am afraid that User Arilang is going to remain a POV editor until he realises what balanced editing is about. Anyone who started editing articles about "evolution" or "Christianity" with the degree of POV that marks Arilang's edits would be drummed out of Wikipedia very quickly.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you say. The question is: what to do? Here's one idea. Maybe you have other ideas. I've asked Arilang to post suggestions on the article talk page for discussion before editing. Arilang has done this at least once, but I have the impression is not usually doing it. Here's my idea: whenever Arilang makes an edit to an article without discussing it specifically on the talk page first (other than something obviously appropriate, or just adding a reasonable number of "fact" tags etc.), we can revert the edit with edit summary like "please discuss on talk before editing". This can be even if there are good parts to the edit; the idea is that Arilang should put the text on the talk page and wait until people have had a chance to comment and fix up any problems, before editing. Do you think that's a good idea? If you agree with this plan and are willing to participate, then I'll ask administrators Moonriddengirl and EdJohnston whether they approve of us doing that. (They've interacted with Arilang.)

I think Arilang can contribute some useful material, but needs input from other editors to make the material acceptable for Wikipedia.

I think it's good to have people with POVs. They should not just be allowed to write their POV into the article; but they can help contribute to a NPOV article by pointing to problems where the article contradicts their POV or gives too little weight to their POV. They need to show restraint. Ideally, in my opinion, people with several different POVs will interact to form an article.

If there are problems with an editor, there are ways to respond to the problem without needing to violate WP:CIVIL. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We can try this. Unfortunately I just don't have time to check whether his use of sources is fair or biased. He's posted material for comment at Qing. I've commented with specific criticisms, with a final comment again protesting at his POV.

One problem is that there are no qualified people ready and willing to tackle Arilang on his own ground. I notice that you've called him out on his links to pages using Chinese characters, etc. These are technicalities. But no one knowledgeable enough about Chinese history has appeared to challenge his constant slant. You may notice that he admits to being a refugee from Chinese-language Wikipedia, where he wasn't allowed to make the edits that he wanted. He complains quite bitterly about this, but has it occurred to you that they may have had good reasons for not allowing his edits?

Let me apologise; I've just noticed your guideline on not criticising other editors. I'm not sure what to do. Should it be moved to my talk page?

Bathrobe (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my talk page guideline. To be honest, I hadn't noticed that it would apply in this case. I grant you an exception for the above comments. Further criticisms, if any are necessary, can be on your talk page, and we can move the whole conversation there if you prefer (but put a note here directing my attention there if you want me to start looking at your talk page).

I can recognize some things as not NPOV, such as using the word "sinister". I suppose there may be other things that someone would notice if they knew more Chinese history. Well, when someone comes along who knows more Chinese history, then they can comment. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 12:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked Moonriddengirl and EdJohnston about this at User talk:EdJohnston#Arilang asking for help and User talk:Moonriddengirl#Arilang. I've had a lot of discussions with Arilang at User talk:Coppertwig#Arilang1234 asking for help. I'm notifying Arilang of this discussion. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both Coppertwig and Bathrobe's immense patience in trying to show me how to be a good editor in en.wikipedia. To tell the truth, I am still very confused about this NPOV or POV things. I know these are the rules of wiki, but exactly how it is applied and interpreted, I only have a little bit of idea. But none the less,I am willing to learn, and please give me a chance.Arilang1234 (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the question of NPOV and POV, well I did a fair number of edits on 2008 Chinese milk scandal, there wasn't any problems there(at least no one told me anything). My record on Revision History Statistics shows that:Ohconfucius 704, Arilang1234 152(hardly any was reverted.) And on the talk page of 2008 Chinese milk scandal, it can be seen that my co-operation with Ohconfucius was quite good, admittedly he helped me a lot in fixing grammar errors, or changing the structure of the sentence. Can someone make a comparison between Qing and 2008 Chinese milk scandal?Arilang1234 (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arilang1234. I agree with the concerns of Bathrobe and Coppertwig. You could be heading for trouble regarding POV unless you edit more carefully. When we talked before, I mentioned that some articles on Chinese topics are in need of better sources. This is an area where you could do useful work where you would not risk imposing your own POV on articles. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, thanks for your comments. Again let me emphasize my lack of understanding of Wikipedia rules such as NPOV and POV. When I was doing edits on 2008 Chinese milk scandal, I simply select news reports from CNN, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Posts, plus other main stream medias, I wrote the comments, did 'cite news', and press 'save page'. Every thing went OK, no one ever said anything about NPOV or POV, and most of my edits stayed, may be only one or two got reverted. When I was working on Qing, on which I try to add new sections onto it, new sections that in my opinion(POV?), that were needed there to make it more balance, more complete, and cover different perspectives. Qing dynasty, or Manchu Empire, lasted 300 years. And many scholars, including John King Fairbank, spend years after years of precious time, writing books after books on this subject. And here I am, as soon as I put in some comments on the brutality and backwardness of the Manchu, straight away I was labeled a Han chauvinism, Manchu basher, etc etc. Do you think it is fair? Now I am reading this book The Ching Imperial Household Department by Preston M. Torbert, on page 16-18, the author gave a detail description of how Jurchens(or Manchus) obtained land by warring, and turned war captives into agriculture slaves. I would like to add this information onto Qing, but then I am afraid others might label me as a 'Manchu basher' again. Well, whatever Manchus had done had been recorded on books, and as soon as I try to add this information into wikipedia encyclopedia, I would have POV problems. Hmm, I am wondering.Arilang1234 (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Arilang, it's very good that you've given us the title, author, page number and what the book says, all in one place so that we know they all go together. I think you're learning how to do encyclopedia writing. Please keep on learning: there are many things to learn. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"I put in some comments on the brutality and backwardness of the Manchu" is precisely the problem. When you edit it is very clear that you view the Manchus as "brutal and backward". Anyone reading your edits will immediately get the feeling "Wow! This article has really got it in for the Manchus!" If readers get that feeling you can be pretty sure that your POV (point of view) is showing.

To reflect the points that you want made in the article, using terms like "brutal and backward" is exactly the wrong way to go about it. If you want to present a more balanced view, you can

(1) include details of massacres, etc., with probable numbers killed; that will give readers a good idea what happened

(2) provide an objective view of the system that the Manchus introduced. For example, the Imperial Household Agency and its role is a gap in the article that you have tried to fill, which is a good thing (although you really should start out stating the year in which it was established -- after all, the administrative system did change over time). Mentioning the role of the boo-i is fine. Comments that blatantly imply that the boo-i system was far inferior to the traditional Chinese institution of slavery are not fine. Saying that the Qing emperor was a "dictator" is highly judgemental and introduces your own view very forcibly into the article (besides which you have no sources). What you could do is note that the Qing emperor had greater absolute power than emperors of past dynasties -- but this should be properly sourced -- no subjective rhetoric from Internet bulletin boards. (Just an aside here, if I understand correctly, all emperors in Chinese history theoretically had absolute power. The Qing were just more successful in imposing theirs.)

(3) include a description of the debate over the role of the Manchus in Chinese history. It's fine to say that some historians regard the Manchu period as a kind of "dark ages" for China -- as long as you can produce an authoritative academic source for this. And when you mention one side, you must always put in the opposing side, that is, the side of those arguing that the Manchus played a positive role in the history of China or dismissing the claims of the anti-Manchu thinkers. That way you get to put in anti-Manchu views (which should not be dismissed if they form a considerable tide of opinion) while maintaining the balance that is required on Wikipedia.

I hope that my suggestions may be of some use to you. As you can see, I am not opposed to your including additional information. I am merely concerned that your POV ("the Manchus were bad, bad, bad") is causing big problems in your edits.

Bathrobe (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Bathrobe for your help, I will try not to make my POV too obviously shown, if that is the right way of putting it. I have read the article you show me on contemporary Mongols' view on China. Well, I think this sentence says it all:

“ 驻蒙大使馆政治部主任孙洪量说的更为到位:“ 与其说蒙古恐惧，不如说他疑虑，包括蒙古在内的大多数国家，都不知道中国以后要走向何处。” ”

Translation:Sun Hongliang, the chief of Bureau of Politic of the Chinese Embassy to Mongolia once said: Instead of saying that Mongolians are in fear(of China), I would rather say they are in doubt, and in suspicion. Many surrounding nations, including Mongolia, have no idea China is heading in which direction.End of translation. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, South East Asian countries, Australia, are all in doubt, some are in fear(Taiwan) of CHINA. Mongolia is no exception.

Bathrobe, on my user page, there were bits and pieces I collected on Matteo Ricci. One statement strikes me the hardest:

“ As Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889 – 1975)( British historian) said: "at this point Christianity had a chance to become a true world religion and rejected it. Never again in history has that opportunity presented itself on such favorable terms. Had Ricci and his colleagues been permitted to continue on their way, there is certainly no question but that the history of the world would have been far different." ”

Bathrobe, Wikipedia is an excellent platform for the East to meet the West. I will try my best to stay NPOV.Arilang1234 (talk) 05:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your advices Teacher Coppertwig, I think I am getting more NPOV and less POV. But I still need your help. Please have a look at Zhou Enlai, I have put some templates there, and I would like to have your comments.Arilang1234 (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  Arilang, I'm sorry that I was talking about reverting your edits. I guess that wouldn't be a good way to help you! Thank you for still calling me Teacher and asking for my help after that. I looked at your last edit to Chinese Milk Scandal, [1], and it looks good. Thank you for using the cite news template. There may be some small problems with the edit, but nothing bad enough to revert it. You put it in the section "On the damage caused". I don't think your edit is really about damage caused; I think it's more about criticism of the WHO etc. But I think it's not too bad to put it in that section. It's still related to damage caused.

  In my comments on talk pages, I use italics (like this) for quotes. I think in Wikipedia articles, we're not supposed to use italics for quotes. The Manual of Style ((WP:MOS) says, "For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics." This is a small problem. If you have a small number of small problems in your edits, that's OK: other people will fix them later. Sometimes you have too many small problems in your edits, though.

  I will look at Zhou Enlai.

  You said, "To tell the truth, I am still very confused about this NPOV or POV things." I have a suggestion for you: I suggest that you read the Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, if you didn't already. You may want to look at both the English Wikipedia policy, and the Chinese Wikipedia version of the same policy. Have you read the NPOV policy? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am having very civilised conversations with Arilang. I've fixed up some of his edits, reverted others that were misplaced and just somehow off on a tangent. The problem is that Arilang still cannot seem to escape from a polemical mentality in editing articles. Some of this may be due to lack of technical skills (i.e., the ability to take an extended passage of English and sum it up accurately and fairly in his own words). That is what leads to the heavy use of "such and such an author said" and long quotes, usually quotes that serve to make his point.

But what worries me more is that he still tends to make wild statements based on his own feelings and his own reading of the texts. For instance, at the Qing talk page, after some quotations from Preston, Arilang says: "That means slaves were all over the place. It really should be renamed as a slave regime, or slave state" -- complete with a link to the article on "slave states" before the U.S. civil war. I really feel it is an uphill battle getting Arilang to understand that his single-minded demonisation a single pre-modern ethnic group is an extreme point of view. I don't want to be accused of personal attacks, but my earlier analogy with squirrels and acorns was originally meant in this sense. Moreover, he is demonising the Manchus out of a very strong sense of historical grievance from his own particular ethnic point of view as a Han Chinese. Quite simply, he has a chip on his shoulder. I don't know how old Arilang is, but I sense an inability to attain balance or maturity in his edits.

I feel it will be difficult to continue engaging him. It is quite exhausting to constantly restrain him. I hate to say this, but he is a POV warrior and nothing that I can do to convince him to act otherwise. I'm not a high-school student, I have a job and am trying to have a life, and I don't have the time or energy to be monitoring someone who simply cannot understand how to write an article from a balanced, careful point of view.

Bathrobe (talk) 10:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that Arilang now has a new mentor who is also knowledgeable in Chinese history. I wish both of them luck and hope that good will come of their cooperation. I will be refraining from dealing with either Arilang or Qing-dynasty related articles in future. Perhaps it is better this way, both for me and for Wikipedia.

Bathrobe (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was unable to stick to my resolution. I went in and edited Arilang's additions to the article on the Qing. I notice that suggestions offered to him to improve his edits have largely gone unheeded. For example, User Madalibi suggested that long quotations were not suitable to the article. Despite this, User Arilang has made no move to rectify this fault. When I went in and removed two quotes about the Dowager Empress Cixi, I found that at least one quite damning passage was simply taken from an unsourced, unauthoritative web site.

I now seem to be in a state of war with User Arilang. I admit to having called him a squirrel, which is an apt metaphor but should not have been used because it unfortunately suggests low intelligence. I also accused him of anti-Manchuism and Han Chauvinism. Since these are "labels" I should not have used them, but a detailed inspection of his comments and edits reveals that they are not completely off the mark. Finally, I admit that I cast aspersions on "Han Chinese editors" by suggesting that were not interested enough in Manchu culture to edit in the way that a non-Han, non-Chinese could. This was unjustified.

Nevertheless, I am rather disturbed at the racial language that came back. "White man" is one. A slur on Australian Aborigines is another. More recently, User Arilang called himself "Ching Chong Chinaman", a remark that suggests this is the kind of view that I have of him and the kind of language that I would use against him. User Arilang maintains that he only resorts to abuse when abuse is thrown at him. Personally I feel that while I have not been beyond using intemperate descriptions of User Arilang, this has mostly been based on objective observation of his behaviour. Arilang's resort to racial language and stereotypes goes quite beyond this and I'm not totally happy to be called out on my use of language when I feel that User Arilang's is worse in several degrees.

In editing User Arilang's work, it has become clear that he his not only taking material selectively to support his point of view; he is also using material quite sloppily, leaving out material and omitting important information. He is also adding irrelevant "See also" links, to "slavery", etc. in order to push his POV that the Qing was a "slave state".

I continue to find his work a matter of concern. The idea of having him post edits at the talk page first is not working. Moreover, criticisms and suggestions are not making any difference to his behaviour. He appears to be too eager to add new information to be bothered to go back and clean up his own edits. I would suggest that after each edit, he should be asked to go in and fix up his own edits based on suggestions and criticisms offered. He seems to be neither motivated to fix his own edits, nor interested in improving his mode of editing. It is hard to understand appeals to act as his "teacher" when the pupil doesn't appear willing to learn.

Bathrobe (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Arilang: I looked at Zhou Enlai. I think it's fine for you to put an "unbalanced" template, and to discuss on the talk page how it needs to be changed. But, please don't put a large number of "unbalanced" templates on an article. If many sections of the article are unbalanced, then there should only be one template at the top of the article. If only a few sections are unbalanced, then there should be no template at the top of the article, only templates at the tops of some sections.

You put too many "see also's". Some of them, for example to "Animal Farm", are not NPOV. This is not NPOV: "This famine was not cause by droughts or freezes, but instead by a controlled economy in the hands of a murderous dictator." I don't have time to say more right now. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User Arilang2

Teacher Coppertwig, again thanks for you patience and help, there is some improvement at Qing, although slow, at least it has begun to move, because new and more able editors started to join in. I am beginning to learn how to upload 'image'. I copy image from Sun Yatsen, am going to upload it onto Qing Talk:Qing Dynasty#Proposed image of Dr.Sun Yatsen to be uploaded into Qing, is there going to have copy right issue?Arilang1234 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Teacher Coppertwig, so many days didn't hear from you, I was beginning to think something nasty had happen to you. Good to see you are back, hope everything OK with you. I have learn a lot of thing in the last few days,(1) I am playing with 'image' now, well, a picture says a thousand words, Have to go, will be back.

I am back. (2) I have learn how to use the (hiden template), if you look at my user page, it is much better now. (3) I am getting along with user Madalibi real good. I have decided to leave all the writing(you know my English is elementary) to him, I just focus on references and sources. Have to leave it to the experts.Arilang1234 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sorry, I've been busy with other things. I hope in a few hours I will have time to look at some of the work you did. Would you please answer this question: Did you read the neutral point of view policy? You might want to read the Chinese Wikipedia version if it's too hard for you to read the English version. I'm glad that Madalibi is helping you!! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

About the image of Sun Yat-sen: I think you didn't upload that image. I think Militaryace uploaded it to Commons. If an image is on Commons, then you can use it on Wikipedia. I think the copyright is OK, but I'm not an expert on that. If it's on Commons, I don't worry about the copyright; I think the people on Commons will delete it if the copyright is not OK. You can use it on Wikipedia like this: [[Image:Sunyatsen1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Sun Yat-Sen]] You can make the "200px" a bigger or smaller number to change the size of the image.

I want to explain to you about NPOV and about closely related ideas. Many of the things you have put in articles are not NPOV and many of them are not closely related to the article topic.

NPOV means that any person can read the article and think "That's true". That's why we don't have an article that says "God exists" or "God doesn't exist". Some people would disagree with that. But we can have an article that says "Source A says that God exists, and source B says that God does not exist." Then everyone can agree, yes, it's true, those sources do say that. So the article is true from any point of view.

I think it would be a problem if you say "Zhou Enlai was totalitarian". Would Zhou Enlai think that's true? Would Zhou Enlai's family think that's true? Would the many people who grieved after he died think that's true? If Zhou Enlai said that he was totalitarian, then the article can say that. Or, if he didn't say that but all the history books say that, then the article can say that. But if some history books have a point of view that he wasn't totalitarian, then you can't say that. You can say something like "He has been called totalitarian" if some books say he was totalitarian.

If you can't say "Zhou Enlai was totalitarian" in the article, then you also can't put "Totalitarian" as a category or a link in the "See also", because doing that would imply that he was totalitarian.

That's because of NPOV. Now I want to talk about closely related ideas. Let's imagine that it's OK to write "Totalitarian" in the "See also" for Zhou Enlai. I'll tell you why you can't write "Animal Farm" in the "See also". It's because the idea of "Aminal Farm" is not closely enough related to "Zhou Enlai".

Maybe there could be a link from "Zhou Enlai" to "Totalitarian" (for example, if he said he was totalitarian). If there's a Wikipedia page called "Books about totalitarianism", then there could be a link from the page "Totalitiarian" to the page "Books about totalitarianism". And there could be a link from the page "Books about totalitarianism" to the page "Animal Farm". That's three links. The ideas are related. But "Zhou Enlai" would be three links away from "Animal Farm". The ideas are related, but they are not very closely related. Only when ideas are very closely related, then you can have a link in "See also".

Usually a page has only a small number of links in "See also", maybe three to ten links. Wikipedians think it's better to have no links in "See also", and to put all the links in wikilinks in the text. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Zhou Enlai

THanks for all the patience in explaining to me about how NPOV works, still quite vague to me, and quite subjective to me. For example, at talk page Ma Ying-jeou, some user just use POV as a means to silence other users. Whatever I add on, they would point out some words, or something they don't like, and POV. I cannot explain it very well. But then, wikipedia's success has proved that this NPOV or POV is working very well. So, what can I say.
I an happy to see user Madalibi is going for a complete rewrite of Qing. I will leave all the writing to him, just sit back and offer my advices to him whenever he needs. I think I can help him because I can do long and deep research into Chinese history books.
I am dong quite well with 'image' now.Second Sino-Japanese War, Flying Tigers please have a look.Arilang1234 (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question: Did you read the Neutral point of view policy? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not yet, I will read it soon.Arilang1234 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question! I hope when you read it, you'll understand NPOV better. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and POV

Teacher Coppertwig, I did read the article on NPOV, and sort of understand a bit more. I think at the moment I shall stick to 'talk page' interaction with other users in order to learn more on this wiki rule. My sudden and abrupt 'attack' on Qing was too immature, to say the least. There is yet another undercurrent factor involved, which you might not be aware of, is the highly-charged political and ethnic nature of the subject, even though this is supposed to be 300 years-old history, but its nowsdays' implications are real, and of live or die consequences. Sometimes it could be compared to Israel-Palastinians relation, and you know how hot those discussions can become, NPOV or not NPOV.

Well, at least I have improved a bit in the past few weeks, hopefully one day I can shake off my 'POV warrior' image. Please have a look at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/2, and let me know what you think. Initially I did it so that user Madalibi can have easier access to my links, but when it gets bigger and bigger, I am thinking may be it could be turned into a new article, after converting all those Chinese texts into English texts first, of course. Arilang ^talk 22:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message! I'm glad to hear that you've read the NPOV policy and that you're planning to just do talk page edits for a while. I think you have improved.

About your sandbox: I can't read most of it because it's in Chinese. I'm impressed that you've collected a lot of material that's probably interesting. I understand about how things from many years ago can have live-or-die importance now.

One thing you need to learn more about is relevance – that means whether ideas are closely related. I was explaining that to you above about Animal Farm. I think probably the ideas in your sandbox can't just be made into an article. Instead, what you need to do is take each fact one at a time, and figure out which article it should go in, and which part of the article. It has to go in just the right place, where the fact is very closely connected to the ideas in that part of the article. Probably different facts from your sandbox should go in different articles.

When you have a suggestion of something to put into a particular article, let me know and I might check your English grammar and other things. Or maybe Madalibi is doing that now. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Teacher Coppertwig, I have created this article Anti-Qing sentiment all by myself! Please have a look when you have time and let me know if there is any issue on POV or NPOV. Arilang ^talk 06:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Arilang: I think the whole article is non-NPOV! I think it might not be possible to have a Wikipedia article with a title like "anti-Qing sentiment", because the article would be telling only one POV. It would be better to have an article with a title like "sentiments about the Qing," including both anti-Qing sentiment and pro-Qing sentiment. Maybe "sentiments about the Qing" isn't a very good title either; maybe that material needs to go in the Qing dynasty article or some other article.

Also, your article doesn't just talk about anti-Qing sentiment but also talks about things the Qing did that people didn't like. That's not NPOV, and I think it's not staying close enough to the topic. The article may also be too similar to anti-Manchuism; maybe the two articles need to be combined into one article.

You could try to make it clear in each article how the two sentiments are different.

If an article with a title like that is kept, I think it needs to talk more about the people who felt an anti-Qing sentiment: who were these people, and what did they say and do? That should be the main focus of the article. How were they organized? What did they write? For example, if they wrote anti-Qing books, you could talk in the article about the titles of the books and when they were written, etc.

The article should be about the people who were anti-Qing; the article should not just express anti-Qing sentiment. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti?

I think my Anti-Qing sentiment is OK, because under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-fascism, there are many articles anti- this and anti- that. Even wikipedians are allowed to be anti something. It is human nature, NPOV or not. Anti abortion is yet another explosive topic. If all those Anti articles can stay, I don't see why my Anti-Qing sentiment has to come off. Arilang ^talk 02:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If you read anti-Manchuism carefully, which is about Han Chinese anti Manchus' ethnicity. The article has a racist undertone, is about Han Chinese hate Manchu race. Whereas my article is about anti Qing dynasty, about anti Qing government, anti Qing rule, anti Qing tyranny. There is distinct differences between these two articles. Arilang ^talk 02:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You might be right. I see you have a distinctive new signature. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi teacher Coppertwig, first to say hello to you, next I need your help to stop the vandalism of user Yongle's repeated edits on Ming, even after many warnings posted on his talk page User talk:Yongle. I did press some button on 'reporting vandalism', but do not know the end result. Please help to stop him because he is a nuisance.
That said, recently I have created a few more articles( all the links are on my user page). If you are free, do drop by and give me some criticisims.Thanks. Arilang ^talk 04:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Arilang! I'm happy to get another message from you.

About user Yongle: this seems to be a new user, who may not know how Wikipedia works. Please be gentle with the user, and assume good faith. I see no evidence that Yongle's edits are vandalism. I think Yongle is trying to make the Ming dynasty article better. I suggest not calling it vandalism. To invite Yongle to start using the article talk page, I suggest putting arguments on the article talk page gently explaining why you don't think Yongle's edits are good, and then putting a short message on Yongle's talk page telling where the article talk page comments are. It's a good idea to say some nice things about Yongle's edits, too. Maybe you can tell Yongle that some of what Yongle is writing can be used, but that it has to be discussed and edited on the article talk page first. If you try these things and Yongle is still causing problems, feel free to ask me for help again. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked quickly at the articles you created. I'm proud of you! I think you've created useful articles. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I see some problems with the articles, too, and I'll try to fix them or comment on them in the next few days. I'm sorry that the text of the Charter 08 had to be blanked with a copyright template, until we can find out for sure about the copyright. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Arilang needs help, again

Arilang requesting urgent action

in regard to article Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers see talk page Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers

Quote: This has nothing to do with being a Manchu apologist or anything like that. I will put up this page for AfD this afternoon. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Unquoted.

I have agreed with your proposal of moving to my user page for further development, looks like user Madalibi is going to do something which is in contrary to your specific instruction. Could you stop him from taking up further action, which is uncalled for? In my opinion, he needs to explain (1) why he act like an admin when he is not? (2) Why he want to move the article after I have agreed to your proposal (3) the style and his tone and chose of words does not match with the claim that he is a 'new editor', and my suspicion is that he is actually an admin from other wiki, possible an admin from zh:wiki in disguise?

cc to user PBS Arilang talk 05:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user Madalibi putting words into my mouth

I am protesting against user Madalibi as he is putting his words into my mouth. Quote:But you have to stick to what your sources say: you cannot use scholarly sources that make points "A" ("the Shaanxi population dropped dramatically in the late 19th century as a result not only of famines and epidemics, but also of wars") and "B" ("before 1911, Sun Yat-sen called the Manchus 'barbarians'" [or "Tartar caitiffs" for da lu 韃虜]) to argue for point "C" ("the Manchu barbarians committed genocide against Shaanxi Muslims"). I'm not arguing that "point C is false": I'm saying that point C is your point, not a point you can find in the scholarly literature you are citing. No matter how reliable your sources ae, if you blend them in this way you are making a (forbidden) synthesis of published material which advances a position:Unquoted.

"point "C" ("the Manchu barbarians committed genocide against Shaanxi Muslims"). I'm not arguing that "point C is false": I'm saying that point C is your point" my answer: point C may be my point, but I have drop the issue of 'genocide' many hours ago, he knows I have dropped it because he knows I have changed the names of the article. Why he is accusing me of something that I no longer fighting for? I therefor like to say that he is not saying the truth, and he is fabricating something, and I am disputing all his claims, or accusations, or whatever it is. Arilang talk 05:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC) As you can see from above, in my opinion user Madalibi is making up his own wiki rules , and he is trying to move the article created by me into AfD. Please help me if you can. Arilang ^talk 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have cc to other admins. Arilang ^talk 07:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Coppertwig, I am User: madalibi. If you are interested in understanding the context of my words and the origin of Arilang's complaint (and if you have time for all this!), you should consult the talk page of the now-deleted wiki "Massacres and Atrocities committed by Manchu rulers," which can now be found in Arilang's Sand box. (Even broader context can be found in the talk page of Genocides in history.) I think Arilang became very nervous because he thought I could unilaterally delete his wiki (which is not what AfD means) and that only administrators could put up pages for AfD. I'm not completely sure, but he seemed to think that if the content of his wiki was moved to his sandbox, the wiki would not be deleted (see "Requesting AfD" in the talk page). If you have time, maybe you could read through these talk pages and let me know if you think I made a mistake somewhere, if I "made up rules" or "fabricated" anything, and if I owe Arilang an apology. You actually don't have to respond to this message. I just wanted to contextualize Arilang's accusations. I appreciate and try to emulate your constructive style as an editor. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Arilang. Only admins can delete articles, but anyone can put an AfD tag on any article at any time. (Well, at least in theory. They should have a good reason, and follow all the instructions at WP:AfD so that the discussion is listed in all the right places. I can give you advice and help if you want to do that some time.) AfD means starting a discussion about whether to delete the article or not. Usually the discussion lasts for 5 days. I think the name of the article wasn't NPOV, so it was probably a good idea to delete the article. Maybe you can put parts of the material from the article into other articles.

If Madalibi said that you said some things and it was wrong, please assume good faith: that means, please think that Madalibi was trying to do what was right. Maybe Madalibi made a mistake about what you said. The thing to do next is probably to put a message under Madalibi's message, calmly and politely saying something like "No, I didn't say that. What I said was ..." ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Genocides in history

Teacher Coppertwig, thanks again for what you are doing for Charter 08. If you have time, please have a look at Talk:Genocides in history (new discussion open again). Somehow the fonts have become small, is it possible to make it normal, as small fonts are hard to read. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. I have solved the font problem already, so don't worry about it. But my exchange with Arilang on the said talk page is now taking a bit of a strange turn, especially here. I'm not making any request: I just thought you might be interested. All the best, Madalibi (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings from Arilang

Merry X'mas and Happy New Year to teacher Coppertwig. Arilang ^talk 04:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Professor's another email:User talk:Arilang1234#Message from Perry Link

Hi, I have just received an e-mail from en-permission saying that GFDL liscence for Charter 08 is granted. As I am not familiar with this operation, please have a look when you have time. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 11:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerted attack

Hi teacher Coppertwig, I think some sort of coordinated attack is underway regarding the article I created:Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, which is an ancient Chinese historical term(not used in modern time anymore, as it was clearly stated in the article). What my worry is if someone decide to put a AfD tag on it and aim for a quick delete, how am I going to prevent it from happening? Arilang ^talk 10:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Arilang1234. Please assume good faith. I see no reason to think there's a "coordinated attack". I agree with many of the things people are saying about the article, so if people agree with each other, you don't have to think that it's "coordinated". I'm sorry, but on Wikipedia people work together, so we can't just write whatever we want and keep it. If you want to keep all your articles, you can post them on your own private website. On Wikipedia, anyone is allowed to put an AfD tag on an article. When there is an AfD tag, then there is a discussion, so if many people think it's a good article, it will stay.

I think you may be able to save the article by making it more clear what the article is about, and changing it to be more NPOV.

You need to explain better. I don't understand. I think many readers won't understand. You need to change the article to be more clear. I can help, but first you need to explain it to me.

What is the article about?

Is the article about a phrase in Chinese? What is the phrase? (pin-yin or Wade-Giles please.)

If the article is about a phrase, probably it should only use sources that talk about that phrase.

The article probably needs to be renamed. The title sounds racist. Maybe it's also too racist on the Chinese Wikipedia: or maybe it's OK there, because maybe people recognize the phrase as being an old phrase and they know what the article is about. Maybe the title could be changed to something like "The Chinese concept of (pin-yin) (Differences between Huaxia and barbarians)". (with the actual pin-yin for the phrase instead of "(pin-yin)".) I suggest that you discuss on the article talk page about renaming it. You can suggest there the title I just suggested, if you think it's a good idea.

Usually there is more than one way to translate something. If the article is about a phrase, then it's about that exact phrase in Chinese. There may be more than one way to say it in English. If it's about the exact Chinese phrase, then it's not about the English version of the phrase. The title and first paragraph of the article need to make it clear what exactly the article is about. Maybe it's about the idea behind that phrase, not about the exact phrase?

I think the last 3 sections are not closely related to this article. Those things probably needs to be moved to other articles. Can you explain how they're related? Do the sources for those things mention the phrase? If they are related enough to stay, then they need to be changed so that the reader can easily see how they're related. The first sentence of each section should make it clear how that section is connected to the subject of the article.

Maybe the article should be merged with Sinocentrism.

I hope these comments are helpful. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit more explanation

Teacher Coppertwig, maybe you have read my explanation on other talk page, I like to explore a bit more on the subject.

Differences between Huaxia and barbarians pinyin:hua2 yi2 zhi1 bian4華夷之辨 is a very important ideology of Han Chinese civilization. It also carry a lot of meanings through 3000 years of history. Sinicization and Sinocentrism are quite close, but not good enough. For example, Chinese food, when cooked and consumed in China always taste better. If you live in the UK, or USA, or Singapore, you still can taste Chinese food, but it is different, because it is not the real thing.

And Differences between Huaxia and barbarians pinyin:hua2 yi2 zhi1 bian4華夷之辨 is a cultural thing, a civilization thing. This ideology can explain why countries like Japan, Vietnam, Korea, all of them follow Confucius teachings, all of them trying to be Huaxia. When you have read more about Confucius teaching, you would know that how East Asia was(and is still) influenced by Han Chinese civilization and Confucius teaching.

And Differences between Huaxia and barbarians pinyin:hua2 yi2 zhi1 bian4華夷之辨 can explain the cause of the two Sino-Japanese Wars, which were two wars that changed East Asia completly. Sinicization and Sinocentrism can explain these two wars to some extents, but not as good.

I know you have put in a lot of efforts to get Charter 08 into wikisource, for that alone, future Han Chinese will always remember you for a thousand years. This article is just as important as Charter 08, but in a different way. Little bit like the Christian idea of God vs Devil, but yet different, in that Civilized people vs Barbarians were interchangeable, whereas God is God, Devil is Devil. And God is absolute, can never become devil, whereas Han Chinese can become Barbarians, and vice versa. I hope my crude analogy would not confuse you further. Arilang ^talk 09:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Detail explaination on talk page

Please check my talk page. Arilang ^talk 07:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspecting sock puppet

Teacher Coppertwig, I think user Albert584 is a sock puppet. Please check Talk:Differences between Huaxia and barbarians.

cc.to user Moonriddengirl Arilang ^talk 11:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I've responded to this one at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see this section on my talk page. I already replied at Moonriddengirl's talk page, anyway. I hope I didn't miss seeing any other sections you created on my talk page, Arilang. If I don't answer, feel free to remind me: I might not have seen your message, or I might have forgotten to reply. Or I might be busy. It may be better to put new sections at the bottom of my talk page so I'll see them, or use three equals signs "===" to make subsection headings instead of a whole separate section. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Third AfD tag in a matter of days

Like I have expected, User Mabalibi slammed another AfD tag on Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, clearly in violation of one of the wiki rules Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Focus on content Quote: When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Unquoted.
I think his behavior is very un-Wiki, if there is such a word. Arilang ^talk 07:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Arilang. I'm sorry, but I think there's nothing wrong with Madalibi's putting an AfD tag on the article. Anyone can add an AfD tag to an article (although I suggest you ask me or someone else for advice before you add an AfD tag to an article). The part of dispute resolution you're quoting is about deleting words from articles, not about deleting whole articles. Deleting articles is a normal and frequent process on Wikipedia. Before putting up the AfD tag, Madalibi discussed the article on the article talk page (although people can also put up AfD tags without discussing first). I only see one AfD tag. I'm not sure whether the other two tags you're talking about are the other tags on the article (which are not AfD tags but some other kind of tag), or AfD tags on other articles. The AfD tag has a link to the discussion here; usually AfD discussions are for 5 days, and at the end either the article is deleted, or the AfD tag is removed. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD tag

Hi, me again. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, I have provided 10 new references in English; even though the English is machine translation instead of human translation, readers can still work out the basic idea.
The main accusation is original research, and my new references have proved that this article is not original research. The rest of the accusations do not hold any water, so I am quite confident that this article would not be deleted. Please let me know what you think. Arilang ^talk 23:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "original research" is not the only problem. Hong Qi Gong has a concern that the sources only mention the concept, they don't talk about it. You then provided a reference that talks about it, but it's just an encyclopedia, not the type of source Wikipedia usually relies on. Several good sources would probably be needed.

You said that the article is not racist, but you didn't say why it isn't. It looks racist to me. Even the title looks racist. If not racist, then putting people of one culture ahead of others, instead of people of one race.

Other problems with the article have been mentioned, including that much of the material is not closely related to the topic and should go in other articles. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Teacher Coppertwig, if the final decision is deletion then let it be, at least I have put up a good fight

.One thing I would like to know is who shall be making the final decision, a single admin or a group of admins?

By the way, user Bathrobe has agreed with me that the article is not racist. Arilang ^talk 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A single admin, acting impartially, determines what the consensus of the community is as reflected by the discussion, and posts something at the top of the page stating what the result is and that the discussion is closed. The admin deletes the page if that is the outcome. Good luck. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor?

Coppertwig, I've read your excellent comments here, and I agree with many - if not all - of your points. In order to make it easier to respond, I was tempted to refactor your comments into three (this being an arbitrary figure) subsections. I just wondered if this would be acceptable, and/or whether you'd prefer to do that yourself? Jakew (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, Jake! Thanks for the compliment. OK, I'll do it. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, on another article I was editing, someone was complaining that people shouldn't be editing the article without having read the whole article first. So I figured it would be a good time to re-read the Circumcision article. And of course, being the type of person who would become a Wikipedian, I don't usually just read something without finding things to change. I was going to just quickly read the Circumcision article as the first item on my to-do list for yesterday; I pretty much just finished in time to log off. At least I restrained myself and didn't fiddle with things inside the quotes (as I think you've caught me doing in the past). ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Email

I've replied. Sorry about the long delay, everything is explained. Regards and apologies, Caulde 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Revisit That Mucoid Plaque Article?

Greetings Coppertwig. Would you like to revisit that mucoid plaque article? Most recently, another fair-minded skeptic has made complaints on the talk page and edits to the article. Take some time to study the mucoid plaque talk page, my recent revision, as well as the edit history. I welcome you to come aboard and add your two cents. Heelop (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it as you see fit and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

This edit is probably the most major dispute we have, although I'm not sure why you're asking. (Link to full discussion.) I am not sure if it is a violation of conduct policy or guideline, but it seems to me that opposing an edit for the reason you give in your first sentence, which I reproduce in full below, is perplexing:

Coppertwig: "Oppose. I changed my mind, for the following reason. While I still think it would be a slight improvement to have this article named "Male circumcision" with "Circumcision" being a redirect to it if it remains a redirect, nevertheless I now realize that what would probably happen in practice is that it would not stably remain a redirect but a variety of people would keep coming along and trying to be helpful by changing the redirect into a disambiguation page or a short article, leading perhaps to edit wars and to instability in the way readers would be able to find this article, and being a disservice to the reader who, in the majority of cases I believe, would have to find the right link and do another page load before arriving at the desired information, and who in many cases might abandon the search before arriving at this article."

You opposed an edit apparently not because you thought it wasn't a better edit (indeed you expressed your opinion that it was), but because of what you thought "would probably happen in practice." Wikipedia is specifically set up to make what happens in practice correspond to consensus. A further change would have required this consensus. I believe this position seems like a failure to believe in the ability of WP:CONSENSUS policy to generate an appropriate organization of a topic. What you seem to be suggesting, is that the presentation and organization of the information that you agree are more appropriate than what is there, will cause a consensus to develop that actually supports a new presentation and organization. You then object on the grounds that the article "would not stably remain." Change (i.e., an edit) is not to be opposed on the mere basis that it is change. That seems akin to not having faith in the collective ability of Wikipedia editors to find the best organization through a series of small improvements (or blunders to be corrected), discussion and consensus. Perhaps that is seen as acceptable in Wikipedia, I don't know. It doesn't seem acceptable to me. It doesn't seem like it's primarily an editorial opinion arrived at through an objective and neutral view. I lost a lot of confidence in your judgement and ability with the above edit, as you argued so eloquently for the supporting view throughout the long, arduous discussions, gaining the respect of those who agreed with you, and possibly also that of those who did not. To seem to turn around and then distance yourself not from your arguments, not from your agreement with the preference of the editors who supported the move, but from the idea of an further, undiscussed edit that would have required a new consensus, is again completely perplexing to me. You do this without stating that you are opposed to that further edit, but again only on the grounds that stability is preferable -- a sort of status quo for the sake of the status quo. You seem to resist the idea of letting Wikipedia work according to its principles, in essence, inadvertently casting a shadow over a current disputed edit by invoking a larger shadow of some undesirable future edit. I do not understand the motivation for the continuation of your position after this objection has been presented to you. It seems to me to be in contradiction with your expressed interpretation of policy -- a logical flaw. I understand that you may view that your comment was in conformance with policy, but if so I'm forced to disagree, by my reading of it. Blackworm (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you do state your opposition to the future, looming (in your apparent view), edit -- I overlooked that possibly because I believe that objection, apparently based on the user experience rather than encyclopedic validity and neutrality, would be invalid if the further edit were to be proposed, as WP:NPOV policy solidly outweighs concerns about the user experience (and whatever MoS or other guidelines you may feel inspire those concerns). Blackworm (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How this dispute is made related to conduct by your comments about people

My comment above assumes that, as you suggest, "a variety of people would keep coming along" and they argued a redirect from circumcision -> male circumcision was not WP:NPOV enough, requiring a disambiguation. The climate at circumcision does seem to me to prevent that from happening. With regard to the RfC/U you filed regarding me, I'm repeat that I disagree when you suggest the problematic climate you refer to is primarily because of my edits. Consider edits like the following, which all occurred before I made any edits related to circumcision. One editor from that time (but not apparently currently active) seems to echo my current concern and fatigue:

• Zandrous (10:44, 20 February 2007) "Forgive my sharp comments, long observation of this page has led me to become somewhat cynical about the process." [2]

Others make stronger accusations:

• Orpingtonian (08:34, 22 February 2007): "The [reaction] to Michael's edits just goes to show that some, here, are blinded by a wholly irrational, and quite obsessive, need to promote what they themselves believe in." [3]

• The Blend (06:31, 26 February 2007) "Mr JakeW, just because you don't like something doesn't mean its wrong. Let's please be honest and mature and everything here. Thank you."

• The Blend (06:37, 26 February 2007) "I guess if youre pro-circ you don't have to be neutral. Avi, nothing in this article is neutral so please don't give me the neutrality talk." [4]

The response in the case of The Blend seemed authoritative, and reassuring, if also somewhat dismissive, and similarly lacking substance:

• Avraham (16:06, 26 February 2007): "Blend, please CAREFULLY read WP:NPOV. [...] The fact that on this page we have people claiming that this article is BOTH too pro- and to anti- circumcision means that the primary editors are actually doing something correct" (A "smiley" image appeared at the end of the quoted sentence.) [5]

But sometimes, things are made personal.

• Avraham (14:51, 2 March 2007) "When you create the Michaelopdiea, you can do what you wish." [6] Compare this recent edit: Avraham (18:17, 26 September 2008) "However, this is wikipedia, not Blackwormapedia, and thus we need to discuss these issues as respectfully and as neutrally as possible, [...]." [7]

And often, the accusations fly.

• Avraham (21:38, 14 March 2007): "Michael, your zeal to place anything that will even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light is potentially troubling. Are you certain you can edit this article neutrally? What are your motivations with this, Michael?" [8] (Edit summary: "Think about your motivations, please.")

• Jakew: (13:20, 16 March 2007) "Michael, the concern being expressed is not about inclusions that "even tangetially cast circumcision in a poor light," but your "zeal" to insert such text." [9]

• Avraham (12:10, 15 March 2007) "No one denies you your right to feel that circumcision is the worst [thing] since mass murder--but you may not edit the article with intent to color it that way [...]" [10]

• Avraham (18:24, 18 March 2007): "You have not even answered the questions here, and you resort to adding more tangential information to push your own anti-circumcision agenda." [11] (Edit summary: "I begin to see.")

• Jayjg (16:19, 29 March 2007): "According to whom is it a significant issue? According to Michael Glass, anti-circumcision activist?" [12])

Humour is used, then when the humour is rejected, communication breaks down.

• Avraham "Michael, I was using tongue-in-cheek humorous sarcasm when I said "worst thing…". Your edit history here implied to me that you were perceptive enough to understand that and had enough of a sense of humor (remember Furphy?) to crack a smile. I see that I was wrong on both counts." [13] (Edit summary: "I apologize for assuming that you would understand my humor.")

Assumptions of good faith are required according to some, and not required according to others.

• Jakew (13:21, 3 March 2007) "Michael, please review WP:AGF. There is little point in holding a discussion about the application of Wikipedia policy if you view it as a weapon in an ideologically-driven dispute." [14]

• Avraham (03:29, 18 March 2007): "However, remember that the assumption of good faith is not required where there is contrary evidence. No less than three people have asked for your motivations, Mr. Glass, and your silence does nothing other than act as a tacit admission, I am afraid." [15]

And some, in the face of this, can only respond with apparent disbelief, before all but disappearing completely from the article and Wikipedia.

• Michael Glass: (16:33, 18 March 2007) "Avi, I refused to answer your questions because they are put in such an uncivil and hostile way, and they make accusations that I totally reject. You have accused me of not explaining my edits in a NPOV way. You have said that there is strong evidence that I have not acted in good faith. You have accused me of repeatedly and persistently making edits that are either blatantly or subtly NPOV. Then you turn round and accuse me of not responding to your civil questions!" [16]

• Michael Glass, to Avraham (04:50, 19 March 2007): "When it comes to edits, let's try to put our personal beliefs about each other to one side and, as we say in Australia, play the ball and not the man." [17]

Now I don't vouch for these other editors' edits, or ultimately even state that their disappearance is a "problem." But the climate in circumcision and related articles seems that of the stern enforcement of a double standard, put quite simply; and I believe your focus on me with the RfC perpetuates that double standard. I applaud your efforts to curb this by proposing strict observation of civil and appropriate conduct from all, as a remedy. Unfortunately, as I believe we've observed, your presentation may cause some editors to be quick to condemn me without looking at all the evidence. I object to your focus on me, and your identifying me as a primary cause of the conflict, and believe the above edits show that a destructive and disruptive climate existed before I arrived. This does not excuse any past behaviour, or current incivility; but a one-sided focus is similarly inexcusable. I will take your proposals to heart in hopes that others can apologize, strike out, step back, be courteous, and abide by those proposals as well -- however as recent edits also show, the climate is not better today. Blackworm (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Re "I'm not sure why you're asking": I'm as perplexed as you are. You had said, "...by demanding dispute resolution on the content (demands that are ignored by all)". I thought this might mean that I had ignored a demand by you to participate in dispute resolution. I wanted to correct that if that were the case, so I started with step 1 of Thomas Gordon's six-step problem-solving method: 1. Define the problem. Actually, I wasn't thinking of Thomas Gordon, but following some sort of common sense: if there's a dispute or a problem, then in order to take steps towards solving it, I first need to find out what the problem is.

Oh. Wait. I think I see what's going on. Maybe from your point of view, I'm currently, in an ongoing way, carrying on a dispute with you about the title of the Circumcision article. I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation of what's happening, but that's not how I feel about it.

Actually, I tried to back out of the dispute some time ago. I don't much care one way or another what the title of the article is. However, my attempt to withdraw my earlier stated position somehow became the beginning of a new discussion on the topic, and I was uncomfortable with that dynamic.

Still, I have opinions on the issue, and might express them in future discussions (started by people other than me, I hope) so if you would like to discuss it with me, I guess that's OK.

You said, "Wikipedia is specifically set up to make what happens in practice correspond to consensus." I disagree. Actually, Wikipedia is set up to allow almost anyone to edit almost any page, and to be encouraged to "be bold" in doing so. For experienced editors such as you and me, knowing that we're working on a heavily-edited article such as Circumcision, yes, it's set up to make what happens correspond to consensus. But for someone coming upon a redirect and deciding to make it into an article, Wikipedia is not necessarily set up, in practice, to be able to tell that person that there's a previously established consensus, that further discussion would be required to transform it into an article, and that therefore this isn't the time to be bold. You said, "A further change would have required this consensus." In practice, I don't think so. I think people would change it, then afterwards be told about the previous discussion, perhaps then realize that there were good reasons they hadn't known about not to change it, and allow it to be changed back.

After having written that comment you dispute, it occurred to me that a comment could be put in the wikitext asking people not to change it without first considering the discussion. There's a comment like that in the Che Guevara article, for example (in the wikitext, near the top): "<!-- Note: Please do not change birth date June 14 without discussing on talk page first. -->". So, maybe something like that would be enough. Or, maybe it wouldn't.

There's another concern: currently, a Google search for "circumcision" brings up the Wikipedia article at the top of the search. I'm concerned that changing the name might lower its position in such searches. I don't know how Google handles redirects.

You said, "I believe this position seems like a failure to believe in the ability of WP:CONSENSUS policy to generate an appropriate organization of a topic." Here you seem to be speculating incorrectly about what I believe. Perhaps part of the confusion is because you and I have different opinions about what are (more or less) appropriate ways to organize the topics related to circumcision.

I think it's valid to take a number of things into account when deciding what to name an article. I've seen others in other discussions taking into account the likely future editing dynamics. For example, someone might oppose the creation of an article with a given name on the grounds that it will tend to collect a lot of spam while being neglected by regular editors. I think it's OK to oppose the creation of an article on such grounds even if one believes that ideally, if there were fewer spammers and more regular editors with enough time to look after such an article, it would be better to have such an article. In fact, the whole idea of deletion of articles on grounds of lack of an adequate level of notability is somewhat similar to that argument, I believe. Ideally, for every obscure fact we would have an article displaying it, but in practice obscure topics get overrun by vandals, so we don't have them beyond a certain level of obscurity.

You said, "What you seem to be suggesting, is that the presentation and organization of the information that you agree are more appropriate than what is there, will cause a consensus to develop that actually supports a new presentation and organization." Thank you for telling me what I seemed to you to be suggesting, so that I could correct your impression. No, that isn't at all what I was suggesting. If things were to work out that way, that would be fine (if the new organization settled on really is better, or is believed better by enough people to be called a consensus, even if it doesn't include me). That's not my reason for opposing. Instead, my reason for opposing is that there might be a lot of editors being bold and turning it into an article, without a new consensus developing to have an article there; that the new article might be reverted each time; and that it would waste the time of these editors, who could feel discouraged, and would also be disruptive because of the lack of stability, i.e. a redirect frequently changing into an article and back. I don't think it's accurate to say "that you agree are more appropriate". I certainly don't agree with your position that NPOV requires renaming the article. I see a number of weak arguments for one name or the other, some making one name better (or possibly one could say "more appropriate"), and some the other name.

You said, "You then object on the grounds that the article "would not stably remain."" Yes, I think I did say that. It seems OK to me to take that position.

You said, "Change (i.e., an edit) is not to be opposed on the mere basis that it is change." That's a straw man argument.

You said, "That seems akin to not having faith in the collective ability of Wikipedia editors to find the best organization through a series of small improvements (or blunders to be corrected), discussion and consensus." Ah. Maybe you think it would be better to have the occasional bold editor come along and change a redirect into an article, because it might eventually lead to a new way being found of organizing the articles, and development of a new consensus. That's a valid reason too, in my opinion, and I hadn't thought of it that way. However, when you say "That seems akin to not having faith..." I think you're misunderstanding the way I'm thinking. Actually, I have a lot of optimism about Wikipedians working together. I don't think it's necessary for you to interpret a disagreement between us as to what's the best way to name the article, and a disagreement about what are or are not valid reasons for preferring one way or another of naming the article, as indicating a lack of faith on my part in the collective ability of Wikipedian editors etc. It's just a difference of opinions and of values, I think, and not a lack of faith or optimism. One source of confusion might be that when I express agreement with you on some point, you may be assuming I feel as strongly about it as you do, or assuming I draw some of the same logical conclusions based on that point that you do.

You said, "It doesn't seem acceptable to me. ... I lost a lot of confidence in your judgement and ability with the above edit, ..." I'm sorry about that, and I hope that it was only because of misunderstanding, which I hope I've corrected with my comments above. If not, I'd like to discuss this further because I hope that if you understand clearly what I meant you might not lose so much confidence in me.

You said, "as you argued so eloquently for the supporting view throughout the long, arduous discussions..." I guess you may have felt as if I was pulling the floor out from under you when I changed my position for what seemed to you invalid reasons. Maybe it would help if I describe what things looked like from my point of view.

You had started a thread on my talk page with some arguments, quoting policy or guidelines, for renaming the page. I guess I was convinced by your arguments, and I said, "I'm fine with renaming it, but I don't think it makes sense to change the content to focus around a differently centred topic." (Note that I changed my mind at that time, and later changed my mind back. I think we should be allowed to change our minds.) You then asked me to state my position on the article talk page. I figured it would be unfair of me to refuse to do that, since I had argued a different position previously. So I went to say something on the talk page; but I was somewhat embarrassed about it. Basically, my position was neutral. "I'm fine with renaming it" was meant as a neutral statement: in other words, if you want to do that I don't oppose it, not that I necessarily support it. It seemed odd or awkward to state a neutral position on the article talk page out of the blue: "I have an announcement! Everybody: please note that my position on X is neutral!" So, consciously or subconsciously, I made a stronger statement than I would normally have expressed. Someone else then put a section heading over this statement and it became the beginning of a discussion. I wasn't comfortable with that. Then, during the discussion, other related issues were raised, and I thought about implications of renaming the page, and thought of other reasons and changed my mind again, which was not difficult since I had only been at most weakly supporting renaming anyway. When I had been arguing in favour of renaming, I had only been stating the arguments that occurred to me and disagreeing with what I saw as illogical statements by others; I had not been arguing for something I strongly believed in, as perhaps you were, and maybe you thought I was.

I don't understand the meaning of the section header, "How this dispute is made related to conduct by your comments about people": maybe you could explain it to me.

You said, "...as you suggest, "a variety of people would keep coming along" and they argued a redirect from circumcision -> male circumcision was not WP:NPOV enough, requiring a disambiguation." No, I don't think I suggested that. That is, I may have said "a variety of people would keep coming along", but I don't think I said that they would argue that having the redirect was not NPOV enough. That's not what I meant. That would be a different situation, and if that happened, then likely some other new consensus would develop, as you suggest. No, what I was imagining is that a bunch of new editors would come along, and somewhat as I did when I first started at Wikipedia, think that major topics were simply missing, and assume that "circumcision" was a mere redirect simply because nobody had written an article on that topic yet, and try to be helpful by writing it. And be disappointed when their work is deleted.

You said, "The climate at circumcision does seem to me to prevent that from happening." People who change a redirect into an article without looking at any talk page first might not be affected by the climate.

You said, "I'm repeat that I disagree when you suggest the problematic climate you refer to is primarily because of my edits." I didn't suggest that. I implied that some problems were caused by your behaviour, not that a "problematic climate" or "the problems" were caused by your behaviour. I wasn't saying anything about whether there were or were not also other problems not caused primarily by your behaviour. I would appreciate it if you would strike out these words, because they seem to me to be an inaccurate representation of what I said. You could use a direct quote instead.

On your talk page, you said, "and not the sole [primary -BW] cause of the problems as you allege in your RfC". Thank you for refactoring, but it still isn't an accurate representation of what I said or of what I meant. I've changed the wording in the RfC to better reflect what I meant, and I apologize for wording it badly the first time. However, I don't think what you wrote here is an accurate representation even of my first wording, at least not of what I meant by that wording, and I would appreciate it if you would strike it out. What is meant by "the problems"? I meant to refer only to any problems caused by your behaviour. I didn't mean to refer to some general set of problems and then assert that they were all caused (primarily or otherwise) by your behaviour. This is quite an important point, because it relates to the whole purpose of the RfC. As I see it, the purpose of a user conduct RfC, in general, is to focus on problems caused primarily by the behaviour of one editor. The focus is important: solving all problems at once may be too big a task. Other problems can be looked at at the same time in other fora; that's fine; but I think it's important to be able to focus on some problems long enough to make some progress without the distraction of bringing in other problems into the discussion.

Re some of the diffs you quoted: please note the request at the top of my talk page. I see some of this material as being essentially criticism of other editors. It may be appropriate somewhere on the wiki, perhaps on your own talk page or some other user talk page or user conduct RfC etc., but because of the request at the top of my talk page (which you might not have noticed) I don't think this is an appropriate place for this sort of thing. I'm not asking you to delete it, and I'll answer it, but if you want to give me that kind of message in future, please consider posting it on your own talk page and putting a note on my talk page asking me to look at it there. Politely-worded criticism of my own behaviour is always welcome on my talk page. This may seem like an overly fine detail, but I think it's nevertheless important. When criticizing the behaviour of other editors, how and where it's done can make a big difference in how it's received.

OK, I see your point that there's been a problematic atmosphere at the circumcision article from before you were involved in it.

When did you start editing the Circumcision article? It must have been a rather short time before I did, I guess. Or about the same time.

I like the expression, "play the ball and not the man". Sounds as if it's referring to soccer (er, football in some countries).

You said, "But the climate in circumcision and related articles seems that of the stern enforcement of a double standard, put quite simply; and I believe your focus on me with the RfC perpetuates that double standard." If it does, I'm sorry about that aspect of the situation, but still hope that the RfC will also do some good as intended. If there's a sternly enforced double standard, that's a problem, and maybe I can help solve it. If you would like to work on this, I would like to suggest as a first step step 1 of Thomas Gordon's problem-solving method, defining the problem, and as a first step towards defining the problem, I suggest that you state in more detail (a sentence or two, perhaps) what the nature of this double standard is and how it's being enforced. (I could guess, but for a couple of reason I'd prefer that you begin describing it first.)^{(01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC))}

You said, "I object to your focus on me" and "but a one-sided focus is similarly inexcusable." I'm sorry, but I think that when someone says the kinds of things you've said to other editors, they should be ready to expect that someone might start an RfC focussing on them. That's currently normal Wikipedian procedure. You can try to get policies changed and eliminate RfCs as an option, substituting some more effective procedure instead I hope, but for now they're the normal and accepted, even in a sense required, procedure according to things like WP:DR. So I don't see any valid grounds for objection. Actually, this may be a fundamental difference in our approaches. I generally approach behaviour problems by focussing on specific problematic behaviours by specific people, trying not to allow the discussion to be distracted by discussion of other problematic behaviour by other people, which can be taken care of in separate discussions. If you have a different approach which you believe is effective, perhaps you could explain to me how it's supposed to work.

You said, "...and your identifying me as a primary cause of the conflict," I think this was a misunderstanding, as I've tried to explain above, and would appreciate it if you would strike out these words.

"I will take your proposals to heart in hopes that others can apologize, strike out, step back, be courteous, and abide by those proposals as well..." Thank you. I really appreciate that.

" -- however as recent edits also show, the climate is not better today." I'll have a look. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Jan Grootboom

Hi, I restored the reference in the Jan Grootboom article as it appears that the page it links to is not under copyright in South Africa where it is hosted (life of author plus 50 years = 1991), or in the US where Wikipedia is hosted (pre-1923). It is only just in copyright in the UK (life of author plus 70 years = January 2011), but I think that UK jurisdiction is not relevant here. Regards, Zaian (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! I'm sorry I deleted it, then. Thanks for restoring it. It's a nifty story! I was thinking maybe it should be listed as "Further reading" or something rather than just as a reference, so that readers would be more likely to follow the link. What do you think? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure. "Thus the laws of the originating country of a work determine whether something is copyright protected at all, and if so, the Berne Convention ensures that it is automatically copyright protected in all other signatory countries, too, under their respective laws (§5(1) of the Berne Convention)." (Wikipedia:Public domain); also note that that page says that when a copyright expires, it expires at the end of the year (so if life of author plus 70 years is January 2011, it will expire January 1, 2012). Was this book first published in the UK? (or whatever the UK was called back then :-) Aha, it was: "Sir (later Baron) Robert Baden-Powell, My Adventures as a Spy (London, 1915)," is mentioned in [18] Mobilization for Total War By Nándor F. Dreisziger, footnote at bottom of p. 90. So perhaps the UK laws would hold if we were to put a copy of the material in the article; but putting a link to it may be fine since the website is hosted in South Africa. Or maybe not. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think you were right to remove the lengthy quote from the article, but leaving a link to the page in South Africa seems fine. Zaian (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Second Intifada

As there was a long back-n-forth about this, I think the possibility of a misunderstanding (i.e he meant to write "hadn't" instead of 'hasn't) is remote enough as to be an impossibility. When someone makes an obviously incorrect statement, and repeats it several times, despite being taken to task for it, here is nothing wrong in pointing out that this is disingenuous. It is certainly no worse than accusations that I am 'Parachuting into multiple articles to do mass reversions without discussion', and as long as you are handing out friendly warnings, you might consider putting one on that editor's page as well. As for me - see this note - I've decided to avoid this article for a while. NoCal100 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're avoiding the article. Everyone ought to feel free to edit every article without being subjected to unpleasantness. I've put a comment on the talk page of the other editor whose comment you linked to. Re AGF: in my opinion the intention of the loophole in the AGF guideline is that you can stop AGF when there's evidence that would convince a typical objective observer, not just when there's evidence that convinces you; and I think you used the word in question before the long back-and-forth. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Choice of words

I read your message to me. Please don't be offended by my removal of the message from my talk page. Please see the header notes on my talk page for various reasons why I do this. Feel free to leave other messages though. I do read them. My removal implies nothing. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo

Thanks for your concerns here. I'm not sure that my comment was personal, as I requested a fair response from Timeshifter who was a bit undue-ly harsh on my content edits. I've read your comment and while I'm not sure my comment was much of a personal comment, will certainly try to keep your this concern in mind in future comments.
Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio work

I just wanted to say that the assistance you've been giving with copyright concerns is much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback! I'm happy to help, and happy to hear that it's appreciated! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

... Although, as I've said, what I'm doing at WP:SCV is small compared to what you're doing at WP:CP! Mostly I'm busy with a number of other things, but am trying to put some time into it. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your contributions with copyright issues, particularly at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations. Thank you for your valuable time. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic Mediation

Unfortunately, you are somewhat mistaken that "the primary purpose of [the] page was to try to find a compromise on the SM-is-OR dispute". In fact, we have been told that we are not supposed to mention that general SM is OR, based on a tangentially related RfC. While I believe you have strived to stay very neutral on this issue, do you mind stating whether you have a stance on the issue? I feel like you have made a comment about it before, but there are thousands of diffs, and your stance may have changed since then.[struck:found it in the aforementioned RfC] DigitalC (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are references that show spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic.[19][20][21][22] QuackGuru 04:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that is relevant to this discussion, but I'll leave that to Coppertwig. DigitalC (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, DigitalC; could you give me a diff of where you were told that? What do you think the purpose of the page is? I'm not convinced; I still think the primary purpose of the page is to try to arrive at a compromise on the major longstanding dispute. If someone said we can't mention something, that person might not necessarily have been right. We may need to mention some things in order to discuss effectively how to edit the article. On the other hand: QuackGuru, we've already established that spinal manipulation is related to chiropractic. There was an RfC on that, in which I agreed. So it seems unnecessary repetition to restate that. Note that this is a different question from whether results about the effectiveness of SM can be included in a chiropractic effectiveness section or whether that would be OR. "A is related to B" is not the same as "A is equal to B"; "related" is not really a transitive relationship; at least, "closely related" isn't. There's a distance involved. Spinal manipulation is related to chiropractic, but are studies of spinal manipulation relevant to effectiveness of chiropractic? It's not clear. One of the arguments, I think, is that maybe 5% or more of the practitioners were non-chiropractors, using techniques which chiropractors allege are not the same. In that case, there is the possibility that the techniques by non-chiropractors could have had a much higher rate of adverse side effects, swamping the results. If the researchers don't state in their conclusions that their results say something about chiropractic, this possibility could be the reason why; and if they aren't willing to make that statement, then maybe we shouldn't either. On the other hand, I also see reasonable arguments on the other side: that we need not always require certain precise words to be present in a source if we know that some things are essentially synonyms, and that the defining characteristic of chiropractors is generally thought to be that they perform spinal manipulation.

DigitalC and QuackGuru: can you think of some methods of working towards compromise? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC) Striking my comment; much of it is irrelevant now that I've seen Shell's review. See my comments at Talk:Chiropractic and Talk:Chiropractic/Mediation. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your point with this comment. I provided references that show spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic. When SM is directly related to chiroppractic it means we are complying with WP:OR. We can conclude when we use SM research we are complying with OR. If editors have concerns then point them to the policy or guidelines on Wikipedia. QuackGuru 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You stated that "As Eubulides has shown, sources discussing chiropractic spend a fair amount of time addressing the question of effectiveness, and examine this effectiveness by examining the effectiveness of SMT. So it would violate WP:UNDUE to leave that material out". I believe that I have shown the opposite. Just because many of the most referenced articles using the word Chiropractic are on the topic of the effectiveness of Chiropractic, does not negate that only 15% of articles that mention Chiropractic discuss effectiveness at all, and only 3% discuss effectiveness "by examining the effectiveness of SMT". DigitalC (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

DigitalC: Oh, how do the others examine effectiveness? Eubulides was giving me the impression that there aren't many good studies looking at effectiveness except those that include some non-chiro SMT.

QuackGuru: I disagree with this statement: "When SM is directly related to chiroppractic it means we are complying with WP:OR." I don't think the second half of the sentence necessarily follows from the first half. I hope that explains what you didn't understand about my comments.

If A is directly related to B, and B is directly related to C, then A still might not be directly related to C. So, if an article is directly related to SM, and SM is directly related to chiropractic, the article might not be directly related to chiropractic. See also ZayZayEM's quibble in the RfC. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Other examine effectiness by explicitly stating they are examining "Chiropractic", or "Chiropractic therapy".examples. I agree with Eubulides that the quality of these sources may not be as good. However, we are bound at Wikipedia by rules such as WP:NOR, which states that we must not "go beyond what is expressed in the sources", and to use sources that "directly support the information as it is presented" (emphasis mine). There is nothing in the sources that expresses that the intent of the source was to discuss Chiropractic, and to present it in an article on Chiropractic is does not support the information as presented in the source (if they source is not discussing Chiropractic). To take this further, if there was enough content to turn Chiropractic#Effectiveness into a sub-article, WP:NOR would say "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about the topic". (The article topic being the effectiveness of Chiropractic). Yet, using these sources for a subsection in the Chiropractic article is approved by some editors and admins. DigitalC (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• I wonder why you are not explaining specifically what A, B, and C is in accordance with WP:OR. I do not see a conclusion C. SM research is A and chiropractic is B. But there is no conclusion C. QuackGuru 01:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the analogy I just made, A is an article, B is SM and C is chiropractic. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A and B are the same thing. Where in WP:OR does it say A is an article, B is the research directly related to the topic (SM)? I still don't see conclusion C. We are drawing conclusions about SM which is directly relevant to chiropractic. QuackGuru 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The C you're talking about is from a different analogy. Anyway, I'm not sure whether we need to continue this discussion: it seems to be about something where my position is neutral and it's already been decided by an uninvolved admin anyway. If you would like to continue discussing it with me, please explain how the discussion relates to article content under the current circumstances. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You have not explained what was your different C analogy based on Wikipedia policy. This proposal was not a compromise. It would of essentially deleted most of the spinal manipulation studies from the article against Wikipedia policy. This unverfied claim was a violation of WP:ASF. Some reseachers is weasel wording. Your ant-sciennce behavior has been noted. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you about whether my edit violated ASF. It was an edit on a talk page, proposing a draft sentence, and including a fact tag at the end of the sentence to indicate that a source would need to be found before the sentence was placed in the article. In my opinion, if a phrase like "some researchers" is used and a footnoted reference is given at the end of the sentence, as I proposed, then it isn't weasel words because the reader can find out exactly what researchers are meant by the phrase by following the footnote to the reference. See WP:WEASEL, and see also WP:Embrace weasel words. Having differences of opinion with other users is not anti-science; in fact, science thrives on dispute and discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Some researchers" implies that "most researchers" disagree which is not true. This proposal was not a compromise. It would of deleted most of the references against Wikipedia policy. Deleting most of the references would not of improved the article. There is no real difference between spinal manipulation research and chiropractic spinal manipulation research. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "C": I was using the letter "C" to represent chiropractic in an analogy. I think you may be confusing this with the letter "C" in WP:SYN; I was not referring to that letter C when I used C to mean chiropractic. Perhaps it would be easier for you to understand what I was trying to say if you were to assume that I had used the letters "X", "Y" and "Z" instead of "A", "B" and "C". In this case, "Z" would represent chiropractic and would not refer to the letter "C" in WP:SYN.

I disagree with you about whether the proposal I made was a compromise. Some editors wanted to exclude all of a certain type of study; others wanted to be free to include all of them. My proposal would have allowed some but not others of those studies to be included. It looks like a compromise to me.

I realize that you believe there is no difference between spinal manipulation research and chiropractic spinal manipulation research, but I and some other editors do see a distinction between research on spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors and research on spinal manipulation in general some of which is not performed by chiropractors. You said, "'Some researchers' implies that 'most researchers' disagree..." That's a good point. Perhaps some other wording could be found; perhaps "Researchers have stated..." I'm not sure how many references would have been deleted, but the same references could have been used at the spinal manipulation article, which a reader could arrive at via a wikilink, so the reader would not be deprived of information. Removing references or moving them to another article doesn't necessarily violate policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors have not been able to provide a distinction between research on spinal manipulation performed by chiropractors and research on spinal manipulation in general. You asserted your view but have not been able to provide evidence to support your view. QuackGuru (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

References or articles about spinal manipulation and chiropractic do not make any distinction.[23][24][25][26] I provided evidence to support including general spinal manipulation research. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith by Coppertwig

You claimed you did not see any bad faith but the editor falsely accused me of vandalism and you initially supported the false accusation. It was bad faith when you claimed you did not see any bad faith. When an editor falsely accused me of vandalism it was bad faith. It is even worse to claim you did not see any bad faith when you know my edits were not vandalism. You were acting in bad faith and should of been blocked for your behavior. See User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 8#Supporting harassment is not right. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is about an incident in October 2008. If you think I supported a false accusation, I think you must be misunderstanding what I said. In that incident, Grsz11 accused you of vandalism. I didn't accuse you of vandalism, and I didn't support Grsz's accusation of vandalism. I don't think I commented on it at all. I'm sorry that I didn't comment at that time. I'll comment now: I'm sorry that Grsz accused you of vandalism. I don't think your edits were vandalism. I think your edits were well-intentioned, and intended to help improve the encyclopedia. All of your edits that I've seen, as far as I remember, seem to be trying hard to improve the encyclopedia, which is one reason I opposed banning you here. What I did was post a message on Grsz's talk page stating "I'm sorry that QuackGuru was giving you a hard time." I'm sorry, QuackGuru, if that message bothered you. Perhaps I shouldn't have posted it. In any case, in that message I didn't say that your edits were vandalism. I didn't mean that your edits were vandalism. I didn't believe, and still don't believe, that your edits were vandalism. However, I also didn't believe that Grsz11 was acting in bad faith. I believed, and still believe, that Grsz11 was acting in good faith. I think that Grsz11 believed that your edits were vandalism. When I said "giving you a hard time", I meant things like when you said "bad faith" while giving a diff of Grsz11's edit. I think people tend to experience a hard time when someone says "bad faith" about them like that. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Grsz11 didn't have a hard time. Anyway, what I meant by "hard time" was that you had said "bad faith" – which you did say. I didn't mean that you had vandalised. I hope that clears up the misunderstanding. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertiwg wrote: I'm sorry that QuackGuru was giving you a hard time. See my message to QuackGuru here. I was not giving Grsz11 a hard time. He was giving me a hard time by falsely accusing me of vandalism. Coppertwing thinks falsely accusing me of vandalism is acting is good faith. It is acting in bad faith on the part of Coppertwig to consider it good faith when an editor falsely accused me of vandalism. Coppertwig wrote in part: Please assume good faith, at least in situations such as this where most other editors would, I think, see no evidence of bad faith; at least, I see none. Again, when an editor falsely accused me of vandalsim it was bad faith. QuackGuru (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig has admitted me edits were not vandlism. Falsely accusing an editor of vandalism when it was not vandalism is alienating an editor. Alienating an editor is bad faith. Coppertwig claims it was not bad faith to alienate an editor. Per WP:VAND#NOT: If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. QuackGuru (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, alienating an editor can happen even when one is acting in good faith. There is a difference between knowingly making a false accusation, and making a false accusation which one believes is true. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertiwg wrote: I'm sorry that QuackGuru was giving you a hard time. See my message to QuackGuru here. This is the definition of bad faith. You accused me of giving Grsz11 a hard time but that is a false statement. You were clearly assuming bad faith when you accused me of giving Grsz11 a hard time. QuackGuru (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I think that was a misunderstanding. When I said "hard time" I didn't mean to imply that you were purposely giving Grsz11 a hard time. I only meant that Grsz11 was experiencing a difficult time; I assumed your purpose was to improve the encyclopedia, not to give Grsz11 a hard time.

I realize that I could have handled the situation better. At the same time that I gave Grsz11 a message, it would have been better if I had also given you a message saying that I was sorry that Grsz11 had called what you did "vandalism". And instead of what I said to Grsz11, I could have worded it differently to make what I actually meant clearer so it wouldn't have been misinterpreted; I could have said to Grsz11 that I was sorry that you had reverted Grsz11's edits and used the phrase "bad faith" while giving a diff of Grsz11's edit. Then I would have been mentioning verifiable things, not subjective-sounding things. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: Your threories on correct interaction between users are not being followed by Administrators

Please note [this] exchange. Apparently, some editors feel entitled to throw the words "POV pushing" around, effectively labeling editors as POV pushers, and when the inappropriateness of this behaviour is pointed out, in the most civil manner possible, thse editors feel entitled to claim that accusing editors have no right to communicate when them via their Talk page. Note that User:Cailil is a Wikipedia administrator. Is there "no excuse" for this? Will you join me in correcting User:Cailil's behaviour, or is this user not seen to be at the root of "problems?" Blackworm (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry, Blackworm. It's more complicated than that.

There are different things referred to as "consensus": some with the support of 99% or more of Wikipedians, some with the support of 90% or 60%. In many situations, it doesn't work to treat these all the same.

The Wikipedian consensus system is a bit like a shifting quagmire. You may sometimes be able to support your weight on a piece of driftwood, but you can't build a structure without constantly checking how the foundation is holding up. It's not like logic, where once something has been established to be true you can build on it as much as you like, without having to remember how it was established to be true.

I proposed having everyone editing the Circumcision article and related articles avoid terms like "POV-pushing". I might have gotten that idea from you; I'm not sure; but in any case it seemed to me that given the particular people who usually edit there and the types of interaction that usually happen, that it would be both likely feasible and beneficial to try something like that there. I'm not proposing it for the whole of Wikipedia.

I would like to distinguish two types of users:

• A) A user believes that, to make an article conform to NPOV, greater weight has to be given in the article to POV X.
• B) A user is trying to promote POV X by increasing its prominence in articles without caring that this violates NPOV.

A common problem, I believe, is that another user, finding it difficult to imagine that someone can actually believe certain things, sees the behaviour of a user in category A and mistakenly thinks they are in category B. This is where AGF is needed and I believe is what the WP:POVPUSH section is talking about when it says it's uncivil to call someone a POV-pusher.

However, there are also actually some users in category B. If there's evidence that would convince a strong majority of objective observers that a user is in that category, then the user may need to be blocked, and in such a situation, although it's always possible to discuss things by referring to behaviour and not labelling the person, I think it would probably be counterproductive to criticize people for using the convenient term "POV-pusher".

You are not like Parthasarathy B. You discuss things with other users and acknowledge that others have points of view that differ from yours. From Parthasarathy B's talk page it appears that the user doesn't discuss things, doesn't respond to requests, and may soon be blocked.

The page you referred to in your message to Cailil, WP:POVPUSH, is not a policy or guideline, and I'm not convinced that this statement of yours is true: "... are considered by the Wikipedia community to be incivil and unnecessary."

Re user talk pages: I would generally advise users, both for their own good and for the good of the project, not to ask other users to stay completely off their talk pages. My own talk page has a message at the top welcoming politely-worded criticism of my behaviour. I think that's important, and I think is a primary purpose – perhaps the primary purpose – of these pages.

However, not everyone agrees, and when someone does ask another user to stay off their talk page, I don't criticize them for it. When someone asks me to stay off their talk page, except in some cases including obvious vandals, I generally comply with the request. If I think it's important to criticize the user's behaviour, I find some other channel: perhaps I use an article talk page (briefly and apologetically to other users for taking up space there); perhaps I bring a complaint to an administrator or to AN/I or some other forum.

These days, I'm trying hard to always comment on it when I see what I recognize as an uncivil comment directed towards an editor. Some things that others consider uncivil I don't necessarily consider uncivil.

I followed the link you gave, but I don't see anything in Cailil's behaviour that I would offer a comment on. The fact that Cailil is an administrator seems irrelevant to me, given that admin tools were not used in the situation referred to.

I'm sorry for these complexities, which you might perceive as being unfair. On Wikipedia, to some extent, different people have different ways of doing things, and different situations are not necessarily always handled in the same way. Others might see what they consider to be important distinctions between two situations, which you might not consider important. It sometimes happens that someone goes to criticize someone for breaking what they thought was a firm rule, only to discover that that behaviour is generally tolerated and even perhaps that criticizing the person for it would be considered an offense. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I suppose I am sensitive to editors referring to "povpushing" (whether edits or editors, which I consider equivalent in that case). While I believe a consensus exists that calling someone a POV-pusher is always incivil, it appears labelling edits as such is more murky. From looking at Cailil's Talk page, however, it appears that anyone commenting and in any way disagreeing is met with the same response (paraphrasing): "don't comment on my Talk page again, if you have a problem take it to AN/I, RfC or DR, your edits are povpushing and disruptive, beware that further disruption will lead to blocks and/or a ban." That, and the weight of networked groups of like-minded editors (WikiProjects), seems extremely effective in reducing any opposition to Cailil's edits -- I should try it, I suppose, especially if Admins are encouraged to behave that way. It should also perhaps be noted that Cailil has posted to my Talk page since asking me to not post to his;[27] a position that seemed to indicate a desire for an open avenue of communication. I believe it petty, one-sided, and inconsistent of Cailil to call on me to hold on to an agreement to not post to his Talk page, which I made six months before that exchange (which I welcomed). But hey, I guess that's that kind of editor Wikipedia wants, judging by the community approval given Cailil (adminship). Blackworm (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: this edit, I think you are completely off the mark. Nowhere above do I indicate that I believe Cailil intentionally desires to harm the project, and I challenge you to point out exactly where I said or implied that, in your view. Regardless, your edit highlights the limited usefulness of WP:AGF guideline, since as I've said before, when one party accuses another of having failed to AGF, as you have done, one party is definitely violating AGF guideline; it just isn't clear which party that is. Blackworm (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the community consensus I refer to above is demonstrated here. I concur with the majority of editors in that discussion, and the recognized consensus. I go even further, claiming that the recognized incivil act of calling an editor a POV pusher is essentially the same as calling an edit POV pushing. The phrase "POV pushing" implies bad faith on the part of an editor, i.e., an explicit and intentional desire to advance, despite resistance ("push"), the editor's POV rather than write articles with a neutral POV. An editor making an edit that happens to violate WP:NPOV isn't necessarily doing so in bad faith, and thus to refer to an edit as "POV pushing" seems a clear failure to assume good faith in the editor. It's unfortunate that it seems our views on this are very much in contrast. Blackworm (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have replied here before or at the same time as editing the RfC. I very much appreciate the thanks to me with which you began your message.

However, I'd rather you didn't use my talk page as a place to post criticisms of other editors. I'd appreciate it if you would strike out your two messages about Cailil, or at least the part where you allegedly paraphrase from Cailil's talk page. I find paraphrasing can be useful in discussions in order to ask someone whether one has understood what they meant. It's not so great, though, when criticizing someone; then, precise quotes are better. I looked at Cailil's talk page and most recent talk page archive and except for the message to you didn't find anything that seemed to me to resemble your paraphrase at all. I wonder whether you saw my long reply to you in a thread above; maybe my replies are getting too long. But there, I pointed out to you that there's a request at the top of my talk page to please not post criticisms of other editors here.

Per C3, I urge you not to imitate the worst behaviours of other editors, or what you consider to be their behaviours. There are all sorts of problems with that. Just because something is done by an administrator doesn't necessarily mean it's an action condoned by the community. Are you aiming for the best possible behaviour, or the worst?

I'm not sure if it's relevant exactly, but on the topic of (allegedly) uncommunicative administrators you might be interested in this post of mine last March.

I don't understand your logic about AGF: could you explain it, please? Why couldn't it happen that there is a misunderstanding, one editor believes in good faith that the other is not assuming good faith, when the other actually is assuming good faith? What do you think of as bad faith: must it mean harming the project? Or do you consider failure to assume good faith to itself be a form of bad faith? I guess I was considering "petty, one-sided and inconsistent" to define a form of bad faith.

I guess you misunderstood Cailil's request: you apparently saw it as a temporary but complete cutoff of communication, while apparently Cailil saw it as an indefinite cessation until further notice of use of his talk page, but not of other channels of communication. He didn't tell you to stop communicating with him; he said to use AN and RfC instead of his talk page. I see nothing petty or inconsistent about his request: it seems simple and straightforward to me. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You don't find anything inconsistent about A asking B never to post to A's Talk page again, then months later A posting on B's Talk page and being granted a civil discussion in reply (rather than mere reciprocity); then, again months later, when B posts on A's page, A saying, "Also I will remind you are not welcome on this talk page as has been the case for nearly 11 months."[28] (??!?) Seriously, Coppertwig, we don't seem to see eye to eye on this issue at all, if you don't even recognize inconsistency in that. It is "inconsistency" at best.

Your replies are indeed getting too long. All this time, we are focusing on editors. I too have been called "petty," been accused of making edit decisions "all" from a distinct POV (would that count as "one-sided?"), and been accused of holding inconsistent positions -- by some of the editors certifying the basis of the RfC/U dispute you initiated. Again, if the other parties are to fall under scrutiny in this, as called for by WP:RFC, and you're a neutral party merely resolving a conduct dispute spanning multiple editors, why not nudge the RfC when editors supporting your complaint apparently violate the spirit of the proposed remedies, as you yourself apparently recognized? Will you note on the RfC where they also have done so? Do you think it appropriate for me to do it, given that policy calls for their conduct to be scrutinized? (WP:RFC) You seem to assert that I am not the focus when I claim that you are unfairly focussing on my conduct, but then assert that I am the focus when I point out that my conduct only highlights the gravely aggressive climate and double standards in conduct expectations in circumcision and related articles.

I'd appreciate if you struck out the allegation that I failed to abide by C3. But I do not consider it a requirement that you do so.

I'd also like to say that you may be also be in a minority in your apparent view that WP:IAR is "the primary Wikipedian policy."[29] If that were so, one would wonder why you continually ask me to strike out my comments, and not your supporters who you seem to admit engage in the same conduct, apparently causing "problems," especially when these supporters happen to agree with each other on virtually all NPOV issues, which let's face it, is not all that surprising given the fact that one is a published advocate for circumcision and two others primarily edit articles on a religion that requires it. What you write suggests you prefer that editors who encounter opposition "[invite] others to revert [their] actions," and then "[say] [they] will not dispute." Interesting, but apparently a standard that you do not hold others to as intently, with no apparent justification.

Please feel free to strikeout or remove any of my comments on your Talk page. Please consider adding [Struck out by Coppertwig] if and when you do so. Blackworm (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry, I don't follow many of the things you say. If you want to explain them further, it would probably help if you provided diffs. Where your comments involve criticism of editors other than myself, please move the discussion somewhere other than my talk page; I'd be happy to continue the discussion on your talk page, for example.

I think you misunderstood why I was giving that link to the arbitration request talk page from last March. I was certainly not implying that others should do the same things that user did. That link is an interesting and unusual situation and was more to show my own reaction. If you're going to imitate something the other user did, please choose "raising his level of civility", which I think you've been doing, thank you.

No, I see nothing inconsistent about Cailil's request: it's specifically about his talk page. It's somewhat similar to my own request, which is also specifically about my talk page.

When it says at RfC that other editors may come under scrutiny, I think it means don't be surprised if your behaviour is scrutinized, for example in a later Arbitration case; I don't interpret it as inviting people to comment on other editors. It's my understanding that a request for comment is specifically requesting comments on the conduct of one editor. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you, Coppertwig, for your kind comment on my talkpage. I understand the frustration of the poster and how passionate he feels about his subject. I find that the WP Code of conduct as expressed in WP:Pillars is a great way of conducting oneself both in WP and outside of it. If we were always civil, there would be no Israel-Palestinian conflict, :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree heartily! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SCV

Hey, I've noticed you popping up on Moonriddengirl's talk page and SCV a lot of recent, and let me just say; it's nice to see you helping out there! It can get backlogged very quickly, and many of the problems take much longer to solve than to occur, so there can never be too many cooks, so to speak. With regard to pages which are similar to other articles on Wikipedia, you should check that the newer article has given attribution in the Edit History to whichever article was used as a base.

• For example, this article is fine, as the creator did exactly the right thing in the edit summary. In this case, these articles can be removed from SCV list.
• Looking at the history of this article, it looks like the original author just wants to redirect to the original page, but isn't familiar with how it works, given that they are replacing the page with the whole CSB tag (instead of just "# Redirect" etc.) - so we can redirect it and remove from the SCV list.

In a case where an article has been used as a base without being attributed, but isn't just a redirect, you can either do an extensive rewrite, or add a message such as "This page incorporates content from Article." in a notes section at the bottom of the page. I hope this helps, and it's again nice to see a new face over at SCV, especially now that I don't have as much time to help out. It can be tedious and time consuming, but it is important! Best, – Toon^(talk) 20:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've seen you there too! Hurray for teamwork! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Location map USA North Carolina

Hi Coppertwig, I'm contacting you because you're listed at Wikipedia:Editor assistance. I was wondering if you've any idea how to fix the image in this article. I've been fiddling with Template:Location_map_USA_North_Carolina but to no avail. I appreciate you may be too busy and thanks for your time. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to leave in a minute or two but I'll see if I can do anything quickly! 00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, all I'm able to find out for now is that things went wrong apparently when you did this edit: [30] What's that edit supposed to do? How about just reverting it? Can you find other location maps for other places that you can compare to? Note: if you change the template, you may need to "purge" in order to see the change right away on other pages. (I forget how to do that, though.) I hope I've been a tiny bit of help. You can try the help desk. I might be able to help more tomorrow. I know some things about templates, but not about these location maps. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 00:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think I broke it (though admittedly I could have made the problem worse) but I was actually trying to fix the template with that edit. The image wasn't displaying when I came across Mount Mitchell, so I attempted to format the template along the lines of Template:Location_map_Alabama. Normally I'd simply preview my edits but it's wasn't really possible to see if they'd work in this case. Anyway, I've reverted all my edits now. I had a go at purging too (apparently adding ?action=purge to the URL does it) but it's still broken. Thanks very much for replying so quicky. And don't worry too much if you're busy, I'll try helpdesk tomorrow but I should probably go to bed now. Best wishes --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it!!! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for having blamed the problem on your edit. Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention; it was affecting the display on multiple articles. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I also put a message at User talk:Obersachsebot. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That's ok: I didn't revert when I'd finished and I suppose I rather gave the impression I was asking you to fix a problem I'd created - it was a reasonable assumption. Anyway, I'm glad it's sorted. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind taking a look at this issue Talk:Che Guevara (photo)#Quote Farm, and including your opinion. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In another episode of "As the world turns" :o)   Redthoreau (talk) RT 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the first few sections of the article, and in my opinion the quotes were not excessive. They're a small fraction of the total text, and they generally demonstrate unique POVs which are relevant to the context.

I agree with Damiens that even a very short quote, a phrase or maybe even a single word, can be called a quote.

Instead of "the daily routine of both of us reverting each other 2 times a day," which is not the way things are supposed to work on Wikipedia and could get you blocked temporarily or indefinitely, I suggest being patient, avoiding repeated reverting, trying harder to reach an understanding with Damiens, and following the steps of dispute resolution.

In your talk page comments, to promote collaboration, I suggest being careful to avoid saying things that might bother the other person. Think about whether what you're saying about the other person is NPOV: would the other person say it in those words? I'm thinking of things like "hysteria", "dreaded",[31]

Re "when you have continually displayed bad faith with me..." and "that you seem determined to continue & exacerbate." and "Since it is obvious to me that you enjoy this ‘personal tug of war’ too much to refrain from continuing it," I suggest assuming good faith, or at least talking respectfully to Damiens as if you do; I think the two of you will be more likely to reach agreement if you do that. If you've both been reverting, perhaps there's little or no reason to see Damiens' motives as being any worse than your own: you're both intent on improving the encyclopedia. I see no evidence of bad faith.

Re "pestering" and "rant": I suggest using the preview button, or better yet leaving your draft comments overnight and/or asking someone to look them over before you post, and changing words where there's a way of saying something that will be better received by the other person. See User:Coppertwig/Techniques for handling emotions when editing.

I suggest being especially careful to make your edit summaries NPOV, i.e. to avoid wording that might offend the other person, since edit summaries can't be edited.

"You seem to pretend that your actions exist within a confined bubble, ..." Actually, if I understand correctly, I think that's a better way to do things. Rather than considering the whole "quasi-feud" every time something happens, it's often better to look only at what the person just did, try to see it in a positive light, and try to cooperate with the person. If the other person also responds positively, this can start you both off in a new, more positive direction. [32]

Joke: If quotes are too close to the original, then how about replacing the photo of Che with an encyclopedic description, collaboratively wiki-edited by Wikipedians, containing any factual information the reader could be presumed to need or want about the photo? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your help and instructions

thanks for your help and instructions - LocodeMaster (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• already wondered how you found it. Good that someone like you is working on SCV. LocodeMaster (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks!! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please update DYK

I think the update-time has been extended to 12 hours from 6 due to recent spate of lack of hooks, you can check on that or post to WT:DYK. Cirt (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated thank you

For your kind note on my talk page 17 October urging me not to leave. I had one foot out the door for awhile, and things got much worse, but I'm still here so I guess you were persuasive. Tomorrow, who knows...but today I just want to say thank you. The info on WP:CoI was very useful. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To Jayjg

Re this edit: Please note this earlier comment by Blackworm about talk page formatting.

Also, I'm not sure whether you had seen my last message to you in an earlier thread. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm sure Blackworm feels that way, but I don't find his view to be convincing, or reflect common practice. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ari

Regarding [[33]]

I completely disagree with your analogy and stand by what I said. Ari was quite short with Tip and considering their history and him being an Admin I expect a little more patience from him. Garycompugeek (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

not to mention reverting Usergreatpower without explanation which he said was a mistake and apologized for. You should recognize that I am trying to keep the playing field equal and fair, what you yourself have purported to do. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that I overreacted. Anyway, it's good that we have the same goal. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant facts

The topic is rediculous; significant facts have been removed, it's poorly written, and frequently misleading (propaganda). It is gotten worse! Why not just help add missing information?TipPt (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, TipPt!

In my opinion it's OK that significant facts were removed. In shortening the article, I struggled to fit as much as I could into a small number of words and had to make difficult choices about what to take out and what to leave in. If readers want all the significant facts, they have to go to the subarticles.

We disagree about the quality of the writing and whether it's misleading or whether information is "missing" (which I take to mean you think it ought to be included).

You need to convince me that changes are needed in the article. I suggest that you formulate your arguments as I describe here: User:Coppertwig#The "What, Where, Why" method of content discussion. You've provided the "what"; now you need to provide the "where" (where exactly in the article are you suggesting putting those words?) and more importantly the "why", for each of the passages you want to add. For the "why", you may want to refer to WP:UNDUE and to major reliable sources, similarly to the way Jakew did here.

I also suggest that you check whether the various information is already included in the subarticles, and if not, put it in. Ideally, the subarticles should be developed along with the summary article. If the material is to be added, it should either go only in the subarticles, or else in both the subarticles and the summary article, probably in longer form in the subarticles. Either way it needs to go into the subarticles. When you add the material to the subarticles (or propose it on the talk pages of the subarticles) I may notice it on my watchlist and have a closer look, and I may have comments at that time supporting or opposing adding it to the subarticles. At first glance, the material looks verifiable and good to add to the subarticles, but I haven't had time to look closely.

You need to explain clearly what words in the article you consider to be "propaganda" and why, and what other words you suggest substituting instead. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick ?

I was interested in expanding the Che Guevara infobox, to include {collapsible) sections on "influenced", "influenced by", "notable ideas" etc - similar to the one used on Jean Paul Sartre - but it doesn't have to exactly mimic it. First what do you think of such a proposal? and second would you be willing to assist me in this? as I seem to have awful luck when it comes to info boxes, and can never properly formulate adding a new section. Thanks old friend, and I hope life for you is well. As an aside, I was engaged a in a heated discussion recently, and heard your "wise and calm ghost" whispering to me from one shoulder, and it helped me remain civil. Copper's spirit lives! ;o)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, nice to hear from you.

I seem to be pretty busy these days. I suppose it's OK with me to expand the infobox like that, and I may be able to help with formatting it and getting it to work. You'll be the expert on the contents, I suppose.

That's really cool about my ghost! ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential assistance?

Hi. :) You've been invoked at User talk:Arilang1234#Written by a group of 300, where I am talking with Arilang about requesting GFDL permission for text in that article. If you have any interest, please feel free to participate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Art Christmas

Hello;

Thank you so very much for your help...As you know by now I am an old retired musician who has this website which I keep in memory of my father. I have changed the release which appears at the bottom of my site http://www.artchristmas.com/art1.html. I think it is now worded correctly and I hope will solve this copyright problem. To see this article on Wikipedia is a thrill for me and my family and I know that there are still thousands of fans around the world of the Big Band Dance Era and much interest in musicians like my father who starred during the 1920's to 1940's Any further help you could personally give me to get the article in question back up and running would be also greatly appreciated.

Regards

~~Art Christmas Jr~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artxmas (talk • contribs) 14:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems it's all been worked out: see Talk:Art Christmas. Good, and I'm sorry for the earlier frustrations and confusing stuff. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday spam

Moonriddengirl ^(talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you so much for all the work you do on Wikipedia, especially in re: copyrights and some of the folks who come by my talk page occasionally in need of assistance. You're a valuable colleague, and I appreciate you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Favor

If you should happen to be online and notice that my "notice" (one of the bottom sections of my talk page) is moving up to where it might not be noticed by inexperienced contributors, could you please move it back to the bottom if you have time and opportunity? I'd be grateful. :) I know it's redundant to the top, but last time I went away I found out that a lot of people don't notice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, happy to help; or, at least, that is, I'll try to remember. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Holding down the fort :o)

I will be on vacation (and not able to post) till January 4th -and- thus was wondering if you would be kind enough to keep my user page, talk page, etc on watch for me. Additionally, I trust your judgment to speak on my behalf at the CG article until my return. Thanks and I hope you had a nice holiday season.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

moons page

Please see my post on moon's talk page. thanks again for putting your 2 sense in all this. (Movieman2008 (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)).

I saw your post and will try to find time to respond later. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 13:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Coppertwig,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Coppertwig,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Differences between Huaxia and barbarians

An article that you have been involved in editing, Differences between Huaxia and barbarians, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians. Thank you. Madalibi (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I re edited the page check it nd tell me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucocorticoid_remediable_aldosteronism tell me if you have any comments and thank youMaen. K. A. (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding to my comments and editing the article. I think you've added more detail than necessary about the normal physiology. In general, rather than having two Wikipedia articles containing several paragraphs of the same material, it's better to have just one of the articles contain the material, while the other can contain a short summary of the material and a link to the other page. You don't need to say everything about aldosterone synthesis: only the facts that are relevant to the current article. I would keep one sentence about the normal function of aldosterone, for example (how it affects the kidneys).

My questions on the article talk page still aren't answered. It seems to say that in normal physiology, aldosterone synthesis is increased in response to ACTH. So how is the pathological condition any different from that? This isn't explained.

When you copy information from one Wikipedia article to another, it's important to mention in the edit summary when you do that the fact that it's copied from the other article, and name the other article. See WP:Splitting. This is required in order to comply with copyright requirements by giving attribution to the Wikipedian editors of the other page.

I'm sorry if I sound abrupt at the moment: I'm feeling tired. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all feel free to edit the normal physiology to exclude the information you see unnecessary i ll review that and check if that changes the quality of the article, about the ACTH stimulating the synthesis, in normal subject the ACTH only accelerates the first step of the synthesis, which does not involve the aldosterone synthase but in this disease, ACTH activates Aldosterone synthase, thats why we call it ACTH sensitive aldosterone synthase, i ll include a picture for the synthesis pathway it will be more useful, to understand the process, and the breakdown of normal physiology in the disease. please check the normal physiology and give me some comments or remove what you see unnecessary, and i ll review that :-) thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try, but am pretty busy. Do you mean that even when the abnormal aldosterone synthase molecule has already been produced, that this molecule becomes (more) active in response to the presence of ACTH? In the presence of ACTH, is the abnormal aldosterone synthase more active than the activity level of aldosterone synthase in normal subjects? In the absence of ACTH, is the abnormal aldosterone synthase equally active as it is in normal subjects?

I suggest adding a passage like the following to the article. I don't think I'll add it myself because I haven't read the sources and verified that it's true, but you can if I've got it right and if you know it's verifiable: "Although in normal subjects, ACTH accelerates the first step of aldosterone synthesis, ACTH normally has no effect on the activity of aldosterone synthase. However, in subjects with this condition, ACTH also increases the activity of existing aldosterone synthase, resulting in an abnormally high rate of aldosterone synthesis."

I suggest saying something about the symptoms of the condition, giving enough information for people to get a rough idea of how serious it is. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually i added the sentence you said, its good addition and clarifies the pathophysiology, i ll add something about the symptoms and so soon, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe you don't need to add anything about the symptoms. You have a link to hyperaldosteronism, which lists the symptoms; it may be better to just leave it at that. Again, better not to have too much repetition of the same material in different articles. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the symptoms and am working on a digram to summarize the —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi, you may want to have a read of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3, as you are mentioned in it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it already: RfC/U is on my watchlist. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for responding as you did. You could have trashed me and you did not. Do you know that I offered to help Redthoreau out the other day when he was blocked. The blocking admin through a clinker in the deal so it didn't work out. But I did try to accomplish something positive for him. Thank you again for not kicking me on the way out! Warmest regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In the RFC I am blamed for the Che Guevara FAR mess and maybe more (I can't make myself read through it all). Please tell me truthfully if I was mostly responsible? I want to know the truth. Don't hold back but call it as you see it. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You can thank Ottava Rima, whose comment inspired me to respond as I did. I didn't get the impression that you were to blame for Che Guevara being defeatured. As far as I remember, the main issues were NPOV and formatting. Re Redthoreau: I'm happy to hear of the positive interaction. It's good to get positive energy circulating. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		This belongs to someone of noble character, rectitude, and dignity, with a sense of what is right, responsible, and decorous. That means it is yours. -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll put this here since I don't know anything about barnstars. I second the above. You're an absolute gentleman and it's pleasure to read your helpful, considerate replies and good faith. Phil153 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts when you have time

Hey friend, hope life finds you well ... please see my lengthy response, and I would love to know your feelings if you have time. Thanks :o)   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

Hi Coppertwig -- I don't remember whether you've edited List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts before, but since I know the general subject matter is of interest to you, I'm letting you know a request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to that list. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

comment

Just my opinion, of course we can't predict the future but we all have to act on the balance of probability based on the past, otherwise we would not be as successful in deciding the possible outcomes of our future decisions imho.Sticky Parkin 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how things work. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 21:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I cannot find on the page what you mean. I have looked and searched with my find key. Please, just strike out whatever you want. You have my permission to strike anyhing out you want. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Typo. I am sorry. My hands are shaking. Please. Do what you want, you have my permission. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I didn't mean to make you upset. I'm sorry. It's not that important whether something is actually struck out. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, just strike out what you want. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I struck out "I would remind you that User:Coppertwig and User:Redthoreau controlled the content of that article for quite a while". I just hope that you're OK and that you're not very upset by what I said. It's not that important. You can revert my edit if you don't like the way I did it. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the comments that you wished to remove. By your removing them I was able to see what it was that you did not like. This is an issue over which you and I disagree. You said to respond on your talk page if I have any problem with your behavior[34] I have responded to you on my talk page,[35] why I must refuse you offer to make further comments on Talk:Che Guevara. I hope you will respect my point of view and not see this as a negative example of my behavior. It is merely my wish not to return to a situation that I found so distressing before. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(removed further answers to Coppertwig's questions asked on my talk page; they are now on my talk page. See User talk:Mattisse - Che Guevara.)

Mattisse, seeing how I am one of the topics of discussion I figured I would offer a reply (although I really don’t want to be drawn into any type of heated discussion, as I have done everything in my power I believe to re-establish good relations with you and want to maintain them). If you look on Polaris’ page I have been encouraging (almost pleading) with him to be involved with the CG article since he left the first time. This most recent time was just one more attempt to elicit more participation on the article (because I do not like the impression you’ve voiced that I am trying to own the article). I have even gone as far as to state that I will cede to other's judgment (Copper, JbMurray, Polaris etc), as I don't want to be viewed as the 'boss', but rather just another one of the 'employees'. It seems that you have placed me into a Catch 22 where if I elicit participation from others I am being “exclusionary”, but if I preserve the status quo - I am trying to own the article. Thus it seems to me that anything short of leaving the article for good, means that I will continue to be accused of owning it. I believe that anyone reading the CG talk page would see that if you remove me and Copper from the conversation, the dialogue would quickly devolve into a discussion of “Was he the most evil man of all time, or the second most evil man of all time?” & an attempt to include that he executed 12,000,000 people & 1,000,000 puppies on an island of 6,000,000 people (give or take 500,000). As for Copper's critiques of my behavior, I find them helpful, and appreciate that he/she acts as a proverbial ‘angel on my shoulder’ to warn me when I offer up responses that may be interpreted as less than fully civil. I believe that Copper's doing this has drastically improved my understanding of how to improve & maintain good working relationships with other Wiki editors (which even you recently complimented me on). I regret that you possibly view me and Copper as a 2 person Cabal, because I feel like me and Copper go out of our way to elicit more participation on the article. It also seems that no matter how many times Copper invites you to engage on the article, you will continually view him/her as trying to shut you out of it. With all that said, I acknowledge your valuable additions to Wiki, I believe that although you (like me) become impassioned, that you mean well. I find it unfortunate that there is some intangible aspect of mine and Coppers collaboration that you feel threatened by on CG, as in my view we are just 2 people doing our best to improve the article and take into account the views of IP’s who usually pop in with a criticism and disappear. To reiterate I bear no ill feelings towards you, in fact I wish this was a situation where we could also be friends (similar to how I consider Copper one) – but I respect your prerogative not to engage on CG and will honor your wishes.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Redthoreau

My posts are replies to questions Coppertwig asked me on my talk page. See User talk:Mattisse - Che Guevara. Coppertwig urged me to return to editing Che Guevara and I explained why I will not. My responses pertain only to questions Coppertwig asked me. Therefore, I have removed my answers from Coppertwig's page. I do not wish to get involved in lengthy discussions initiated by my answers to his questions; my responses pertain only to my motivations for refusing his request, nothing more than that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to Coppertwig

I have removed my answers to your questions that I posted on your page. I do not want to engage in discussions initiated by others in response to my answers, so I have removed them to my own talk page. Thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC) See User talk:Mattisse - Che Guevara.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Coppertwig

Hi Coppertwig, I'm sorry but I am going through some more proposals here and you seem to be focused on SA. Now my understanding is that this case is supposed to be about ideas for helping to make working in fringe theories easier with less drama, stress and so forth. Coren said so here I realize a lot of editors are upset with SA and are continuing to make proposals singling him out but I am just curious why you have. I personally haven't had any real experiences with him so I am trying not to comment on certain aspects that are being proposed. Anyways, like I said, I am curious why all your proposals are about him. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not all my proposals are about SA. The two principles that I added more recently, "Gray areas" and "enforcement of content policy", don't single out any one editor.

What happened is this: I saw the arbitration request when it was first started, and at that time it seemed to be focussed on ScienceApologist. I believe the ArbCom later renamed it to be about fringe science in general. I saw the death threat and thought something should be done about it. I tend to be more active than the average Wikipedian in helping enforce civility policies; I'd like to see more people say something (gently and diplomatically) when they see uncivil comments directed at other users, for example. The first section on my userpage is about civility. I saw that various principles etc. were being proposed, and at that time I didn't happen to have any ready-to-post ideas about how to help solve the overall problems in fringe science; perhaps I felt I was only on the fringe of all the fringe science controversy. But I was able to think of clear items about the death threat, so I put that in as my contribution, leaving the other issues to be started by others who happened to have ideas on them; I've been contributing comments in response to some of those other items. I considered starting a separate ArbCom request about ScienceApologist specifically, but figured that the ArbCom would probably decide to lump it into the same case anyway. Re the death threat, I looked into the background a bit before posting, but didn't fully absorb it until I saw Bishonen's comment. I hope that explains the situation. Note that I've also said a couple of things in ScienceApologists' defense: at the bottom of this diff and here (re labelling).

I haven't seen anyone else making death threats, but I've responded to other editors to encourage them to be more civil, for example here (though that's not in fringe science); I've made many such comments to many editors. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, much appreciated. As for civility patrol I have mixed feelings about this though I do always try to be civil. I guess the problem I have is people saying that this is a death threat. I saw what was going on through this whole event and SA was quiet for what 14 hours, give or take. There were at least two administrators commenting there and one arb but none of them put a stop to the attacks and baiting that was going on. SA became angry and in my opinion, rightfully too. So he became sarcastic, nothing more, nothing at least to me that would call it a physical threat to harm anyone. I think the 'death threat' is over blown. Of course this is my opinion. But that's my point I guess. What is civil to me or civil to you or considered uncivil by either of us is an interpretation. So who draws the line between civil or uncivil? Why should sarcasm be considered so dastardly bad when it is baited? I guess I have trouble with understanding all of this because there seems to be two sides to everything and as such, there are those who seem to like SA and those on the other side who don't. I don't know how to resolve this issue as it's very complex and I obviously don't know a lot of the under currents that is driving this. Thanks though for explaining your thoughts on this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think a good test for whether something is civil is: if it's a comment directed towards a specific editor, is it about the editor (rather than only about specific problems with the editor's behaviour), and is it likely to be unwelcome to that editor? If the answer to both is yes, I think it's best to avoid making those comments. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I agree with what you say which is why I think most if not everyone that was involved on that talk page at the time was behaving poorly. That whole thread was about editors and not content. But I agree with you but I guess the difference might be that I feel the sarcastic parody that ended up being posted was not as extreme as some want to make it sound. Thanks, Insert non-formatted text here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crohnie (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 January 2009

Oh well...

... thanks for trying, anyway. I'd probably be happier if I just unwatchlisted it, but I appreciate your attempt to find a better way forward. Take care. :) MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. See take II. Anyway, I suppose there's nothing to stop editors from stating that they would like to be informed if certain types of discussion are started up. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mucoid plaque

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mucoid plaque, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (3rd nomination). Thank you. ZayZayEM (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Coaching" vs controlling

[36] Why "small" always for these "coaching" tips and why not openly on the article page so others know what is going on? Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, please do not imply or accuse me of being "controlled". I consider Copper a friend of mine, and he/she helps give me an outside view on those times when I sway from full civility. None of us are perfect, and I consider myself lucky to have someone to hold me to account and remind me when I (upon being attacked myself) slip up and let emotions seep into my vernacular. I also don’t believe that Copper is trying to conceal or “hide” anything; he/she is simply letting me know on my talk page (as I have asked him/her to do) in such instances. I am not sure why this practice seems to draw your attention or ire ... but please assume good faith, and not interpret our collaboration as anything but two editors doing their best to be as civil as possible to others (Copper represents that to which I aspire in this regard).   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, the hidden coaching/controlling puts anyone else trying to edit the Che Guevara page at such a disadvantage. Have you noticed that Coppertwig's advise is always advice that will ultimately further your purposes? It is not neutral. Perhaps, this is why no knowledgeable editor is willing to edit the page with you, leaving you and Coppertwig in control. I can't remember how many months this has been the case, but it may be well over a year. Considering the rich interactions that went on for so long on that page, it is a barren desert by comparison now. (I say this not because I have anything against you, Redthoreau, as my feelings have thawed considerably towards you over time. I see you as well meaning and with good will, I did try to help you out during your last block. Rather, I hold Coppertwig responsible. If he were overt, I would not complain.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. I'm sorry for the delay in replying; I've been rather busy. You're welcome to participate in editing the article and discussing article content on the article talk page. If you're not interested in doing that, and if you're not interested [37] [38] in negotiating reasonable conditions that would let you feel comfortable participating, that's your choice. To answer your question: I post messages like the diff you mention as my way of trying diplimatically to support the civility policy; see also User:Coppertwig#Civility. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. As I said, my objection is to the covertness. To edit the article, or even to offer suggestions, would mean that I would have to watchlist your talk page and those with whom you covertly communicate, and I am unwilling to do that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in editing the article or in negotiating as I mention above, please let me know. Otherwise, as you said in the second diff I gave above, there's no need for me to change my behaviour. I believe that posting messages on user talk pages is a normal part of editing Wikipedia. I normally use article talk pages for comments about article content, and user talk pages for comments about user behaviour, and I prefer when others follow that pattern too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• As I said, not if it means having to watchlist your page for comments on Che Guervara. (Good thing I happened to be on the look out for this one!) I do not watchlist your page and do not want to do so. I am unwilling to edit a page where covert coaching and advice is given to one party only, unbeknown to the other parties, consistently for over a year, influencing a particular point of view. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Please give diffs to support your statement "influencing a particular point of view" or strike it out. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  When you say "not if it means..." I get the impression that you are not interested in editing the article nor in negotiating, although that isn't perfectly clear. If you are interested, please state clearly that you wish to participate in editing the article and that you wish to request conditions that will allow you to feel comfortable doing so. The reason for this is: I may be willing to comply with some special conditions if the conditions are not too onerous and if it helps you feel comfortable editing. However, I don't wish to go to the trouble of complying with any special conditions if you still won't be editing the article or commenting on article content on the article talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

message

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

For easing my mind and taking a load off

I was getting to breaking point - thanks

Signed in, loaded my watch list ready to carry on the pointless argument discussion - nice surprise

--Chaosdruid (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And what a nice surprise it was to receive this lovely message! Thanks!! I suppose you mean the Jimmy Wales article. I'm glad my little edit may have helped achieve consensus. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CG

Could you please reformat the ref's for my recent additions from David Sandison? (I believe that if I see you do it in real time, that I will be able to replicate the formatting in the future) Appreciate it. Thanks   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(Re Che Guevara) OK, I formatted all but one of the Sandison references. Note I did two steps: first I added Sandison to the list in the References section; then I changed the material in the ref tags in the body of the article to use links to the entry in the References section. For one of the Sandison references, I've deliberately not done that second step. I've left it for you to do, for practice. However, feel free to ask me to do that one too if you like. See also Talk:Che Guevara/Archive 19#Citation formatting. I'm intending (one of these days?) to make all the references use templates such as Template:Cite book. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you help fix up the Taibo references? Two problems: (1) it's not an English-language source. It would be better to use the translation as a reference. (2) Apparently different editions are being used as references in different places. It would be better to use just one edition.

If you could find the correct page number for each of the references to Taibo in just one English-language edition, then we could make all the Taibo references consistent.

Actually, possibly I could do this. I see that the public library has a 1997 edition of "Guevara, also known as Che" by Taibo. However, I may or may not "get around to it". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Copper, I really appreciate the tutorial (I believe I have the hang of it now :o). As for Taibo, I have the English edition right here, and will synchronize those pages this weekend. I noticed the same problem and had been meaning to work on it. Hope life is well.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I completed this task today.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your sig

Coppertwig, as much as I like your signature. I'm afraid it's violating what must not be used in a signature because you are transcluding User:Coppertwig/Signature. The reason being that this is not allowed is because if people had a signature page they would be high vandalism risk. Please cease using it. Thanks. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no violation. I quote from WP:SIG, "Substitution of templates in signatures is allowed, as long as any such template either does not violate the reasonable length restriction of 255 characters or is not redundant to using the same content as a raw signature." Anyway, would you like me to semi protect your signature page to discourage vandalism? Malinaccier (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Malinaccier! I would appreciate semi-protection. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done No problem. Malinaccier (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Coppertwig/Signature

User:Coppertwig/Signature, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Coppertwig/Signature and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Coppertwig/Signature during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 23:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Conflict

Hi Coppertwig! I notice you have been watching at the Gaza page. I am really delighted that a neutral party has taken an interest in the page. Can you help with guiding for some dispute resolution if some of us want to go that route? I am talking regarding issues of weight and balance essentially. Again, thanks for being there. It is nice to know you're "lurking." :D Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. My time may be limited. For the moment at least I'm not claiming to act as a neutral mediator: I may have and express opinions on content disputes. If I'm able to help people achieve consensus, though, I would like to do so. Feel free to ask me about dispute resolution. Thanks for your message. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd's Notices page: people may want to watchlist it

User:Abd/Notices is a page for notices to the interested members of the Wikipedia community from Abd. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your !vote in Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Abd/JzG

Thanks for commenting there, Coppertwig. The page wasn't prepared for use in an RfC, it was specifically compiled, on request, by a editor after I had commented in the RfAr filed by JzG and asked, by email (that's why I'm not disclosing the name) for evidence backing up what I had claimed. It's a simple fact that some of the subsequent comments in the RfAr were based on my claim (without evidence, but possibly on the personal knowledge of the editor) and/or the evidence page.

Evidence pages are compiled in user space by the editor responsible for them, i.e., they are like a report by that user, but then are not then copied into WP space, as far as I've seen, nor are they into an RfAr subspace, though they could be. I might do that, indeed, leaving the redirect in place, after the MfD closes. These pages are often quite long, whereas comments in RfArs are to be kept brief, and, as another noted, I was already beyond the recommended length, though I don't think there was much fluff in my comment.

The page included a Conclusions section. That section really wasn't necessary, because wherever the page has been cited, conclusions would be stated and the paper cited as the evidence, instead of a pile of diffs; the page makes it easy to review the diffs in one glance. There are some comments with some of the diffs; I've asked that if any of those aren't neutral, they be removed or edited to become neutral. I took the conclusions page off of the evidence page and put it in Talk (along with JzG's response). If this is an attack, well, what does that say about the editor who made those edits or took those actions?

Having been compiled for use in an RfAr, and actually cited there, with preceding comment based on my bald claims, and succeeding comment possibly depending on the evidence itself, the document should remain.

It's possible to argue, as I think you did, that the RfAr is moot, having been rejected. However, the evidence is possisbly part of the reason why it was rejected, though the RfAr was rejectable on its face -- however, it was on the way to being what JzG claims, a confirmation without formal action, until I commented. Further, the evidence file has been cited when JzG's involvement has become relevant in other places, as, in particular, his edit warring on a cold-fusion related page. He has frequently claimed that he was not involved, and he has also cited the ArbComm rejection of his request as if it were a confirmation of his topic ban, which it explicitly was not. His comments introducing the MfD are directly false on that point. In other words, he brings up the topic, or his actions bring it up, it's not being gratuitously cited. As I noted, I wasn't addressing all the misinformation in his nomination, because it's really moot, and I've already written too much there. The page is an obvious basis for an RfC, but it wasn't created for that, and RfC was not and is not the next step in WP:DR. I would prefer not to force the RfC, shortcircuiting the orderly process which may possibly bring a resolution without the disruption of an RfC, not to mention a new ArbComm case, which is where this is likely to go if the stonewalling continues.

Given, however, JzG's attempt to get the evidence page deleted, which is, in itself, unusual (such nominations are usually made by someone else), indicates to me that an RfC may happen sooner rather than later or never. I wrote, about the deletion, DGAF because I really don't, personally, mind it, since I can simply repost the evidence where and as needed. The idea that I don't have a copy and need instruction in the use of Notepad was amusing. The MfD is and was an exercise in WP:POINT, drama and wasting of editorial time over nothing of value, something largely moot. If deleted, probability greater than even it would be restored upon DRV, or upon further process. Because an evidence page used before ArbComm is related, there is an ArbComm-appealable issue, and I suspect that there are some arbitrators who would look dimly at such a deletion, and would consider a motion. Consider the principle!

Anyway, thanks again for commenting. If my wikifriends only agreed with me, and didn't confront me on what they think are my errors, it would be not only boring, but dangerous. What I'm finding a matter of wonder is that many admins and editors have expressed that they have problems with JzG's actions, but his friends don't advise him with anything other than confirmation, as far as I've seen. He should really reread the ArbComm request for clarification he filed more carefully; he's citing it as if it were a pure confirmation, which is a highly selective reading. Rothwell was blockable and a ban reasonable (though, I would argue, the basic reason for such, incivility, was a product of long-term abuse, largly by JzG). Reviewing JzG's edits to Cold fusion, almost every edit summary has an uncivil edge to it, including oft-repeated charges of copyright violation against lenr-canr.org, which means against Jed Rothwell. No proof has been offered of a single instance of actual copyright violation, JzG is depending on his own limited experience with one source, Elsevier. Since Elsevier didn't give him permission to copy, in one case, perhaps someone there told him, "We don't do that," he has generalized to "They never do that," and then, since lenr-canr.org hosts papers that have been published by Elsevier, Q.E.D. Which is patent nonsense, repeated over and over, cited in many places, repeated by others as if it were a fact, etc.

I was told when I began investigating this that I'd need to learn to eat worms, and it has, indeed, been a whole can of them, though I haven't eaten any yet. I prefer to see worms turning the earth. I did not start with any grudge against JzG, nor do I have one now. He has helped me in the past. --Abd (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry

OrangeMarlin, ScienceApologist, Verbal and another are attempting to force a merger of this into Orthomolecular Medicine. You commented upon the matter recently and so should perhaps take another look, please. Also, I note above in your talk page some reference to accusations of POV pushing being uncivil. User:Orangemarlin makes such comments along with other childish insults. I would not pay much attention to this as I have a thick skin but I understand that other editors may take such comments at face value. You seem to have a mediator role so if you have helpful advice about this, then please oblige. Thanks. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD is not the appropriate forum for this discussion, because nobody wants to delete the article. In addition the edit history should be preserved after the merge for GDFL reasons. I think RFC is better.

However if you still want to proceed with AFD I can temporally revert the redirect to the article form and place AFD tag on it. Ruslik (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in principle with your plan. Unprotection is possible if editor agree not to edit-war. Ruslik (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Misinterpreting science

You are a nice guy and all, but your anti-science POV is becoming a huge annoyance. In the discussion about Vitamin E, you make two amateurish mistakes: first, you take scientific language to be hedging, when it isn't. It's why creationists think that there are many theories of Evolution. Second, you give weight to the one or two articles that may support the CAM POV, when in fact there are literally hundreds that don't support it. That's why CAM survives, when it should be thrown in the trash bin of bad science, because poorly designed studies, publications in low rated journals, and misinterpreted hedging by writers become "drinking one's urine cures everything." And just read urine therapy if you don't think so. Right now, short of niacin (and not in megavitamin quantities), vitamin supplements are not necessary, as long as you eat a balanced diet. And more vitamins doesn't make you healthier. I'm tired of the POV pushing, and I think you mean well, but you're giving succor to the pushing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your concerns, for the compliment, and for your work to ensure accuracy and balance in Wikipedia articles. I don't consider myself to have an "anti-science POV"; in fact, I'm a professional scientist. I disagree with you about whether scientific language is hedging; but one solution is to use the same sort of scientific language in the article and let the reader decide whether it's hedging or not. Re vitamin E, I didn't do a literature search but looked at the references already present in the current and proposed version of the article. Perhaps if I have time I'll do a balanced search; if you have time, perhaps you can put together an argument to convince me about the relative numbers of such articles. Note that in my talk page message I was not proposing balanced text for the article, but making the point that a statement in the article contradicts statements in some of the sources, therefore I was presenting statements all going in one direction in order to make this specific talk page argument.

Your statement that vitamin supplements are not necessary under certain circumstances expresses a particular POV which is more-or-less in agreement with many publications, but divergent opinions are also expressed in some publications, and there is no scientific verification for the statement. (Lack of evidence against something is not the same thing as evidence for it.) As an example of such a publication, Canada's food guide states that women who are pregnant or breastfeeding need a daily multivitamin containing folic acid to decrease the risk of neural tube defects. NPOV requires that all significant views be expressed in the article, and it's a normal and very frequent Wikipedian experience that attempting to achieve NPOV involves discussion in which there is some disagreement about which views are sufficiently significant to deserve to be mentioned or at least to deserve not to be contradicted by direct assertions by a Wikipedia article. Such discussion and disagreement is normally not in itself a problem but is part of the normal wiki-editing process. Let's work together to seek a version of the article that we can all agree is an accurate and balanced reflection of the sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol

Yeah, it's an inside-joke. User:Nableezy calls everyone retarded, just part of the game. Plus, I prefer to be blunt. Skim through the discussion and you'll find several users accusing my suggestions as "retarded", "stupid", and "idiotic." So if this is truly concerning, I encourage you to talk to User:Cryptonio for more information :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

i dont call everyone retarded, but ill start using the word "special" instead. Nableezy (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he just calls me retarded. But I like to think I speak on behalf of everyone. lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL! That would make your role as spokesperson special! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87

An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

cold fusion banner

Replied on my talk page--Tznkai (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Norman I. Wengert by Arsenikk: Advice?

Some time ago when I was contemplating leaving Wikipedia you graciously invited me to visit your talk page. So here I am, once again with one foot out the door.

Recently I nominated an article I created on Norman I. Wengert for good article review, after moving a few other articles to good article status. I checked everyday for a couple weeks to see if anyone was going to review it, with no takers. Then today, I find it has been reviewed and summarily failed by User:Arsenikk, who provided a long list of reasons which have little to do with the good article criteria, and appear to express Arsenikk's personal preferences more than anything.

For example, Arsenikk appears to have applied every minor requirement for punctuation and citation form in the Manual of Style despite the fact the good article criteria specifically limit the application of MOS to "manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation." For example, he prescribes: "use straight, not curly, quotation marks." Is this really important for a good article review?

Moreover, his interpretation of what is required in a lead paragraph is not to be found in the link to lead sections. Furthermore, Arsenikk provided no assistance in editing the article, not even changing a period to a comma where obviously needed, and I was provided zero opportunity to discuss his criticisms or make changes before he failed the article.

Arsenikk insists that things in the lead be repeated elsewhere even if all that does is take up more server space, and he pretends not to know what J.D. and Ph.D. refer to, insisting they be spelled out. And he plays dumb rather than relying on the ordinary meaning of plain language where quotes from Wengert are concerned, virtually inviting interpretation of a theoretical proposition from Wengert that would amount to original research.

This is a very strange GA review, unlike the others I've seen, which have been helpful. This review was not in the least helpful, merely gratuitous criticism. To me this looks almost like vandalism, seemingly arbitrary, capricious, nitpicking, condescending, and obnoxious.

I'm not sure this person should be allowed to perform GA reviews, and I don't know how to proceed. I don't want to confront him, and I would like to see the article receive a fair and evenhanded review, but don't know how to get that to happen. Would you mind taking a look at his GA review comments and give me a little advice about how to proceed? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I only have a few minutes now; I may be able to look into this in more detail tomorrow. Link to article: Norman I. Wengert Link to GA review: [[39]] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a message to User talk:Arsenikk#GA review. I believe anyone is allowed to do GA reviews. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig - I will also try and do some work on the Wengert article. I didn't have much of an issue with most of Arsenikk's suggestions, but not sure why it got failed so quickly after feedback was left. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Gotta rush for now though. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole section has been copied verbatim to Talk:Norman I. Wengert#GA review of Norman I. Wengert by Arsenikk: Advice?, since it is directly related to that article. I have also explained why I have failed the article there. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

While I don't necessarily think that it's wrong to move the discussion on OM and OP there from WP:AN/I, It doesn't really seem like it has to go there (there's actually a bunch of places it could have gone, AN/I being in the end the most general). Hopefully it will generate some useful input, though TBH the whole thing with SA left me with impression that WP:AE has a distinct bias for non-action or pushing discussion elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like moving the discussion there has been contested. Artw (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit failed verification

This edit made the sentence incorrect and thus failed verification. The reference is from 2001 and does not predict the future since 2001. How could a reference from 2001 claim to cite Wales since 2001. According to this comment the editor obviously knows his edit needs tweaking (failed verification). But there is a bigger issue, the reference does not summarize the co-founder issue in any way. The reference shows Wales was cited as co-founder in 2001 but fails to summarize the co-founder issue or the Jimmy Wales#Roles of Wikipedia creators section. I previously explained which references would fail verification but this edit was made against Wikipedia's WP:V and against my comments. I don't see any point to keeping the historical reference in the lead. The 2001 reference does not summarize the Roles of Wikipedia creators section and fails verification. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, QuackGuru. This seems to me to be a content dispute. Because of the number of messages you've put on my talk page recently, for the next few weeks at least I would prefer that you put comments about content disputes on the relevant article page rather than my talk page, so that I can choose to participate or not depending on my available time and interests. Politely-worded messages about my behaviour are still welcome here as I say at the top of the article. When I did that edit, I got the reference from another part of the same article. I didn't get it from Larry Sanger's page. I didn't know what references were or were not used on Larry Sanger's page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent bias comment

You claimed your comment was neutral on the merge but your suggestion was reiterating what Levine2112 wrote. That was not a neutral comment. That was in support of Levine2112's comment. You were trying to steer the conversation the way Levine2112 wanted it. Don't pretend to be neutral because it makes you look even more bias. Doctor of Chiropractic is a smaller subject than Chiropractic education which includes Doctor of chiropractic among other things. Suggesting to merge a broader topic into a smaller topic was strange and not neutral. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comment above fails verification. I did not claim that my comment was neutral. I stated that my position was neutral. I would appreciate it if you would strike out the part of your comment that fails verification.

Your statement that I was trying to steer the conversation the way Levine wanted it is not an accurate representation of what I was trying to do; in fact, I was trying to arrange a compromise and thought that I had found something that might be satisfactory to all parties. Trying to arrange compromises is something I sometimes do when my position is neutral, and often involves doing things to try to satisfy parties to the dispute. Since disputes are rarely precisely symmetric, it is rarely possible while doing so to arrange for every comment and every action to have precisely neutral effects. At the time that I repeated Levine's suggestion, I was not aware that one topic was broader than the other. I withdrew my suggestion when this was convincingly explained to me here here by Tim Vickers. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP edit led to page protection

I think the quick revert by the IP or an editor who did not log in directly led to page protection. Who forgot to log in? QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who it was, and I don't know whether it was someone who forgot to log in or not. Why are you asking me? Does it matter? Also, evidently OrangeMarlin's edit led to the IP edit which led to page protection, hence OrangeMarlin's edit led to page protection. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The page was protected because User:Orangemarlin requested this at WP:RFP. This followed his breaking of WP:3RR and so it is commendable that he should report his own edit-warring. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand 3RR. I think the edits OrangeMarlin did on March 14 to Orthomolecular psychiatry count as only 2 reverts. Several consecutive edits by the same editor, with no edits by other editors intervening, are normally counted as at most one revert. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, as an aside to your comment on WP:AN/I, I've been impressed with your civility and your reasonableness. You set a good example. (Of course, that doesn't mean that I agree with you on everything, but that's not really the point). Now back to my "break"... :) MastCell ^Talk 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist my Notices page

Users may wish to put my page User:Coppertwig/Notices on their watchlist. I plan to post notices there occasionally about my activities and about things that may be of interest to Wikipedians. I plan to try to edit it much less often than my talk page gets edited, so that it will be convenient for people to have it on their watchlists. I've just posted the first version of the page, with descriptions of things I've recently been involved in or plan to get involved in, from RfC to MfD. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on adminship at Simple!

Yep, muon-catalyzed fusion is real, though as always low energy depends on context. Next up - tauon catalyzed fusion - even better at lowering the Coulomb barrier if we could just get the tau leptons to stick around. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

<chuckle> Thanks, and thanks for showing that you've read my Notices page! I was wondering whether anybody had Noticed it yet! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New project

Hi. :) Given the work you've done on copyrights, especially at SCV, I wanted to let you know that I am launching a new copyright cleanup project (went through the proposal process at the council). It's located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Of course, I'd love to recruit members from people with whom I've collaborated on copyright issues before. Please consider joining if you'd like to help out, even occasionally. But more urgently, I'm hoping to get feedback on the project page. I'm trying to be clear and comprehensive, but I know very well that I often write much too long. If you have time to take a look and happen to see anywhere that I've gone astray, please let me know. Thanks for any input you can offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look! I've added it to my watchlist and plan to participate! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I was, of course, hoping you would, as I know you'll be a valuable participant! I really hope it works out, as I believe it's very necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm always delighted to get messages from you, and look forward to getting involved with the project. (Along with the numerous other things I'm involved in.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you're busy. :) I see you occasionally at various points of Wikipedia, but I was still kind of hoping you'd have time. :) Whatever you can offer would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see! I just signed up for potentially another major project here, too! g2g for now! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

←Nicely done! Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Feel free to partially revert or further modify, as almost all the changes are minor and there are few of them I would feel strongly about. You've done a very good job writing the page! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It all looked good to me. :) You've said it more succinctly, and I appreciate that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly. I tend to write lengthily too. That's one reason we get along. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Phimosis

Is the "some authors use the terms" really needed? It seems a bit redundant to me. Especially in the lead. If it has to be included, maybe it should go in the main article. Also "recommends" is a bit too tame. They are quite forceful about it (because it is damaging (creates scar tissue) and painful.) With "recommends" it makes it seem like the AAP are offering parents a choice. It is not just the AAP who state that it should not be forced back either. It is the majority view that it should not be forced back. There are other sources which say this. Tremello22 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note. It's a bit exasperating; I'm astonished he doesn't recognize that material has to actually reflect the sources, rather than his opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just a difference of opinion in how far you can go in paraphrasing/interpreting/summarizing. At one extreme, we could say that you can only quote the precise wording of the source. We don't usually go that far. At the other extreme, one reads something, gets the impression that it means something, and writes something that one feels has that meaning. (Here I begin to digress.) That was apparently what was done for example at psychokinesis when it said "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist...", which was not stated anywhere in the given source. (Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 6#Scientists contend) If you read the source, you got a distinct impression that the source was generally dismissive of psychokinesis, but it was very hard to pin it down: you couldn't take any one quote that would support that idea well. To state that the source was dismissive of psychokinesis would be to report the evaluation or interpretation of a Wikipedian, which we don't do.

That article now says "There is no convincing scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists," a statement I'm reasonably satisfied with. As a scientist I was offended by the "scientists contend" statement since I feel that scientists don't usually make definitive statements like that, as scientists, about things that can't be proven; if it had been shown that a significant number of scientists did support such a statement, fine, but that was not demonstrated. A source is quoted in a footnote as saying "[M]ost scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated." This sounds like a very reasonable statement. As a scientist I care about the difference between that statement, and "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist": they are not the same thing, and the latter statement has not (yet) been shown to be verifiable: likely because other scientists see the same distinction and don't tend to make such a statement in their professional capacity. You have to be careful about things like this to get your math right and to be able to do things like figure out a solution to the EPR paradox, as John Stewart Bell did. (end digression.)

Those who tend to stray further afield when paraphrasing than is accepted by most Wikipedians need to adjust their practice to conform to WP:CONSENSUS and compromise and to become more encyclopedic and precise. I made this adjustment myself during my time at Wikipedia: it's necessary in order to arrive at consensus with editors who have different POVs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points. And thanks for your note about the FAC, and your thorough proof-read of it, they were much appreciated! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's a very nice article! For some odd reason I enjoy proofreading; could be part of why I'm a Wikipedian! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tremello22

Hi Coppertwig. Re this note to Tremello22's talk, I just wanted to be sure that you were aware that Tremello is now User:Outliner09. Jakew (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I'm one minute ahead of you! [40] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I shall have to slink away in shame now. Jakew (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you make it very difficult for anyone trying to criticize you. We have to take our opportunities to be the one who's right, when we can. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I have asked a question at the help desk but no help was given

At User talk:Moonriddengirl, you said "Feel free to ask me if you ever have questions about how Wikipedia works, etc.", therefore, I am asking a question here since I didn't get any help at the help desk. My question is at: Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages#All namespaces. -- IRP ☎ 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about Special:LongPages. Come to think of it, I really ought to archive my talk page.

There are a couple of possible reasons why you didn't get an answer. One possible reason is that maybe there is no way to get such a list. In that case, most people probably thought "well, I don't know of a way, but someone else might", so they didn't answer. Another possible reason is that people had to follow a link to get to your question. Stating the question as clearly as possible may also help. Is Special:LongPages only mainspace pages? How do you know that? How do you know that the userpage you mentioned was purposely, as opposed to accidentally, made long in order to crash browsers? I would phrase the question something like this: "Is there any way to get a list of the longest pages in all namespaces, the way Special:LongPages does for mainspace? It would make it easier to find vandalism such as User:Shaun F/bla, which was a very long page that was made to crash browsers." I suggest waiting until your question is archived from the Help Desk page, then posting your question to WP:Village Pump (technical), putting the actual question on the Village Pump page so people don't have to follow a link. If you want to make sure discussion takes place in only one place, you can put a note at Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages with a link to the Village Pump discussion, although since the latter page is rarely edited I'm not sure that's necessary. If you do get an answer it would be good to put the answer, or a link to it, at Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages for the benefit of others. If nobody gives you an answer at Village Pump (technical), you could either give up (figuring there probably is no such way), or if you think it's worthwhile, try to get someone to write a bot or program (perhaps using a dump of Wikipedia) or something to do it, or put in a request at Wikipedia:Bugzilla for the feature to be added. If you put in a Bugzilla request, if you're not experienced at filing bug reports it's probably a good idea to get help first from the people at Village Pump (technical), or from some random computer geek, or possibly from me though I'm kindof a beginner at it, on how to word the Bugzilla request. Thanks for helping Wikipedia by checking into this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. -- IRP ☎ 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.

(edit conflict; replying to deleted message re AES arrow) I had to follow the links to figure out what you meant, but that sounds like a good idea. However, I'm not an administrator, and anyway making that sort of change would require consensus. I suggest you discuss it with other editors at MediaWiki talk:Revertpage, and if you get consensus, then use an {{editprotected}} template to request that an administrator do it. I suggest that if you suggest it on that talk page and no one replies for about 3 days, then in my opinion it would then be reasonable to request it with the editprotected template. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Saltwater intrusion

It's been a while since you first created the Saltwater intrusion. It's an important article that fits into Peak water. You have probably learned a lot about Wikipedia since you wrote it. Also, since you wrote the article, it's probably one of your passions. I'm going to edit it through and in the process add more references. Could you take a second look at it and give me a few ideas on how you would improve it beyond that?  kgrr ^talk 17:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create the article; I believe I made only very minor edits to it. I might have a look anyway if I have time. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarek

User:SarekOfVulcan has taken to following me around everywhere I edit in the past few days, ever since I made an edit on a page he didn't like. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The "user contributions" link is freely available for anyone to click on. There are good reasons why someone might use it; or perhaps SarekOfVulcan is following links from your talk page or something. I suggest one of the following courses of action:

• Not responding to SarekOfVulcan, but taking care to avoid the behaviours the user has criticized you for. This may result in the user going away and leaving you alone. or
• Asking the user very politely and diplomatically how and why the user arrived at a number of pages you had been editing. There could be good reasons, and it may help you feel better to have those reasons explained and to discuss the situation calmly with the user. After having done that, a little later it may be a good idea to ask the user politely not to follow you to any more pages; however, this may depend on the user's reasons. or
• Asking me or someone else to help. If you provide me with diffs (e.g. one diff for each different article or other place the user seems to have followed you to, along with statements e.g. that the user has never previously edited the article) and if you ask me to intervene, I'll see if there's anything I can do that I think will help, probably asking the user on your behalf as I explained in the previous point, and trying to help each of you understand the other's position. and/or
• See WP:DR; but try not to escalate to more advanced steps of dispute resolution too soon; usually calm discussion with the user on user talk pages is the best way to resolve things.

I hope it works out well! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for the heads-up Copper, because "One should be careful when starting an edit war with folks who also have free electrons by the yottamole." is a paraphrase of the oft-assigned-to-Twain "Never pick a fight with anybody who buys ink by the barrel." I'm just a "little junior high kid" trying to survive in this world of cowboy anarchy. ;) --Sturmde (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well, it wasn't actually my intention to draw your attention to the comment I was replying to, but Mervyn Emrys seems to have requested that comments not be placed there, so I had to put my reply somewhere else. I considered putting it here on my talk page but then you might have seen the original and not seen my reply. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New pages patrol competition!

I've announced a competition at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Competition! to encourage people to help clear the new page patrol backlog and to have fun while doing it. Come on, I need at least one other person to sign up. You can change the rules if you like. By the way, people are welcome to watch my talk page, and/or people may want to watchlist my Notices page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For all acts of generosity, whether or not they seem to help. They are still good karma for the 'pedia. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for helping with Norman Wengert! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious, just a question

Hi Coppertwig, I do have a question but feel free not to answer if you don't want to. I am curious, why haven't you applied for administratorship? You seem involved in a lot of areas and a lot of editors seem to trust you and come to you for advice and/or help plus you are very patient. I think you would be a good administrator from what I have seen. I don't always agree with you of course but even when I have disagreed we have done so agreeably which I think would be good for an administrator. I don't know why I am asking other than I've seen you around a lot lately and seen very positive comments from you on a variety of subjects. Just a thought, hope you are well, keep up the good work and happy editing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking. In fact, I have requested adminship on this project (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig) and plan to do so again when it's a convenient time for me. I'm a bureaucrat on Simple English Wikiquote and an admin on Simple English Wiktionary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you would, would you hit my talk page when you apply again? I don't think it would be WP:Canvassing since I am asking you to, at least I hope not. ;) I would like to know so that I can participate the next time. I really do think that you would be a good administrator and lord knows this site needs more administrator. I would not be any good at this but I would love to help the project get more administrator to help. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I don't think I'll do that; I try to follow WP:CANVASS according to a strict interpretation. However, you can watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig 2 (nonexistent page; click "create the page", then click "watch") and/or watchlist my Notices page. Many users check regularly the table of RfAs (displayed, for example, at the top of WT:Requests for adminship) to see if there are any they might want to participate in. These days, I usually check, don't see any names I recognize, and don't have time to participate, but I'm happy to see that we seem to be regularly getting new admins: we need them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind comment, Coppertwig. When I read that old Mel was an academic philosopher, the pique-headedness fit my model. Anyway, we've all had our days of dismay on the WP, no? (Less now that more kids have cellphones to snipe on) ;-> Salud Twang (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you're trying to understand how other users feel, but I think the term "pique-headedness" would likely be unwelcome. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Off-Wiki

Please contact me at Mervyn.Emrys@gmail.com so I may correspond with you off-wiki. I don't trust the wiki email system. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What, where, why

Hi Coppertwig -- I was just reading through your user page, and was struck by your section on a "what, where, why" method of content discussion. This is really well put, I think, and under-appreciated. Have you considered making it into an essay?

Since I did come here via the Arb pages, I might clarify I'm not sure this could be enforceable, or that everyone would necessarily agree about how to apply it. As a starting point, though, it seems like quite a useful point. Just a quick thought. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and suggestion! (re What, Where, Why) I would probably wait to see if I get feedback from others as well before deciding whether to make it an essay.

Something like that is not enforceable as such, but organizing one's arguments clearly makes it more likely that others will be convinced, as well as saving time for others. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Mackan79's suggestion. :-) Jakew (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Arbcom evidence

Hi Coppertwig. I wanted to ask you about something from your submitted evidence that I'm sort of baffled by and assume must be a mistake. In the section on "Unwelcome statements about editors," you write the following:

• G-Dett: "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" [41] with 3 diffs, where Jayjg did not demand a specific verbal formulation, but (2nd diff; ironically), said "And finally, never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated."

I've read this over several times and cannot understand what's happened. Here are the three diffs: [42] [43] [44] In all of them Jay does demand a specific verbal formulation. Why are you saying that he didn't? At first I thought you'd just gotten confused, and clicked the wrong diffs – but that can't be, because you correctly quote a different part of diff 2, so you do appear to have read them.

Here is the original context of what I wrote, in case there's some larger point you're confused about that's throwing off your understanding of the diffs, of the nature and purpose of Jay's demand for specific verbal formulations, etc.:

Knowing that the material MeteorMaker is adding to the article is well-sourced and accurate, [Jay] begins taking stray comments and casual formulations of MeteorMaker's from talk-page discussion, edit summaries, etc., and applying the strictest interpretation of WP:NOR to them, as if they were statements added to the articles themselves. Hence when MM, in defending the sourced statement about "what is today the West Bank," says on the talk page that "Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area," Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation: "different epoch names for the same area." [45] [46] [47] MeteorMaker goes back to his excellent encyclopedia references (Britannica: "central region, ancient Palestine... it was bounded by Galilee to the north, Judaea to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Jordan River to the east. It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory"; Encarta: "in the area now known as the West Bank"; etc.). Jay then notes that these sources don't use exactly the same wording as MeteorMaker did in his casual comment on the talk page, and on the basis of the insignificant discrepancy Jay declares victory in the whole dispute: 'I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area." Thanks for proving my point.' [48] [49]

If you have any questions feel free to ask, but in the meantime can you please fix this part of your evidence? You're claiming that I've made false statements about the contents of diffs on an Arbcom evidence page (a pretty serious charge), and yet clearly I have not, as anyone who reads the diffs (which oddly, you didn't provide for the reader when you made your allegation against me) will see. Thanks Coppertwig.--G-Dett (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg includes precise quotes in his comments. However, nowhere in his comments does he state that he is asking for a source that includes those precise words. Rather, he appears to be asking for a source that supports the idea, whether that idea is expressed in those words or in different words. His quotes are apparently quotes of comments of Wikipedians, not quotes that are supposed to appear word-for-word in sources. You seem to be attributing to Jayjg something that he did not say and that I don't believe he meant. Why exactly do you think he was "demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation"? If he had been doing that, wouldn't the diffs contain something similar to "I demand a source containing exactly these words: ... ", rather than what the diffs actually show him saying? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, as I understand it, the distinction between

Which one of those sources says that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area?

and –

Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it (emphasis in Jay's original)

– is that the first is "asking for a source that supports the idea, whether that idea is expressed in those words or in different words," as you put it, and the second is asking for an exact quotation – or something very, very close to it. Another, simpler example: show me a source that says he's engaged in criminal activities is different from show me a source that says he's engaged in "criminal activities". This is the whole point of quotation marks, Coppertwig. You ask me why Jay wouldn't just say, "I demand a source containing exactly these words." Well, because thankfully, no one talks that way, not even Jayjg; and thanks to the marvelous invention of quotation marks, no one needs to.

If you still think Jay is only "asking for a source that supports the idea, whether that idea is expressed in those words or in different words," then why when MeteorMaker refers him to sources that support the idea, does Jayjg reject them with nothing more than the following statement? ::

I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point.

He doesn't say, "well, the Britannica quote doesn't really support what you're saying for reasons x, y, and z." Look at what he does say, Coppertwig. Look hard at it.

I'm going to wager that if you consider very carefully the following facts, really really think about them –

1. Jay goes on to say (directly after demanding that MM "quote them saying it") that Britannica's "Samaria...corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" is "nothing like" MeteorMaker's "different-epoch names for the same area"
2. MM never proposed adding anything about "different-epoch names for the same area" to any article; that was a casual phrase in a talk-page comment, plucked out by Jayjg for special scrutiny; what MM actually proposed was to say that "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank"
3. MM's actual proposed phrasing (not the random phrase Jay keeps putting in direct quotes and demanding sources for) is, um, damn close to Britannica's phrasing: "used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank" = "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory"

– you'll begin to understand how you've been tricked.

If not, the following chronology might help: (i) MM introduces proposed wording, fully supported by Britannica, from which it differs in phrasing only slightly and in meaning not at all; (ii) Jay objects on oddly pedantic grounds ("pleonasm"), and donning his Humpty Dumpty mask, asks MM, "are you trying to distinguish it from what was yesterday the West Bank?"; (iii) under pseudo-socratic questioning from a giant egg who likes the word "pleonasm" but doesn't know what the idiomatic phrase "what is today" means, MM refers to "different-epoch names for the same area"; (iv) Humpty turns his attention away from "pleonasm" to this new phrase of MM's, putting it in direct quotes three times in a row and demanding sources for it; (v) MM points back again to Britannica and his other encyclopedic sources (which, again, fully supported his proposed wording); (vi) Humpty says too bad, I win: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point. Now, since you have declined to provide a single source which actually makes the claims you do, can we safely conclude that your use of pleonasms is at an end?

Don't worry Coppertwig, you're not the only one who's lost a dollar to this shell game.--G-Dett (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, we clearly have different ideas about the use of direct quotation when demanding sources for statements. I wonder if you'd do me a favor. Regarding the following statement of yours on the evidence page:

G-Dett: "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" [512] with 3 diffs, where Jayjg did not demand a specific verbal formulation...

Can you just provide those 3 diffs on the evidence page, instead of omitting them, so that Arbcom can decide for themselves if I've misrepresented them? Thanks.--G-Dett (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This gets to the real point, if I may say. At least from my perspective, Coppertwig is justified in thinking (possibly assuming) that Jayjg must have meant something more reasonable. On the other hand, Jayjg specifically asks for a direct quote in this comment, and directly quotes the words he wants to see. There is no "that," as in, "Show me where it states that '[insert proposition]'." Just, "Show me where it states, '[insert statement]." That's literally a request for the language as quoted. In this context it must be noted that if Jay only wanted to see the general idea, that what was called Samaria is now called the West Bank, then that is presumably what he could have requested. But as G-Dett points out, the source he explicitly rejects also offers this point (if not the specific language) in saying that Samaria "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" (note "corresponds roughly to," rather than "comprises" or "lies in" this modern area).

In other words, a person could reasonably think that Jayjg would have settled for less than a direct quote. I strongly question that, since several of the sources MM provided come extremely close (see "present-day northwest Jordan" and "in the area now known as the West Bank," in addition to "modern West Bank territory" quoted above). But then you must at least see why G-Dett took his comment as a demand for the exact phrase, which is literally what Jayjg requested. Getting to the thrust of G-Dett's comment, I think it must also be fair to say that Jayjg's repeated questions like this are unreasonably opaque as to what sourcing he would consider satisfactory; e.g., that repeated requests for specific quotes, rather than clarifying the point you want to see, can amount to stonewalling. Maybe that's debatable based on just this occasion, but for those of us who have been frustrated to the point of silliness by this type of thing for years,[50] the assessment is hard to avoid. My long-winded point, anyway, is to suggest that you could both be partially right on this without G-Dett's statement having been a misrepresentation. Mackan79 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, the reveal is in Jay's assumption that since MM's sources don't use MM's wording, then Jay doesn't even have to explain why they fail: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point.

I think one has to put oneself in MM's position to understand what's going on here. You propose a lede that hews very closely to (while stopping short of plagiarizing) Britannica (so Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine...corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory becomes Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank), then find yourself roped into an archly pedantic and nonsensical discussion about what "what is today" means ("pleonasm," "are you trying to distinguish from what was yesterday the West Bank?", etc. etc.), only to then have a stray comment you newly make within that pedantic and nonsensical discussion ("different-epoch names for the same area") suddenly become the thing that has to be sourced (rather than your proposed lede).

And that switcheroo is the key thing. Whether Jay was demanding an exact verbal formulation or only a very close approximation was never the point. The point was that Jay frequently uses WP:NOR to eliminate well-sourced content by an act of substitution. He substitutes, that is, stray or casual comments of his opponent's (from edit summaries or talk pages) in place of his opponent's actual content proposals, and then makes the stray comment (rather than the proposed content) be the thing that must meet the requirements of WP:NOR. This works especially well if the wording of the proposed content sticks very close to the sources but the stray comment is rather different, because with attention shifted to the latter he can shift all burden of proof and assume his opponent's failure to be self-evident: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point. I refer to this system of surreptitious substitution as Jay's "shell game," for what I hope by now are obvious reasons.

This by the way represents not an exceptional transgression but rather Jay's default mode of argument in the present dispute. So MeteorMaker's sourced statement that Samaria is a term "used by Israel" for the northern West Bank is ignored, and his casual edit summary to the effect that the term is "not widely understood outside of Israel" becomes instead the focus, becomes indeed "MeteorMaker's theory" (even though he'd never once proposed it as article content) which Jay undertakes to prove is original research by, ironically, amassing his own primary sources. Those bogus battle lines are still the operative ones today.--G-Dett (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that I put the 3 diffs in the evidence. I've done that. I'm glad you're both continuing this discussion and I look forward to replying further as soon as I have time. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, you said, "This is the whole point of quotation marks, Coppertwig." I believe quotation marks have a number of different uses; this source lists 10, of which the third corresponds most closely in my opinion with the way Jayjg seems to me to be using quotation marks here.

G-Dett, you said, "Well, because thankfully, no one talks that way." Then wouldn't it be kinder not to represent their comments on the evidence page as if they had talked that way? You also said, "and thanks to the marvelous invention of quotation marks, no one needs to." Thanks to the invention of quotation marks, no one needs to accidentally misquote mischaracterize^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} what another editor has done; instead of saying "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" you can say "Jay said 'Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it.'"

In the 3 diffs mentioned above, Jayjg said:

• According to whom are "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"?
• And which reliable source says the term Samaria is "not used much any more"? Regarding what other online encyclopedias do, Wikipedia isn't other online encyclopedias. As a simple example, no other online encyclopedias have an Israel and the apartheid analogy article; in fact, none even discuss the topic. And finally, never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated.
• Sigh. Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it. And note, "corresponds roughly to the northern portion" is nothing like saying "different-epoch name for the same area".

In the first and second diffs, it's clear to me that Jayjg must be using an embedded quotation (in the sense described in the section "Embedding quotations" here) because the verbs ("are" and "is") are outside the quoted parts. The quotation marks are clearly intended to show that he's using the same words that another Wikipedian has used, but he's working those phrases in grammatically as part of his own sentence, not merely mentioning them as strings of words.

In the third diff, since the quoted part begins immediately after "states", it's not so clear, though the lack of a comma just before the first quotation mark is a clue that he's using the same style as in the previous diffs. When there is more than one possible interpretation of a comment, one of which is a reasonable request and is similar to what the person has said before, and the other of which you consider to be an action sufficiently reprehensible to deserve being brought into an arbitration case as evidence, which do you assume is what the person meant?

Jayjg seems to me to have been making the following points:

• "West Bank" and "northern portion of the West Bank" do not mean the same thing.
• "corresponds roughly to" and "same" do not mean the same thing.

These seem to me to be reasonable points that need to be recognized in this discussion. To write a good encyclopedia one needs to be precise, which involves understanding those sorts of basic distinctions. (In fact, I would say that if a source says "corresponds roughly to", that that tends to imply that the two things are not exactly the same. Note that "tends to imply" doesn't mean the same thing as "can be used as a reference to verify an assertion in an article that". Here my quotation marks indicate the use–mention distinction, unlike the way I think Jayjg is using them in the diffs mentioned above.)

The second of these two points applies not only to MM's "different-epoch names for the same area" but also to MM's proposed article wording "used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank". Jayjg may have felt that it was so obvious that "corresponds roughly to" is not the same thing as "is" that it didn't need to be stated explicitly; and you may have felt it was so obvious that "corresponds roughly to" has the same meaning (in your opinion, perhaps) as "is" that that didn't need to be stated explicitly either; but in these types of discussions it's worthwhile to state the basic things that may seem obvious to the people on one side or the other, in order to try to achieve communication.

G-Dett, please consider striking out these words in your comments: "you've been tricked", "donning his Humpty Dumpty mask", "giant egg", "doesn't know what the idiomatic phrase 'what is today' means" and "transgression".

Mackan79, you said, "On the other hand, Jayjg specifically asks for a direct quote in this comment". He asks someone to "quote" a source but, as I understand his comment, he doesn't specify what exact words are to be contained in that quote. You said "and directly quotes the words he wants to see." I don't know how you know what words he wants to see. You said, "There is no 'that'". Indirect quotation doesn't always use the word "that": for example, "I said I was going to go there the next day." You said, "Just, 'Show me where it states, "[insert statement].["]'" Ah, there is a possibly important difference! I see that in your representation, which I just quoted, which is presumably supposed to resemble what Jayjg said, there is a comma before the first quotation mark. Jayjg did not put a comma there (in the 3rd diff; and his words were different). E.g. Google book snippet: "... they become part of the grammar of the writer's own sentence, and so there is no comma (see Rules 2-8 and 2-11) and the first word of the quotation is ..." The Handbook of Good English By Edward D. Johnson [51] You said, "That's literally a request for the language as quoted." I disagree.

Mackan79, you said, "that what was called Samaria is now called the West Bank, then that is presumably what he could have requested. But as G-Dett points out, the source he explicitly rejects also offers this point (if not the specific language) in saying that Samaria "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory". You seem to be asserting that "West Bank" and "northern portion of the West Bank" both mean the same thing. I'm sorry: I just don't follow that at all. Is that really what you mean? How could they possibly mean the same thing? One is clearly only a part of the other, not the whole thing. You also said "(note 'corresponds roughly to,' rather than 'comprises' or 'lies in' this modern area)." Yes, I had noticed that; but surely the conclusion therefore is that the source does not support the point Jayjg was asking for, since "corresponds roughly to" means something significantly different from "is"? Given that, I don't understand why you say "the source he explicitly rejects also offers this point".

You said, "several of the sources MM provided come extremely close": would you please save me time and give me quotes or links to them? Quotes of whole sentences of the sources, or enough of a sentence to see what they're saying, not just a phrase please. And no, I'm not asking for the quote to contain a certain specific string of words. Without seeing a whole sentence I have trouble imagining how a sentence containing the phrase "present-day northwest Jordan" could be asserting that "Samaria" means the same thing as "West Bank" or as "northern West Bank". "in the area now known as the West Bank" sounds as if it means one area is inside another, not that two areas are the same. And the "modern West Bank territory" quote also contains the words "roughly" and "portion", which also indicate that it is not stating that two terms are referring to regions with identical boundaries. You say that the sources "come extremely close"; from what I've seen, they do not; maybe there were some I didn't see, and I'd appreciate seeing quotes or links to quotes from them. In my opinion, "corresponds roughly to" is not extremely close in meaning to "same", but significantly different. You said, "But then you must at least see why G-Dett took his comment as a demand for the exact phrase" No, I can only speculate as to why G-Dett might have done this; from the comment above, it seems that it may be because of how G-Dett may understand the meaning of quotation marks. You said, "which is literally what Jayjg requested." I disagree; and your comment could be interpreted as meaning that Jayjg had used the words "the exact phrase" in making his request, which in the diffs provided he did not; it might be a good idea to refactor your comment to exclude this interpretation. You said, "I think it must also be fair to say that Jayjg's repeated questions like this are unreasonably opaque as to what sourcing he would consider satisfactory". He was asking for sources that adequately supported certain points. From what I've seen, the sources provided did not support those points in my opinion. Confusing "West Bank" with "northern West Bank" is not my idea of coming "extremely close": and for encyclopedic precision we need to support the exact idea (not necessarily the exact words), not merely come "extremely close". You could have explained why you thought those sources were adequate (e.g. stating explicitly that you believe that "roughly corresponds to" means something close enough to "is" that the difference between the two can be ignored, if that's what you meant); you could have asked Jayjg why he didn't think the sources supported the point; you could have asked other editors to join the discussion. So if there was a lack of progress in the discussion, I don't think it's fair to blame it entirely on Jayjg.

G-Dett, you said, "For me, the reveal is in Jay's assumption that since MM's sources don't use MM's wording, then Jay doesn't even have to explain why they fail: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point." When you say something on my talk page that directly contradicts my opinion as I've just explained it and you don't say "in my opinion" or anything to indicate that you recognize that I disagree with it, I get the feeling that you haven't been listening to me. You have again (in my opinion) misquoted Jayjg, mischaracterized Jayjg's position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} right after I've asked you (on the evidence page) not to do so and right after I've quoted Jayjg asking not to have things attributed to him that he hasn't explicitly stated. Please consider striking out your words. Please consider quoting Jayjg characterizing Jayjg's position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} using only direct quotes of his exact words, to avoid misquoting mischaracterizing^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))}. Again, here the fact that the verb "are" is outside the quotation marks is a clue that he's using embedded quotations.

G-Dett, you said, "He substitutes, ... and then makes the stray comment (rather than the proposed content) be the thing that must meet the requirements of WP:NOR." When someone is arguing in favour of some proposed content and makes a statement I disagree with as part of their argument, I'm likely to point out that I disagree with the statement, and make arguments against it. I see nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, I think it would be contrary to productive discussion to restrict people from doing so. I don't consider it a "transgression" at all, but normal discussion. If the other party feels that it's easier to find other arguments to support the actual proposed content than to continue to argue in support of the other statement, they can simply drop that line of argument; there would be no need to even reply to my comment in that case. They could just present other arguments in favour of the proposed content. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think your closing admonitions to me are based on a misunderstanding of my point. When I write, "the reveal is in Jay's assumption that since MM's sources don't use MM's wording, then Jay doesn't even have to explain why they fail," the validity of this statement does not depend on you and I agreeing about what Jay intended when we wrote, Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it. Jay may very well be open to sources that phrase that idea slightly differently. The point is only that Jay does not – here or anywhere, in my experience of his editing – regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why he thinks a sourced statement fails to support proposed content (or in this case, fails to support a casual formulation in a talk-page metadiscussion of proposed content). He simply asserts that it does fail, that he's won, that you've proved his point, etc. For Jay, it is enough simply to say, "please see WP:NOR. You have provided no sources stating, 'X'," just as it enough for him to say he's been "strawmanned," without ever saying how. Regarding this last, by the way, there is considerable irony in your repeatedly and approvingly quoting Jay saying, "never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated," as support for your claim that Jay does not demand precise verbal formulations, that he is open to equivalent phrasing and is prepared to discuss why a given phrasing is not, in his mind, equivalent.--G-Dett (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting post, Coppertwig, and I admit the missing comma didn't register with me. That said, I'm trying to reconcile right now how you could completely omit the rest of that sentence from The Handbook of Good English. I am just reading it, under a heading of "Quotation as part of the writer's own sentence":

When Samuel Johnson wrote that "language is the dress of thought," it was in reference to Abraham Cowley, not Aleister Crowley. When that is used to introduce the quoted words, they become part of the grammar of the writer's own sentence, and so there is no comma (see Rules 2-8 and 2-11) and the first word of the quotation is not capitalized even though Johnson began his own sentence with it.

I guess this must have been a mistake on your part, but how could you not see the first part of that sentence as relevant? That is exactly what I just got done saying, that absent the word that preceding Jayjg's quotation, the quoted phrase can't be read as the adopted conclusion to Jayjg's request, but must represent the specific language requested. I find it hard to believe following this that you quote, "they become part of the grammar of the writer's own sentence, and so there is no comma," without the immediately preceding start of the sentence: "When that is used to introduce the quoted words...." This isn't even to mention the very next sentence, which states that "...the word that should not be within the quotation marks; it is an essential part of the writer's sentence to introduce the quoted words...." Surely you must see this is exactly my point, that the word "that" here would have been "essential" for your reading, and yet isn't there? To argue that Jayjg missed the essential word for your interpretation, but also missed its correlative comma for the alternative interpretation is one thing, but to simply ignore the entire discussion about the essential word is hard for me to square.

From before looking into that, I'll summarize my somewhat more enthusiastic response below (admittedly for amusement purposes, mostly):

1. I'm hardly a grammarian, but your other source says that if Jayjg wanted to create an embedded quote, he'd need to "make sure that the sentence is still grammatically correct." But the sentence in question clearly wouldn't be. That would presumably have required a verb such as "are" (whether in brackets or taken from the quoted statement) where he places the ellipses.
2. In the post in question, you may also notice Jayjg didn't use a comma before the last quote, even though that also could not be an embedded quote since the quoted language clearly would not fit the "grammar of the writer's own sentence." This suggests an alternative scenario where Jayjg just wasn't bothering with commas.
3. You can suggest, certainly, that two earlier sentences should be considered in reading the third. But at least as reasonably, a person can read a restatement as clarifying what was said previously. Considering that in none of these does Jayjg actually fit the quotation into the grammar of his own sentence, and that in the final restatement he is missing what I think most people would consider an essential word for him to have been adopting and attributing a concept as you suggest, and some other points below, I question whether your method is the most intuitive.

As for the sources, my quotes came from MeteorMaker's response here, linking to the list of sources here. So the phrase, "It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" is from Brittanica, while the phrase, "in the area now known as the West Bank" comes from Encarta, and the phrase, "present-day northwest Jordan" comes from American Heritage. That said, it does seem to me you have this turned around, as no one has to my knowledge argued that "Samaria" is equivalent to "The West Bank." The argument here is, to the contrary, only that Samaria was part of what is now referred to the West Bank, and second that the area is no longer referred to as Samaria. The strict equivalence of their respective territories is irrelevant, as in fact is clear in the exchange under discussion. See first here, where MeteorMaker asks Jayjg to explain his objection to specific language stating in part that Samaria is "part of what is today the West Bank" (note "part of," not a strict equivalence). Here, Jayjg responds that the phrase "what is today" is a pleonasm, meaning that the phrase is only redundant and tautological. Thus, Jayjg doesn't contest that Samaria is in "what is today the West Bank"; rather, he says this is self-explanatory.[52] When MeteorMaker presses, this is what leads to Jayjg asking him to source "different epoch names."[53]

Having edited with Jayjg in this area, I'll say it's easy enough to get where he's going. Jayjg is making the point that either the phrase means nothing, or it means something that's unsourced. But this also gets to the whole problem, that Jayjg won't say what about the proposal itself is unsourced. Instead he calls it a "pleonasm," obviously a joke, as if he doesn't understand the issue under debate, and then waits for MeteorMaker to elaborate. Then, exactly as G-Dett suggests, Jay demands specific sources for MeteorMaker's explanation rather than the proposal itself. I raise the sources only to note that if he just wants to see the general proposition it is right there in front of him. When I say the other sources are "extremely close" to what MeteorMaker proposed, then, I mean two things: 1.) If "what is today" is a "pleonasm," then so, unavoidably, are the words "modern," "in the area now known as," and "present-day" in the three sources I quote above, but 2.) obviously none of these are "pleonasms", and are to the contrary expressing the very same idea as the proposed wording "what is today," functionally that the area is formerly known as Samaria, and now generally known by other names including most recently the West Bank.

Let me conclude by at least getting back to the question of your representation of G-Dett's comment (I do like What, Where, Why). On that my point is this: 1.) Quite clearly G-Dett's interpretation of Jayjg's comments is at the least within reason; I fully believe it's the correct one, although I can see how you arrived at yours. 2.) Considering the point of your comment was that people should represent others accurately and fairly, I think that if you apply that principle you may realize that to represent G-Dett's comment as flatly incorrect runs counter to the general argument you're justifiably making. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The fascinating discussion about quotation styles is moot, because Jayjg has clarified what he actually meant. G-Dett, thank you for the longer quote from the "The Handbook of Good English"; I only saw a Google Books snippet, which is why I was only able to quote part of a sentence. Mackan79, I believe that G-Dett's assertion that "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" is and was incorrect, and I don't see how saying that runs counter to any general argument I'm making; on the contrary, my main argument in this thread is that G-Dett had made an incorrect statement about Jayjg.

Mackan79, you said, "The strict equivalence of their respective territories is irrelevant": I disagree with this. A Wikipedia article should not state that two things are the same as each other if the source does not say that they are the same but only says "roughly corresponds to". Perhaps a word such as "approximately" could be added to the proposed content to convey this meaning.

Mackan79, I suggest you strike out "Thus, Jayjg doesn't contest that Samaria is in "what is today the West Bank"; rather, he says this is self-explanatory", or at least the "he says this is self-explanatory" part, as I don't see that supported by the diff you provided. (Stating that one sentence expresses an idea equally as well as, or better than, another sentence does not necessarily indicate to me agreement with the idea, nor does it indicate to me that the idea is "self-explanatory"; on the contrary, if it were "self-explanatory" I think one would be less likely to discuss its expression in a sentence.) Note that your comment comes immediately after a comment of mine in which I suggested to G-Dett "Please consider quoting Jayjg using only direct quotes of his exact words, to avoid misquoting." You can replace your struck-out words with an exact quote of what Jayjg said. I find it very annoying when people misquote me, and Jayjg's position has apparently been repeatedly misquoted mischaracterized^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} already in this discussion, so I think it's important to make sure any quotes are accurate. Since the option of quoting Jayjg's exact words is always available, now that I've pointed this out, there is no excuse for misquoting him mischaracterizing his position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))}. Please quote carefully, both of you.

Mackan79, when MeteorMaker said, "If the sentence ... contains a pleonasm like you claim, please indicate where in the sentence it is also stated that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area", [54] it seems to me that Jayjg construed that as suggesting that the proposed article content expressed the idea (once) that "Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, I suggest you avoid using the phrase shell game, as I think it has a strong connotation of dishonesty. Instead, you could say "Jayjg focusses attention on something other than the proposed article content." I know this is more words to type, but I think it's worth it to avoid having people interpret it as implying dishonesty. When he does this, if you don't want to discuss what Jayjg is focussing attention on, you might want to say something like "I don't feel a need to provide sources to back up [statement B] since I'm not proposing adding that statement to the article. I'm proposing adding [statement A], and my arguments in support of it are ..." (without using statement B or a similar statement in those arguments) and if Jayjg continues to focus on statement B, you can then say something like "I see you haven't refuted my arguments in my comment of [date] in favour of statement A". I feel that each editor is free to focus on whatever points they wish within a discussion; other editors are free to find their overall arguments convincing, or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and sensible suggestion, Coppertwig. Please understand that the whole point of much of the evidence I've submitted is to demonstrate forms of editorial dishonesty that in my view have contributed more to the present impasse than any other single cause. This is one of the conduct issues presently before the arbitration committee.

I am of course familiar with the practice of embedding quotations. In my experience, one embeds direct quotations (instead of using free indirect discourse) when the quote itself is famous, memorable, unusually pithy or witty (as with all of the examples from the usage page you linked to above); or because in some other respect the exact phrasing is significant (for reasons of tone, for example).

At any rate I have struck the word "exact" from my submitted evidence, not because I think it's inaccurate but because it has become a red herring. The point is not that Jay is demanding a source saying exactly what MeteorMaker says in a casual talk-page comment, vs. demanding a source closely approximating what MeteorMaker says in a casual talk-page comment. The point is that he is applying the rigors of WP:NOR – however he construes those – to a casual talk-page comment, instead of to proposed content. In terms of MeteorMaker's proposed content, I do not see how –

...used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank.

differs in any significant way from

...corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory.

I understand that for you the problem is that MeteorMaker's wording does not sufficiently capture the "roughly" of Britannica's. Had you been active in that debate back in December and suggested to MeteorMaker that he include "roughly," I'm fairly certain he'd have readily assented. At any rate that certainly wasn't the problem at all for Jay. For Jay, the problem was that "what is today" was a "pleonasm." The phrase is idiomatically correct, non-redundant, and absolutely equivalent in this sort of context to modern:

The formation of the modern state of Syria had its beginnings in the Arab revolt that began in June 1916 when Sharif Husayn bin Ali, Emir of Mecca and patriarch of the Hashemites, the ruling family of what is today Jordan, launched a military campaign against the Ottoman Turkish rulers of the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant...The British mandate covered what is today Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories; Britain also received a mandate for what is today Iraq. The French mandate covered what is today Lebanon and Syria. (Leverett, Flynt Lawrence Inheriting Syria: Bashar's Trial by Fire. Brookings Institution Press, 2005, p.216)

After the Jews fled from their bondage in Egypt, they conquered the Land of Canaan and ruled Hebron, where Abraham was buried, and the highlands of what is today the West Bank for more than a thousand years. This is the same land — called Judea and Samaria by religious Jews — to which Abraham migrated with his flocks from Mesopotamia and where today Israelis have established settlements in an attempt to affirm the biblical connection. Darby, John, The effects of violence on peace processes. US Institute of Peace Press, 2001, p.87.

G-d knows what Jay meant by "pleonasm," and he wouldn't explain, other than to pose a nonsensical rhetorical question, "are you trying to distinguish it from what was yesterday the West Bank?" From there, he turned his attention to the casual phrase from MeteorMaker's talk-page comment, wrapped it repeatedly in direct quotation marks, and began demanding sources for it, instead of for the proposed content.

I am impressed, if a little bemused, by the level of analytical close reading you've brought to bear on a single sentence of Jayjg's. If Jay himself would bring even a fraction of that analytical attention and willingness to discuss (say, one one-hundredth) to bear on disputed source materials – instead of rejecting them out of hand because they don't state "X" (where X is a not proposed content but a casual talk-page phrase that Jay continually wraps in direct quotes) – we would not be having this discussion; indeed I'd wager we'd not be involved in any Arbcom case. --G-Dett (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, thanks for replying. You said, "The point is only that Jay does not ... regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why he thinks a sourced statement fails to support proposed content". Perhaps it's reasonable for those who want to support some article content to demonstrate that they have verified it. I don't remember seeing anyone in that discussion saying things like "this supports the assertion because ..." or "we can just ignore the word 'roughly' in the source because..." etc. One significant point is: when editors read the discussion, what will they be convinced of? Failing to state arguments may fail to convince people; but if one considers the point to be obvious, one may not feel one needs to state it. I encourage those on both sides of this discussion to state their positions in detail, clearly and more often.

G-Dett, you said, "...as support for your claim that Jay does not demand precise verbal formulations, that he is open to equivalent phrasing and is prepared to discuss why a given phrasing is not, in his mind, equivalent." I feel that you've misquoted me mischaracterized my position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} here. I would appreciate it if you would strike that out and replace it with a quote of my exact words. From now on, please be very careful not to misquote me mischaracterize my position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))}. One way to avoid misquoting me (as long as you don't take things out of context) is by quoting only my exact words. Here, I am asking for precise verbal formulations: I'm asking you to use my exact words when you represent what you think I've said. One exception to this is when you're asking me what I meant; then it's OK to paraphrase in a sentence like "Do you mean that ... ?" because that would not be asserting that I've said the equivalent of your paraphrase. It can be very useful to do this, to discover and clear up misunderstandings. I don't follow at all the point you were making here, since I think your point depends on assuming I said what you said that I said, rather than what I actually did say. I don't even know what I said that had you thinking I'd said that.

You said, "At any rate that certainly wasn't the problem at all for Jay." I'm not convinced of that; see my comments above. You said, "For Jay, the problem was that "what is today" was a "pleonasm."" Certainly Jayjg raised the issue of pleonasm, but I see no reason to think that that was the only problem he saw with the proposed wording.

You said, "I do not see how ... differs in any significant way from ... " Do you mean that you think you can just leave out the word "roughly" from a statement and consider the new statement not to differ significantly from the previous one? If not, can you explain? If so, I'm disappointed;^{(This comment was unnecessary. I'm sorry. 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC))} and I'll point out that, for example, if I say something containing the word "roughly" and someone asserts that I had said the statement with that word left out, I will very likely consider that I've been misquoted.

If you wish Jayjg to be more open to discussing things with you, a good first step to attempt to achieve this might be for you to strike out the words I suggested you strike out above, and to stop making those sorts of remarks about Jayjg, and to stop misquoting him mischaracterizing his position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} (e.g. using the technique I suggested above). Apologies might help, too; and the passage of time without doing those sorts of things again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I haven't once misquoted you or Jayjg on this page. I've always quoted you precisely; I'd appreciate if, as a gesture of good faith, you'd acknowledge that fact. Misquoting is not something one "feels" has happened; it's something that either has happened or has not. In this case it has not. What you mean to say is that I've misunderstood you, that you think I've misconstrued something you've said, that I've quoted you out of context, or something of that sort. In this case you feel that I've misconstrued you somehow when I refer to " your claim that Jay does not demand precise verbal formulations, that he is open to equivalent phrasing and is prepared to discuss why a given phrasing is not, in his mind, equivalent." You say my misconstruing here is so total that you cannot even understand what I'm talking about. Frankly, Coppertwig, if that's true, then you've expressed yourself very badly, and you should simply try again. As for your demand that I never paraphrase you but only quote you exactly, never gleaning anything from your utterances except for not only their exact phrasing but what you believe that exact phrasing to amount to, I can only politely refuse to accept such conditions for discussion. As for your apparent belief that such a request is reasonable and represents ordinary protocol for debate, I can only say that you are mistaken. I know what the Heresy of paraphrase is, having written the article myself; it's a very helpful, provocative, and even beautiful concept in assessing great works of literature (poetry, chiefly), but it does not apply to debate and dialectic, where summary and analysis of an opponent's position is not only acceptable but essential.

One thing I'm beginning to find puzzling about your style of discussion is this alternation between hyper-punctiliousness (when discussing statements made by you or Jay) and a sort of devil-may-care haphazardness when discussing statements made by me. Hence when you think I haven't understood you correctly you say I've "misquoted" you, even though that isn't true and you know it isn't true. When I criticize Jay's pattern of applying a strict interpretation of WP:NOR to random talk-page comments and edit summaries, instead of to actual content, you reply with an irrelevant truism: "When someone is arguing in favour of some proposed content and makes a statement I disagree with as part of their argument, I'm likely to point out that I disagree with the statement, and make arguments against it. I see nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, I think it would be contrary to productive discussion to restrict people from doing so." As if – by suggesting that the phrasing of talk-page explanations shouldn't be subject to a strict application of WP:NOR – I were suggesting that talk-page statements themselves shouldn't be disagreed with, or argued against. That really is absurd, Coppertwig. Were you doing your best to understand me and respond meaningfully? In another example, you quote me saying, "The point is only that Jay does not ... regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why he thinks a sourced statement fails to support proposed content," and you respond with another irrelevant truism/strawman argument: "Perhaps it's reasonable for those who want to support some article content to demonstrate that they have verified it." That totally evades the point. The point, again, is that when Jay decides the sources provided fail to "verify" the proposed content (or in this case, as you keep forgetting, not proposed content but a casual phrase plucked from a talk-page post), he does not regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why. He simply writes, I note that they do not state X, where X is an exact quote taken from a casual post by MeteorMaker. You also ask me, "Do you mean that you think you can just leave out the word "roughly" from a statement and consider the new statement not to differ significantly from the previous one?" What the heck, Coppertwig? No, I meant – as is absolutely clear from what I wrote – that no objection to "roughly" arose even once in the debate you and I are discussing; had any such objection arisen it could easily have been accommodated. That simply wasn't the source of the impasse. Jay's objection was to any reference to "what is today the West Bank." The problem for Jay (and the source of this entire dispute, incidentally) is not the distinction between an approximate or exact overlap of geographical areas; the problem for him is any content suggesting that Judea and Samaria are not standard modern toponyms.

I don't know if you wish to continue this discussion. But if you do, don't make unreasonable or overly precious demands about how I should discuss your statements, even as you food-process almost everything I say into strawman pap.--G-Dett (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said enough here, but let me just clarify about your request to strike. The reason I say Jayjg didn't contest the territorial equivalence isn't for the very general the reason you suggest, but because he repeatedly calls the phrase "what is today" a "pleonasm." That means, as far as I can read English, that the words go without saying. This is what I mean by "self-explanatory," and I honestly don't know how else to read it. If it's wrong you could certainly explain what else Jayjg means by repeatedly calling it a pleonasm. On a less literal level, of course, the phrase "what is today" is used to contrast what was from what now is, or at least to suggest that a term came into use after the previously discussed time period. This gets to the substantive disagreement, and is (I hope you won't contest) why Jayjg opposes inclusion of the phrase: Jayjg doesn't think Wikipedia should state that the relevant area is no longer called Samaria. This is the heart of the content dispute, so if we are disagreeing here I'm not actually sure any of the other discussion has been of much use, but I'd like to at least try to straighten out the basics so you'll see where these comments are coming from.

Also: quotes can be useful, but they can lead to confusion if you never try to explain what you think they mean. For my part it's pretty odd (if not actually annoying) to summarize my understanding of a comment, and you respond by asking me to strike a conclusion that I don't see you to have addressed -- as if this wasn't actually my conclusion. Why not I say what I think you're saying, and you say what you think I'm saying, we explain exactly where the other is mistaken, and somewhere in the middle we meet? This is just another way of approaching discussion, although a fairly common one in dispute resolution which accepts that people will often misunderstand each other unless they openly discuss the nature of their positions. Thanks in any case for the dialogue. Mackan79 (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mackan79, feel free to continue posting comments; this discussion is interesting and may even be making some sort of progress. It's good to clear up misunderstandings. I think you're referring to my comment above "Mackan79, I suggest you strike out 'Thus, Jayjg doesn't contest ...' ... less likely to discuss its expression in a sentence.)" I think by "conclusion" you mean the part beginning "Thus". I don't understand why you say I didn't address your conclusion, because the part of my comment in parentheses seems to me to be directly addressing it. There may be a misunderstanding here revolving around the word "pleonasm". Wiktionary calls it "Redundancy in wording", and that is what I understand it to mean. You seem to be interpreting it as an admission that the statement is true. As I understand the word "pleonasm", it has nothing to do with whether the statement is true or not, but about whether there are extra, unnecessary, superfluous words present. So I don't interpret Jayjg's use of the word "pleonasm" as a statement about whether the proposed content is accurate or not. Either the words "what is today" convey a meaning not present in the rest of the sentence, or they do not. If they do not, they should probably be deleted for brevity. If they do, then the question would be what exactly that additional meaning is and whether it is verifiable.

You said, "Jayjg doesn't think Wikipedia should state that the relevant area is no longer called Samaria." I'm not sure what you mean by "the relevant area"; there seems to have been some confusion at Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources between "West Bank" and "northern West Bank", and between the area indicated by "northern West Bank" and the similar, but not identical, area indicated by "Samaria". I don't presume to know what Jayjg thinks.

I'm thinking of two different useful ways to refer to other editors' comments in a discussion: one is to quote them accurately (e.g. word-for-word) in order to talk about or reply to a previous comment; another is to paraphrase in order to test whether one understands the comment correctly. It's not a good idea to mix the two! One can indicate a paraphrase with "It seems to me that ..." or "Is this what you mean: ... ?" But if one states explicitly that someone has said something, one's representation should be accurate: usually either word-for-word the same, or what the original writer would agree conveys the intended meaning. It can be difficult but worthwhile to paraphrase accurately the comments of people on the opposite side of a content dispute. It's sometimes helpful to explain why one is paraphrasing, admit that it may not be accurate but state that one is doing one's best; and when reading such a paraphrase it's good to AGF and assume that that really is the best the person can do to try to represent the comments. Otherwise, because of different concepts used by people with different POVs, it's too easy to assume the person is deliberately exaggerating in the paraphrase.

Instead of striking, you could insert something like "it seems to me that". You may also be interested in my comment at User talk:MeteorMaker#Toponym. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok, I can try a little further. If you'll allow me to risk being a little more direct: While I certainly wouldn't fault your attempts to accurately quote others, I can't agree that it is the only way to approach discussion. The article fisking should probably have a better discussion of criticism, but I do see the main point attributed to Andrew Orlowski, that quoting too much like this in a discussion can actually seem more argumentative than thoughtful, and more superficial than substantive. I don't think it's your intent, but in fact I do think your approach here has tended to skip a bit excessively between the trees, so to speak. Honestly, I also don't get the feeling you are really reading every comment for comprehension, extensive quotes notwithstanding. In some ways I must say you seem a bit over-confident in having found the best way to communicate, especially in a fairly complex area where you aren't particularly familiar, and with editors whom you seem only recently to have encountered. That you continue to foreclose the possibility of genuine obstruction (suggesting the issue is moot after asking Jayjg, suggesting that one only represent comments in a way "that the original writer would agree conveys the intended meaning") is one example of this. You can disagree that there has been obstruction, or you can explain why you don't think it's relevant to discuss, but to act like it isn't an option leaves an impression of not being heard.

As far as the rest, in truth I don't see how you can stand by your original claim. Your argument, as far as I can see, is that Jayjg was only requesting the sourcing of a concept, and only quoting in order to directly adopt and attribute MeteorMaker's words. But this is disproved by the sources you've brought to the table, both of which make the fairly intuitive point that to adopt someone's words, you have to incorporate them into your own. Which gets to the real point: if someone asks for something in quotes, and the quoted passage is not embedded into their sentence, and moreover they ask you to quote someone saying that with the word "quote" in bold, then I would sure think I was being asked to provide the direct quote. Your argument in response, that not using a comma shows he was embedding the phrase, is a little like saying a hamburger must be a taco because they left off the pickles, during a world-wide pickle shortage. Or like saying a Sundae must be a milk shake since they left off the chopped peanuts during a salmonella outbreak. Anyway, you can say it, but I don't see how you can claim in good faith that it's the only reasonable way to read the sentence, as you seem to. Mackan79 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'm not claiming that that's the only reasonable way to read the sentence. This ties in with something you said above, that G-Dett and I could both be partially right. I've explained what the sentence seemed to me to mean; I didn't claim that everyone would interpret it the same way. I didn't foreclose the possibility of genuine obstruction, as you say; but, if one is to accuse someone of obstruction, one should be ready to present evidence of such, and a statement which might be interpreted in two ways, one of which is not obstruction, does not constitute evidence of obstruction in my opinion. I understand that the discussion was frustrating, but I think it was frustrating for people on both sides, and that people on both sides could have said more to explain their position.

You said, "I can't agree that it is the only way to approach discussion." I believe that avoiding misquoting others is essential. There may be many ways of carrying on a discussion without misquoting others. You seem to be telling me that I should make more of an effort to demonstrate that I've understood the main points that others have been trying to convey. I'll try to do that, and am trying to do that in this reply.

I'm not sure whether I follow your argument: you seem to be arguing based on a grammatical lacuna in Jayjg's sentence that he must not have meant what he later stated that he had meant. I can counter that argument by pointing out that the sentence would be equally ungrammatical if interpreted as a direct quote, since a statement must include a main verb; however, I think it's best to assume that people sometimes make grammatical errors and that people are able to explain what they meant. Try to see how this situation might look from Jayjg's point of view.

I'm not claiming that it was unreasonable to interpret the sentence differently; however, now that Jayjg has clarified, I think in this situation it would now be unreasonable to claim that it wasn't intended to mean what Jayjg himself says it meant. I'm not sure whether that's what you're trying to do. In other words: if the discussion reached an impasse, it may have been caused by a misunderstanding, rather than by a fault of any one individual. I still claim that it doesn't constitute evidence of obstruction by Jayjg. In future, people can try to avoid misunderstandings by more often stating clearly their own position and by saying things like "what you seem to be asking for is ... "

If one feels one has to paraphrase what someone said in order to transform it into convincing evidence of wrongdoing, then maybe what the person actually said isn't that bad. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't answer for Mackan, but I'm quite certain no one's "arguing based on a grammatical lacuna in Jayjg's sentence that he must not have meant what he later stated that he had meant." The point is rather that Jay repackaged a substantive disagreement (about whether Samaria is a standard, widely accepted modern toponym) as a stylistic disagreement (about whether three words implying that it isn't constitute a "pleonasm"), and then when that pseudo-stylistic proxy dispute elicited a casual, ad hoc clarification from MeteorMaker ("Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area"), Jay measured the phrasing of that wordier explanation by a strict interpretation of WP:NOR, as if it were the proposed content. What Jay wouldn't do is (a) say forthrightly that his objection was not to alleged redundancy, but rather to any implication that Samaria is not a standard modern term; and (b) explain why he thought the given sources failed to support MeteorMaker's proposed phrasing (i.e. why he thought "modern" ≠ "what is today").

Your issue with "roughly" is a red herring. MeteorMaker's wording was this:

Samaria...is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank

versus Jay's wording:

Samaria...is a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank.[55][56]

No one at that point gave a damn about "roughly." We're talking about disruptive argumentation and deliberate impasse, and "roughly" simply didn't enter into it. Indeed an anon editor first added the "roughly" clause to the lead at the end of January, a full month after the thread we're discussing. There was no objection from MeteorMaker when he edited the article the next day; indeed there's been no objection from anyone to this day. Red herring, red herring, red herring.

Meanwhile, that the "pleonasm" objection was in bad faith seems to me incontestable. The truth of this charge of bad faith – pace your remarks to Mackan above – does not depend on any assumption that Jay is admitting the accuracy of the contested phrase ("what is today"). It doesn't matter whether he thinks it's accurate or inaccurate. All that matters is that he thinks it's relevant, that he thinks it carries meaning and content of some kind. Pleonasm means redundancy, and the test is, exactly as you say: "Either the words 'what is today' convey a meaning not present in the rest of the sentence, or they do not. If they do not, they should probably be deleted for brevity." Clearly Jay is not deleting for brevity; he's deleting because those three words add a meaning he doesn't want the article to convey. To say that they're redundant, that they add no meaning, was in bad faith.

You are right that the exchange must have been frustrating for both sides. But there is a difference between frustration and impasse. Frustration here was the ordinary and inevitable result of the fact that MeteorMaker wanted the article to convey Samaria's datedness, and Jay wanted it to convey that Samaria is not a standard modern toponym. MeteorMaker was willing to discuss in detail why he thought the best sources for this sort of thing (the three major encyclopedias Wikipedia recommends turning to to resolve disputes about names) supported his general position as well as his precise wording. Jay, by contrast, was not willing to discuss or debate that core issue openly. Impasse, which leads to Arbcom cases – as opposed to frustration, which leads to lengthy, exhausting, but ultimately fruitful consensus-building processes – was precisely the result of this refusal on Jay's part.--G-Dett (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about "pleonasm" being in bad faith. By saying "except for polemic purposes", Jayjg was quite open here about why he wished to delete the phrase "what is today": [57] and in the exchange ending with Jayjg's last comment here ("Which of your sources says "Samaria is the ancient toponym, the West Bank is the modern toponym"? I give you one final opportunity to quote them making this claim") MeteorMaker mentions "pleonasm" twice, while Jayjg in his last comment refocusses the discussion back to the question of whether there is a source stating that Samaria is the ancient toponym and West Bank the modern toponym.

I disagree with you about "roughly"; it still appears to me that Jayjg's main points were as I stated. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig, thank you for your many replies. I don't follow you at all with regards to Jay's good faith about "pleonasm." Yes, he wrote "except for polemic purposes" once, amid dozens of talk-page posts and article-reverts spuriously citing "pleonasm," but that's just it: the "polemical" issue he alludes to obliquely here was precisely what he refused to discuss forthrightly, while pretending (disruptively, dishonestly, and passive-aggressively) to give a damn about three allegedly redundant words.

We are probably approaching the limits of what we can learn from each other, but I do have two final questions – no hurry in answering them, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

1. When you say you "disagree with [me] about 'roughly'," can you be more specific? You disagree with me saying it's a red herring as regards Jay and MM's argument in December? If that's what you mean, what do you make of the fact that (a) they never talked about it at all in that argument; (b) no such dispute is reflected in their protracted edit-warring on the article itself; (c) Jay's proposed version on the talk page says "is," not "corresponds roughly," exactly like MeteorMaker's; (d) when an anonymous editor introduced the "corresponds roughly" clause in late January, not a soul objected or even mentioned it?
2. Is it your general position that Jay's behavior in the thread we've been discussing demonstrates an intellectually serious, good-faith attempt to address the core dispute with MeteorMaker regarding whether sources treat Samaria as a modern toponym?

Thanks again for all your time. I note that you're periodically pulling piquant phrases from my posts here and adding to your allegations against me on the evidence page. Next time you're over there, I wonder if you might bear in mind that "discriminate between" and "discriminate against" are two entirely different idiomatic phrases in English, one with a positive connotation and the other with a negative connotation, and that there is no serious question whatsoever which was intended in Jay's many insinuating posts about MeteorMaker.--G-Dett (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources I see the signs of what seems to be understandable human emotion – as I said, the discussion seems to have been frustrating for both sides – but you haven't convinced me that there's any indication of bad faith. In my view, someone doesn't have to keep repeating something they've already said earlier in the discussion in order to be considered honest. By the way, in your comment "your demand that ... ", further above, you've again made an incorrect statement about what I had said. Please stop doing that. Perhaps you missed the part where I had said, "One exception to this is ... ". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss the clause wherein you give me permission to paraphrase you provided I submit it first for your approval – I just omitted it because it seemed so irrelevant. Brevity being the soul of paraphrase.

At any rate thanks again for all your comments. I'd actually just stopped by here to commend you for your proposal, but given that I'm about zero for twenty in correctly understanding anything you say, I've probably gotten the gist of that wrong as well.--G-Dett (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that you had to submit things for my approval before paraphrasing me. That wasn't what I meant. It's fine with me if you paraphrase me at any time, provided you don't claim that I've said what's contained in your paraphrase; for example, you might say "here's a paraphrase of what Coppertwig said"; or, providing your paraphrase is something that I would agree is an accurate representation of what I said. (There may be ways of determining that without asking me.) Another option is just not saying where you got the ideas: not attributing them to me (you can do that, I think, because I multi-license under public domain). You're also free to quote me at any time: however, if you do so, please be sure to quote accurately: I think that's a reasonable request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, as you know very well but have yet to admit, I've never "misquoted" you. If you wish to express your subjective opinion that I've misunderstood or mischaracterized your positions, you're free to do that. If you continue to say or imply that I've "misquoted" you, then there really will be no common ground of respect between us, period. That's a red line for me.--G-Dett (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to get your message, G-Dett. There's at least one message from you above that I haven't replied to in full. I might or might not (and feel free to let me know if you'd like me to) but I would just like to say in answer to your question in your earlier message that I am indeed really trying to understand what you're saying. I know that sometimes when people use words and concepts differently, it can be easy to think things like "I don't see how they could possibly really think that". It can be hard to even discover where the misunderstandings are so that they can get cleared up.

I think it might help if we discuss the definitions of the words "misquote" and "mischaracterize". I assume (but maybe I shouldn't?) that we are both using the same meaning of "misunderstand".

Wiktionary defines "misquote" as "To incorrectly recite a quote" and "To incorrectly record a quote". When I use the word, I'm not saying anything about whether it was intentional or not: it can be accidental incorrectness, i.e. a mistake. I use the word to apply to both direct quotation and indirect quotation.

Wiktionary defines "mischaracterize" as "To characterize falsely or mistakenly", and "characterize" as "To depict someone or something a particular way (usually negative.)" (first definition). I don't like using words with "usually negative" or "usually positive" tacked onto the definition, and would tend to ignore that part of the definition, so I would prefer the definition "To depict someone or something a particular way"; for brevity I would just call it "To describe".

I'm wondering whether maybe you consider that when you say things like "your demand that...", you don't consider that to be a quote, but a characterization or description. That could be a reason why you might think it's OK for me to say you mischaracterized my position but not OK for me to say you misquoted me. I call it an indirect quote, although I can see that since the word "demand" is being used as a noun rather than as a verb, one could perhaps argue that grammatically it isn't.

Maybe you're making a distinction between indirect quotation and characterization (description).

What I mean is: I would like you to avoid saying things like "your demand that" followed by something that I wouldn't consider to be an accurate representation of anything I've demanded. Similarly for "your claim that", "your assumption that", etc. But it's OK with me if you say things like "what seems to me to be your demand that", etc., so you're still free to paraphrase. Does that sound reasonable, or do we still seem to have a dispute? I've changed a bunch of instances of the word "misquote" in the discussion above to "mischaracterize": let me know if that helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Misquotation" means getting the words between quotation marks wrong. It doesn't refer to faulty or disputable paraphrase, or what you call "indirect quotes." Thanks for refactoring; I apologize if I seemed unduly irritated.--G-Dett (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem: your reaction was quite understandable given that definition of the word. That wasn't what I meant when I said "misquote". I apologize for not following my own advice and clarifying the definition of "misquote" earlier, which might have saved a lot of time and trouble. I should have known to do that. As I sometimes say, one benefit of my giving people advice is that sometimes I follow it myself (whether or not anyone else does). And I apologize for saying things using the word "misquote" which could easily be interpreted as accusations of things you didn't actually do.

I would now like to change the heading "G-Dett has misquoted Jayjg" on the workshop page. Would it be an improvement if I change it to "G-Dett has mischaracterized what Jayjg said"? You might want to suggest different wording. (I realize you still may not agree with the statement, though, and I might not necessarily accept wording you suggest.) I assume this part is OK since it doesn't use the word "misquote": "G-Dett has stated that Jayjg said things, which were inaccurate representations of what Jayjg actually said". I'm not sure whether I should change the heading "G-Dett cautioned about quoting", perhaps to "G-Dett cautioned about assertions about Jayjg's position". I'm also going to reply to your comment on the workshop page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mischaracterize" is fine with me (at least in terms of word choice ;)). Thanks for your courtesy Coppertwig. We have very different prose styles, you and I; I suppose we were destined to misunderstand one another a little.--G-Dett (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning the process of straightening out the misunderstanding by suggesting the word "mischaracterize" a few comments back, and thank you for graciously accepting my apology. Actually, I think what started us back on the right track was when you said something very nice about the draft guidelines I had written. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusive note.

I had great difficulty in understanding the section on the Evidence Page, but when I noted the query about what diff I used or perhaps where I made some accusation (?); I thought I'd better provide the original diff of evidence. Please remove it if it is not what you were looking for. Regards Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry my evidence was difficult to understand. Feel free to ask questions about it. Thank you for providing the diff, and for telling me that you had done so.

In that diff [58], you say, "the overwhelming evidence presented so far that Samaria is an Israeli-POV." I don't think there's any evidence that "Samaria is an Israeli-POV" (and no, I'm not asking for a source with that exact verbal formulation). I think there may be evidence that the term "Samaria" has been used by Isrealis to promote a POV. However, I don't think it's been established that people who are not particularly using the term for that purpose have stopped using the term for general purposes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt my head in; will butt it out pronto. There are in fact a number of sources noting the decline in use of Judea and Samaria among neutral and/or mainstream sources. Some of these are pro-Israel sources, explicitly lamenting the relative disappearance of the terms. Meanwhile, none of the three main encyclopedias Wikipedia uses to resolve naming disputes (Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia) define Samaria as a modern region in their entries on the term. The last edition of Britannica to define Samaria as a modern region was the 1961 edition.--G-Dett (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, apart from extensive reading and examination of sources, which I think show how academics the world over define it as an Israeli POV, I didn't even trust my own natural intuitions on this, and pestered people, in casual conversations, over two months on this. Very few, all Christians, had any but the vaguest notion of precisely where Samaria was, except for some sense that it was biblical. That for most people, outside of the specific community which thinks this usage natural (which it is for them), 'Samaria' is not a familiar toponym, and certainly not one that rings a bell about a specific modern area, seems to me obvious. This may be very hard to accept, from people reared in a culture where this, and Judah and the two terms combined, are an integral part of education, but I advise those who doubt it to ask around. I don't think my impression is aleatory. I once said, in a concession to the guys who are absolutely certain their minority position is right, that they simply may not be aware of what 'goyim' are, and are not used to, and that the misunderstanding may in some sense reflect a cultural incomprehension. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "define it as an Israeli POV". I don't see how a name can be a point of view, although it may represent a POV or be used by people who have a particular POV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do the people you talked to know where "the Glebe" is? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just had another look at this. Re this message where you add a diff with a question mark: I'm puzzled as to why you have a question mark there. I quote you as saying "the second diff she cites", and I provide a diff showing you saying that. I would like to know what diff you meant when you said that. Have you forgotten which diff it was? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"No evidence for "deliberately""

Hi Coppertwig.

There's in fact plenty of evidence for "deliberately" if you know where to look (else, you could simply have asked me). For details, I direct you to this section. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I state in my evidence, I think it's best not to post that sort of statement without providing diffs as evidence at the time of posting it. I also think it's very difficult to prove things about a person's state of mind. In your diffs, I see no evidence of knowingly posting false information. It may be that you and Jaakobou disagree on interpretations of the facts. Making wrong guesses about a person's state of mind can be very common when one is on the opposite side of a content dispute; misunderstandings are common because often people are conceptualizing things differently: what is obvious to one may not even occur to the other as a possible concept. Incidentally, one of the links you give in that evidence section is not a diff link. The instructions at the top of the evidence page specify what types of links are or are not appropriate; I'm not sure whether that type is, and it's harder to figure out what you're trying to indicate if a link goes to a whole thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Check for yourself if you can find any substance (I cannot) in any of the three accusations I characterized as false. He has had his mistakes pointed out to him and declined to retract or substantiate them, ergo deliberate. The link to the AE case is not a diff for three reasons: The whole (short) case is relevant for the context, link-heavy text is more difficult to read as diffs, and I don't know where to find diffs for archived AE cases. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You say he has had his mistakes pointed out to him, but I see no reason to think he's not continuing to disagree with those points. People often disagree about things. I'm sorry, I don't have time to investigate whole threads and feel no need to here: the fact remains that you posted a statement without posting at the same time diffs that supported either the quote, or the allegation of deliberateness. [59] Maybe you think it's OK to do that; maybe it doesn't explicitly violate a policy or guideline; but I think it's OK for me to point out that that is what you've done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement, when somebody (in his evidence section in an ArbComm case!) makes the statement "x then falsely claimed that their sanction was removed" and supports it with a diff where clearly no such claim is made, that somebody is acting in bad faith if he chooses to stand by his accusation despite having had his error pointed out to him. The only way I can see the adverb "deliberately" as inappropriate is if he didn't have time/felt no need to investigate the diff, but I think you agree that if that is the case, he shouldn't have made the accusation in the first place. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In my evidence section in the arbcom case, I quoted you as saying "deliberately" without diffs. One point I'm making is that it's better not to accuse people of things without providing diffs at the time that you make the accusation. If you provide to me diffs that demonstrate that the user stood by their accusation in spite of having their error pointed out to them, there is a possibility that I'll then decide to delete the quote from my evidence section, although I still might not: one reason being that the point about providing diffs at the time of making the accusation still applies, whether or not you agree that it's important to do that. Another difficulty is that I think it's difficult to provide convincing evidence of a person's state of mind. I'm not convinced there was any bad faith involved, and might remain unconvinced even on seeing the diffs I just asked for. Lots of people are reluctant to admit to error; that doesn't necessarily mean they deliberately erred. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re how to find diffs: For example, suppose you want to find the diff for Jaakobou's statement of 02:19 24 February. Usually the diff you want will have the same time as the person's signature; not always, since they might edit their comment later, but in that case you can usually find it by searching later in the contributions, page history or whatever. Anyway, what I would do is go to either Jaakobou's contribs, or the page history of Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Usually, the page history is not moved when a page is moved to an archive, so the history is still at the original page. I would go to the WP:AE page and click "history". Then I would click "earlier 50". This changes the url to a type of url that has a date-time in it (as a string of numbers all run together, starting with the year, in the format yearmonthdayhourminutesecond e.g. 20090405235900 I'm not sure about the meaning of the last few numbers, whether they're seconds or what. Anyway, what I do next is I edit the url to put in the date-time I'm interested in, and go to that url. It will jump to the part of the page history close to the date-time I want. Sometimes I have to click "earlier 50" again to get the exact diff I want. The same trick with the date can be used on the person's contribs, so if you can't figure out where the original page history is, you can always find the diff in the contribs if you know who posted it. (Go to their user page or user talk page and click "User contributions" in the links at the left of the page.) I hope that helps. I'm sorry for the delay in providing you with this information. I almost did get distracted and forget again, after I just said on the evidence talk page that I was going to help you with this; that would have looked bad! See also Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been lurking on your talk page the last couple of days re ArbCom. I must say I have enjoyed following your train of thought and responses. You are meticulous in your logic and very clear, imo. It actually has made for "fun" reading, both the arguments and the counter-arguments. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad to know I've got talk page watchers! And I'm glad you're enjoying it! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Draft_guidelines_for_placename_usage

I will be vulgar: FUCK YEAH!!!--Cerejota (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, thanks. I hope the people who have already commented on the draft guidelines will comment on the changes that I've made, and that many people will comment on and contribute to editing the draft guidelines. When I came back from a couple of days wikibreak I was very pleased with the response. I'm about to do some additional edits, mostly to re-organize, though with some substantive change as well; all subject to reverting if there is no consensus for such changes, of course. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AF syntax

You would be correct there. The only thing is that I don't think !in works, so it's !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) instead. Thanks for catching that! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

*eyes glaze over* Hoo boy. I don't think I have time to take a look at too many of these just now, but I'll try to remember to keep poking at them when I get the chance. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Filter 5: The logic here is correct. This filter is intended to prevent user from attempting to rename themselves by moving their userpage. This creates a bunch of userpages that have to be deleted under U2, and confuses the hell out of the newbie when they can't log in under the new name. This filter is intended to stop that and give advice on how to properly request a rename, although it hasn't been fully activated yet.
• Filter 30: Fixed as suggested.
• Filters 34, 46, 50: It looks odd to me too, but according to Wernda = is equivalent to ==, and no syntax errors occur with it.
• Filter 50: Not fixing that myself as I'm not the best with regexen, but I'll suggest it in the notes.
• Filter 53: Fixed as suggested, but the filter is still disabled.
• Filter 59: The recent contributors thing fixed as suggested, and again I'm uncertain on the regex, but will suggest it.
• Filter 61: We usually don't use new_wikitext or old_wikitext because they're slower than molasses and hang up the wiki. Added_lines should work, but again, I'll need to run those by others.

Thanks again for your help! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong?

Another user has accused me of doing something wrong (see User talk:IRP#Template talk:Grading scheme and Revision history of Template talk:Grading scheme) when I reverted one of his or her edits as it was a reversion one of my edits without explanation in the edit summary. The user was complaining that my edit was inappropriate and juvenile. Did I really do something wrong? I reverted per Wikipedia:Explain reverts. -- IRP ☎ 18:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Grading scheme

No, the templates which I am requesting an edit for are all protected. Their talk pages all redirect to Template talk:Grading scheme (don't ask me why, they just do). PC78 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained my revert here. I don't believe I am at risk of being blocked (what policy are you citing here?), and blanking my comment – even if you though I had made a mistake – was inappropriate. Reverting my revert as you did was rather juvenile. PC78 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See this post. -- IRP ☎ 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As already stated, I did explain my revert. WP:REVEXP is not a policy, nor even a guideline. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. OK, everybody just calm down, please? There's really basically no problem here, I think. It's just a matter of a talk page comment. Have a cup of tea. IRP, please let PC78 edit their own talk page comment. If you think it needs to be deleted or changed, just explain nicely to PC78 the reasons, and let PC78 do it; and if PC78 doesn't want to, it's probably best to just leave it. PC78, you probably noticed but just in case you didn't, IRP has pointed out that the page is not fully protected. I think it would be helpful for you to either remove the editprotected template, or explain nicely to IRP why you prefer to keep it there. I don't think anybody did anything terribly wrong here. In future though, IRP, it's almost always best to let other users edit their own comments: see WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. If you were very concerned that the editprotected template shouldn't be there, you could have just deleted the template and left the rest of the comment there, or replaced {{editprotected}} with {{tl|editprotected}} which nullifies the template. IRP, you're right that users are encouraged to provide meaningful edit summaries, especially when reverting. However, when users don't follow policies, guidelines or suggestions, it's best not to over-react. People are encouraged to be bold. It's not necessary to revert an edit just because someone didn't provide an edit summary. The best approach would be to just ignore it, or else to politely ask the user why they reverted. Just don't worry, everything's fine. I hope this helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a breach of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to revert legitimate edits without explanation? Doing so is treating an edit as vandalism. -- IRP ☎ 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's one of those borderline cases. WP:REVEXP doesn't have a guideline template at the top of the page. It isn't a policy or guideline; it's just a help page. It's still a good idea to follow the instructions there. Basically, we're supposed to follow basic principles: trying to get along with people and stuff like that. If you know about a rule, it's usually best to follow it unless you have a good reason not to and are confident that it won't bother people if you don't. Basic principles are shown by policies like WP:IAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. A lot of it is just getting along with people. I guess you were offended when you felt that your edit was being treated as vandalism. But look at it from the other person's point of view: how do you think they felt when their comment was deleted? Anyway, we don't punish people for just not putting an edit summary in one edit. We don't punish at all, actually: see WP:Blocking policy#Purpose and goal. Even if people do violate policies or guidelines, it's usually best to either ignore it, or talk to them nicely about it. Often they'll have a good reason for violating; or they might not have known the policy or guideline. Or they might have thought nobody would mind, and you can explain to them gently why you do mind. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link

Thanks. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi Coppertwig, I'm sorry I haven't been actively commenting on your proposal. I'm just stopping by here to reaffirm that I support it, especially in its revised form. Great work, very patient and thorough.--G-Dett (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw your comment on the workshop page and had a good laugh about zesty vs. pasty language. You will be my tutor, and I will learn to use whole quiverfuls of metaphors as hammers to drive home points delicately flavoured with essence of wit. More later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Me mentor you! It ain't my style gonna solve this thing. But it might be yours.--G-Dett (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'll refrain from using the stretcher analogy, then. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

{{db-author}}?

I created {{Outdent}} figuring that it would be useful, however, absolutely nobody is using it. Should I request deletion of it? -- IRP ☎ 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, nobody's using it? I just did. :-) Seriously: I think it's just that nobody knows about it. Wait, don't delete it! I might want to start using it. When people see other people using it, they might start using it.

There's a possibility that in the next couple of days I might edit the template so that you can write {{outdent|::::::::::}} and it will put the right number of underscores to match up the amount of indentation to go with the number of colons given. I'm not sure how the size of an underscore matches up with indentation:

one colon, three underscores

___

two colons, 7 underscores

_______

three colons, 1) underscores

__________

four colons, 14 underscores

______________

five colons, 17 underscores

_________________

six colons, 21 underscores

_____________________ ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made an edit to the template, but I think it still needs improvement. -- IRP ☎ 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It happened before you expected it. I have added features to the template. See the source of the template and my sandbox where I tested it in. -- IRP ☎ 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you missed the message above. I'm just letting you know that the template is finished. -- IRP ☎ 20:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's great! However, I suggest a default, when no argument is given, which is similar to your original version or to the equivalent of about 8 or 10 colons. Hmm, you may have one or two too many underscores for the number of colons, the way this message displays.☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I set it to where it creates an error message if no argument is specified. -- IRP ☎ 00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea! It's far more convenient if it gives a reasonable default. Some people may choose to use it without any argument every time, because it's easier to type.

The code may be neater if you use a switch statement rather than all those ifeq's, but maybe that doesn't matter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've set a default of 10. -- IRP ☎ 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider

JzG's personal attacks continue up through his RFA. See:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Outside_view_by_Ikip where he calls Abd "autistic" and Dan a "borderline troll". I am compiling more edit history diffs since the last AfD, based on JzG's edit history, I am sure their will be dozens of more personal attacks. I am contacting AbD also.

If you still don't want to change your !vote, I would appreciate you refactoring out (deleting) the entire section, if you still disagree with my conclusions:

1. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC) While the purpose of this RfC is to address use of tools while involved, I also encourage JzG to follow the civility policy. During this RfC, JzG said this. Withdrawing my endorsement, per Abd, with apologies to JzG. 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (Thanks, Abd: another example of your leadership in consensus-building. 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you Ikip (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I disagreed with your conclusions. I've added an explanation to my withdrawal which I hope addresses that.

I'm thinking about it, but for now I'm still thinking that the RfC is about use of tools while involved. You can, if you wish, start a separate RfC about other behavioural issues; I would suggest waiting until some time after this RfC has concluded, and I would suggest focussing only on conduct after the closure of this RfC: one hopes that JzG may already have gotten your message and that there would be no such problems, making such an additional RfC unnecessary. It's complicated, because it's not entirely clear whether the RfC can be restricted to a narrow set of questions.

If you would like to support expression of community consensus on a variety of issues in this RfC, you might consider supporting the reverting of this edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I appreciate your hard work and efforts to be amblicable and civil to everyone, and be a diplomat that editors can look up to and trust. Are you an admin, you should be. Ikip (talk)

I've further edited my withdrawal statement. I'm not an admin, but thank you very much for saying so! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

distastefullness

Hi Coppertwig, I just saw your recent addition to the Workshop page. I would like to note that there are a number of examples showing Jayjg accusing MM of 'distasteful' ethnic discrimination. In a few minutes I pulled up I'll stop noting your distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin, Please stop categorizing sources by alleged ethnicity or national origin, it's inappropriate and distasteful, your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. I can find more if you wish. Nableezy (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you: I've seen plenty. My point is that MeteorMaker has misquoted^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} Jayjg, who apparently never used the phrase "distasteful ethnic discrimination". If you find a diff of Jayjg using that particular phrase, please let me know. Diffs such as you've provided we have plenty of already. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder how you see "distasteful ethnic discrimination" is not equivalent to "distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin". "Distasteful ethnic discrimination" seems to be a rather faithful reproduction, slightly modified sure, but the same exact meaning. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

never mind, I see this now, though it leaves me thoroughly confused. The meanings of the two are exactly the same and to call MM out for not writing the entire phrase is a bit of a head-scracher for me. Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Now Nableezy, if you don't see the difference between (absurd, as it happens of course) allegations phrased as "distasteful ethnic discrimination" and those couched as "distasteful attempts to discriminate against sources based on their [alleged] ethnic origin", then you've not spent enough time on a Wikipedia talk page. Jayjg will explain how to wikilawyer such obscure subtleties, and how to quote rules in favour of or against one or other position. Coppertwig, I thought you knew better. --Nickhh (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The two phrases do not appear to me to have the same meaning, and certainly not the same connotations, and I have no particular reason to think that they appear to Jayjg to have the same meaning. As I said, misquoting another editor adds heat to and subtracts light from a discussion. If MeteorMaker wishes to assert that Jayjg said something "equivalent to", or "having the same meaning as", some phrase, that might be OK; but to say "he claims", use quotation marks, and then supply a phrase that the person didn't use is unacceptable in my view.^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} (Note: the first two pairs of quotation marks are to indicate the use-mention distinction; the last is a quote of MeteorMaker.) Nickhh, what standards do you use when quoting from sources? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have not spent much time here, but for why I say they are equivalent: "Distasteful and inappropriate" can without any complaint be pared down to "distasteful", anything that is both "distasteful" and "inappropriate" is also "distasteful". "Discrimination" is equivalent to "attempt to discriminate", if somebody says I am attempting to discriminate against a group they are accusing me of discrimination. And finally "on alleged ethnic or national origin" is including either discriminating based on alleged ethnicity or based on national origin, here he accuses him of both. The only possible issue that could be made is in the missing "alleged". Is that where you see the two phrases differ or am I missing something? Nableezy (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

mmm.... knowing nothing about the underlying conflict, the condensed phrase does seem to be a reasonable summary of the longer statements. While I agree that quotation marks should be used with caution, they do not always indicate exact quotation in relatively informal writing; I can easily imagine the quoted phrase as a good-faith rendering from memory of the original. So if there is some offense on MM's part here, it would be minor and technical. I have not noticed any argument that, if "distasteful ethnic discrimination" was offensive, then the longer phrase was not. I don't see qualifications in the longer phrase that modify possible offensive connotations of the words in the shorter. On the other hand, what a tangled web! I'm tip-toeing away now.... --Abd (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd, for your thoughts, much of which I agree with and much of which I had already thought of but hadn't expressed. However, I really think this is not just minor and technical. To me, the connotations at least of the two phrases are quite different, and perhaps the meaning. If I were Jayjg I would be quite annoyed at having such a phrase attributed to me which I didn't say (especially since it's being used as a basis for an accusation of saying something he allegedly very much ought not to have said). Such annoyance in itself can detract significantly from progress. I'm trying to untangle this discussion, and the way I see forward is to clarify meanings and remove unnecessary annoyances. Anyone can misquote by accident: when it's pointed out, one should correct it. If the quotation marks were not intended to indicate direct quotation of Jayjg but something else (what?), I think MeteorMaker should say so.

What if this were a quote from a source? What if the source actually said "It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" and an editor said of this, using quotation marks, "This source says 'Samaria is now called "northern West Bank"'"? Once could argue that the two phrases are equivalent. One could argue that they are not. What if someone else said, "Hey, you've used quotation marks, but the words you've given are not the same as the words in the source!" and the other person replied "If you honestly think it's inappropriate to condense "It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" to "This source says 'Samaria is now called "northern West Bank"', kindly indicate in what way the meaning has been changed"? [60] What if the other editors didn't have access to the original source, or didn't bother checking it because they trusted the person who was presenting a quote? That's not the way to build an encyclopedia; and accusing Jayjg of "extremely bad faith assumptions",[61] lying, [62] etc. for using a phrase^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} which he didn't use is not the way to collaborate with other editors. I've asked MeteorMaker to assume good faith and to try to understand why Jayjg said what he said; [63] seeming to be^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} stating that he said something different, and which in my opinion would be more difficult to understand or justify, is a step in the opposite direction and a step which there is no good reason for taking.

... and furthermore, Abd! Accusing someone, on the talk page of an Evidence page of an open arbitration case, of saying something^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} (in quotation marks) which one characterizes as "extremely bad faith assumptions" or that the person "lied", is not the sort of informal discussion where one can get away with mere approximate quotation (if one can anywhere), especially if one continues to insist on it after a diff of the actual phrase has been asked for.

... Nevertheless, Abd, I'm delighted to see you participating in this discussion, and your comment was helpful. I hope you won't tiptoe away too fast. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. Sophistry aside, what do you make of the fact that Jayjg accused me of:

• "categorizing sources by alleged ethnicity or national origin", which he called "inappropriate and distasteful" [64]
• Suggesting WP should "discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnicity or national origin", which he called "distasteful at best" [65][66][67][68] [69][70]
• "bring[ing] up the alleged ethnicity or national origins of the various authors, as means of approving or disapproving them" [71]
• "hav[ing] repeatedly tried to dismiss sources published outside Israel because of their alleged ethnicity or national origin" [72]
• "trying to disqualify sources on spurious grounds, including their alleged ethnicity and national origin", which he called "distasteful" [73]
• Attempting to "discriminate based on ethnicity or national origin", which he called "rather distasteful" [74]
• Making "distasteful attempts to disqualify sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin" [75]
• "Discriminat[ing] against sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin", which he called "inappropriate" [76]
• Making "attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin", which he called "distasteful and inappropriate." [77](*4) [78]
• Making "distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin" [79]
• Making "continual distasteful and inappropriate attempts to disqualify sources based on ethnicity or national origin" [80]
• "Trying to disqualify sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin", which he called "distasteful and inappropriate" [81]

In your opinion, can such accusations (that furthermore have never been substantiated with diffs, and continued despite numerous clarifications and admonishments to stop) be made in good faith? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Coppertwig, first if you tire of conversing with me let me know and I will drop it. But the biggest problem I have with this argument is that it goes against what you argued previously on whether or not Jay demanded an exact quote from a source on 'different epoch-names'. Then you argue that while Jayjg says 'Sigh. Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it' (emphasis in original) he is not asking for a direct quote, despite the use of the quotes and the demand that MM 'qoute' them saying it. I do not understand how you can say that Jay's use of quotation marks and the explicit demand for a quote to not be demanding that exact quotation, but here MM's quote must somehow be an exact quotation. The disparity in the positions is confusing. And if you wouldn't mind enlightening me on why MM's 'quote' and what Jay actually said carry either different meanings or connotations it would be appreciated. Nableezy (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I look forward to replying to both of you more fully later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Count me among those who sees no substantive difference, absolutely none whatsoever, between Jay's repeated accusations ("distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin") and MeteorMaker's summary of same ("distasteful ethnic discrimination").

In the spirit of WP:AGF, but in the absence of any clarification from you, I'm brainstorming for the possible reasons you have for thinking there's a semantic difference between these two things. The only clue I've managed to dig up is from a subsection of your evidence post, where you point out that "discriminate can mean make distinctions between." Coppertwig, if English isn't your first language, let me say right now that you write it with consistent fluency and occasional eloquence, so please don't be insulted by this, but there does seem to be an idiomatic misunderstanding going on here. The issue here isn't different meanings of "discriminate," which always means to make distinctions between things. The issue here is the difference between the idiomatic phrases "discriminate between" on the one hand, and "discriminate against" on the other. In English usage, the former has positive connotations, suggesting a capacity for sound, subtle, nimble and nuanced judgments and distinctions. It has the same set of connotations as saying so-and-so is "wise and discriminating," has "discriminating tastes," etc. The latter phrase, however – "discriminate against" – has negative connotations. The word "discriminate" within the phrase "discriminated against" goes on meaning the same thing – i.e., make distinctions – but in this case the distinctions are crude, unsubtle, rigid and bigoted; they usually involve rough classifications of people by age, race, ethnicity, "type," etc. We know which of these things Jay meant when he repeatedly attacked MeteorMaker, because he used the phrase discriminate against (not discriminate between), and because he went on repeatedly to specify that the sort of discrimination MM was guilty of was ethnic discrimination – "distasteful" ethnic discrimination, to be exact.

I hope this clarifies things. For the record, I agree with you as a matter of style that in indicative sentences, the implication of quotation marks is that a verbatim statement is being attributed; just as in interrogative sentences (of the who-has-stated-quote-"X"-unquote? variety), the implication of quotation marks is that a verbatim statement is being requested. We seem to be coming round to the same position on this, I see, which is good. I would only stress here that where no substantive misunderstanding or mischaracterization arises, this is a point of style only, and excessive focus on it amounts to pedantry.--G-Dett (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a long comment here at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop#On bigotry (and accusations of). It answers MeteorMaker's question in the affirmative.

Nableezy, quotation marks can mean different things at different times. In the next few minutes, I'm not going to shout out loud "At least the sun is still shining!" My use of quotation marks in that sentence doesn't represent anyone saying those exact words in the past, nor is it a request for someone to say those words in the future. The meaning of the quotation marks is controlled by the meaning of the rest of the words in the sentence. I would say those quotation marks are indicating the use-mention distinction.

In the case of the diff you ask about, Nableezy, there Jayjg's quotation marks indicate a precise, verbatim quotation of an earlier comment by MeteorMaker here. The main difference is that Jayjg's quote is correct: that is, MeteorMaker did actually post those exact words, whereas MeteorMaker's quote is incorrect^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))}: as far as anyone has been able to find, Jayjg did not post the exact phrase that MeteorMaker placed within quotation marks. Jayjg's use of quotation marks is also, I think, an example of "embedded quotation", but I'm not sure we need to get into that; you can read the above thread #Your Arbcom evidence or search for the phrase "embedded quotation" in it if you're interested.

MeteorMaker, if you agree with G-Dett that there is essentially no difference in meaning between the two phrases, (or even if you do see any difference in meaning), then I invite you to edit the evidence page to replace your condensation with what Jayjg actually said in each case.

G-Dett, thank you very much for the very nice compliment you gave me in an earlier section of this page. While our earlier discussion did provide a significant measure of enjoyment and education, I'm afraid that time constraints compel me to try to avoid slipping into another discussion of that length unnecessarily, and therefore I decline your invitation to discuss my interpretation of the two phrases. What I think they mean is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion: I'm neither one of the ones who originated the phrases, nor one of the ones who was offended by them.

MeteorMaker can remove any need for discussion of the relative meanings of the terms simply by refactoring the quotes.

Here we have a breakdown in communication and collaboration. Some people are not working together in a friendly way. I'm proposing ways to improve the situation: for example, to avoid doing things that are likely to irritate [82] the other person, such as seeming to be^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} misquoting them. No reason whatsoever has been given for not avoiding misquotation or for not acknowledging or fixing the misquotations that MeteorMaker has done.^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} When one has the opportunity to improve the situation and no apparent reason not to ... well? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(Tip-toes back in). There is a semantic problem here. If I use quotes, does it mean that I'm making an exact quotation? Quotes are used for various things, and exact quotation is only one of them. MeteorMaker synthesized a brief summary of Jayjg's words, and it seems to have been a fair summary, though certainly Jayjg could question that. Has he? In an article, using quotes this way would be thoroughly reprehensible, in formal writing quotations are intended to be exact; with elided words indicated with ellipses. But MeteorMaker wasn't writing formally, he was just making a point in a discussion. He provided, if I'm correct, diffs which substantially confirmed what he'd said, not the exact words, but the sense of it, and the exact words were used, but with other words in between, albeit words that did not shift the meaning. Has MeteorMaker claimed that his quotation was exact? I don't see that. He's claimed that it was the sense of what Jayjg had written, and that seems reasonable. I'm not taking side here, I'm only addressing a semantic point, and, I must ask, what is the purpose of the communication taking place here, and originally? Misquotation is, indeed, a common problem, and offensive, but this would be marginal as "misquotation." It certainly was not "exact quote." Was it represented as such? Coppertwig, you seem to be claiming that the very use of quotation marks was such a representation, and in an article context, I'd agree. But in more informal discussion, I would not. I do agree that if the words quoted deceptively presented the original text, and were not a fair summary of them, it would be a problem. But I do not agree that it is intrinsically a problem, that MeteorMaker should be censured or blamed for the "inaccurate" quote. Now, I put "inaccurate" in quotation marks. Does that mean that I was quoting someone? I was quoting myself the second time, but the first? Maybe, maybe not. I'm representing the sense of what I remember of what was written, there was a quote and it was claimed -- and proven -- that it wasn't exact in that the words of the quote had other words in between them in the original. Is that "inaccurate"? Maybe. Communication is always ambiguous, and if we seize on the ambiguities and struggle over them, we may miss the whole point. What's the real conflict here? Somehow I'm suspicious that MeteorMaker's putative misquote isn't the cause, and that argument over it is wasted time. Are the parties seeking consensus, or are they seeking to win? The two goals aren't very compatible.

Have clear statements of each position been made? One exercise I've used is to ask the parties to work on a consensus document that expresses the controversy, neutrally. If I can't agree with you on what you are saying, there is little hope to go further in agreement on what we might decide. Sometimes I've seen it done that each party states the other party's position, trying to be true to it, but in their own words. Then the described party makes corrections, which the original stater then incorporates. The point is to make sure that the issues are completely clear, that the basis each party has for their position is clear, and that any necessary evidence is shared and reviewed. It can be quite time-consuming, that's what is known about real consensus process. It typically involves breaking down the conflict into, first, areas of agreement and areas of disagreement, solidifying and making explicit the agreements, then looking at areas of disagreement, breaking them down into the smallest possible issues, finding agreement where possible and identifying the precise basis of disagreement. *Usually*, if the people involved are not paranoid (literally, not colloquially), agreement can be found when the basis of disagreement has been sufficiently explored. It can break down when people are not willing to state the basis for their beliefs, but, at least, it can become possible to identify that this is what is going on. Socrates showed that sometimes people really don't want to be asked why they believe things. But if finding consensus is our goal, and that is absolutely necessary for Wikipedia, we have to do it, and we should be willing to examine our own ideas just as closely as we might the ideas of someone we imagine we disagree with.

How many times have I seen someone say "I disagree with you," when I know they don't have the foggiest idea what I've been saying? I'm quite sure they couldn't repeat it! Now, if someone says that they disagree with me, and I say to them, "Fah! You don't understand what I'm saying at all," and they then repeat it to me, accurately, and explain it to me using the explanations that I believe, and then they say, "And I still don't agree with you, and I might be able to show you why, if I can ask you some questions." I'm in a pickle. The easy solution: arrange for the person to be condemned to death as very dangerous, corrupting the youth, etc. Well, that's actually not truly easy, because societies that do that, like the Athens of Socrates, collapse because they cannot adapt to new circumstances. What's truly easier, once one knows the trick, is to start listening, and consider those damn questions. On the other hand, in most real disputes, both sides have not been listening well enough, not just one. Oh, the trick: WP:DGAF. Besides, it's more fun to learn new stuff than to be confirmed in what I already know, or think I know. People imagine that being wrong is humiliating. Sure, it can seem that way. In fact, though, it's fun.

One of the tricks my girls' violin teacher uses is to ask the kids to play a piece wrong. If you can do it wrong, you are more likely to be able to do it right. We learn much more by being wrong, we learn practically nothing by being right. So, long term choice: You can be wrong and smart, or right and stupid. I'm amazed how many people make the second choice, it's one of the things I really don't understand yet, except that "stupid" must have some kind of survival function, individually or collectively, at least under some circumstances.

Ahem. Feel free to collapse this, or do whatever with it. I do get carried away. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That was very helpful, Abd. Thank you. Being open-minded is a constant exercise in discovering new dimensions one wasn't previously aware of and along which one can open doors and move into new territory. I try to be open-minded and sometimes fall into the trap of believing that I am (a thought which tends to lead to laziness about trying to become aware of more of those new dimensions, and thereby to stagnation). Here you've helped me to AGF and to open my mind to a POV I hadn't previously considered tenable. This, along with MeteorMaker's clarification, has led to my withdrawal of a proposed finding of fact [83], modification of a proposed remedy [84] and refactoring of talk page comments [85], all with the effect of withdrawing my accusation of misquotation. Although with hindsight I see that I could have approached this in a less disruptive, less time-consuming, more AGF way, I'm pleased with the result nevertheless. I think it was important to clarify the meaning of those quotation marks, and that has happened. Hopefully, having gotten that out of the way we'll be able to focus better on the more substantive issues.

I'm coming out of this discussion with positive feelings and a more cooperative attitude than I started with. I'm happy about how this has turned out. I'm sorry, though, if it's been the opposite for some other participants: I'm afraid my actions may have generated some hard feelings.

Perhaps I should have stated at the beginning: my accusation of misquotation was not for the purpose of harassing or trapping MeteorMaker. It was for the purpose of giving MeteorMaker a strong message that it's important to avoid certain behaviour which I saw (perhaps incorrectly) as contributing to an atmosphere in which it was very difficult to collaborate; and that message was for the purpose of influencing MeteorMaker to change behaviour, thereby allowing the atmosphere to improve.

Thanks also for your suggestions of techniques to use. Those are very good ideas (and in fact I've used similar techniques in the past, with excellent results) and I think I'll propose something like that at WT:IPCOLL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion to MeteorMaker: You could write it like this: "distasteful" "ethnic[]" "discriminat[ion]" (if you don't want to write "what I paraphrase as" or other words to indicate that it isn't a continuous verbatim quote). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I had not fully realized the potential for misunderstanding even in seemingly straightforward application of common stylistic devices. My reciprocal advice to you would be to try to clarify misunderstandings (eg by using the user's talk page) before you run and create proposals of actions against other editors in an ongoing ArbCom case. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try harder in future. Note that in this case both of us did try to clarify the misunderstanding using the talk page before I posted the finding of fact, but we didn't succeed. In particular, this comment of yours was a very good attempt to clear up the misunderstanding, and if I had read it several times slowly and thought about it carefully I might have responded in a better way. I may have been distracted by your moving my comment, which I didn't like, and I may also have been a bit confused because we've been having almost the same discussions on different parts of the page at the same time, which may be my fault. So I over-reacted, although it didn't seem to me at the time to be an over-reaction. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the user talk page (corrected above). Re the moving of your post, I apologize if it was inappropriate and you may move it back if you like. I felt it was out of sequence, having been added above Nish's earlier comment to the same post, and foresaw a long exchange that would have pushed it down to where it would have appeared positively disembodied. Since your comment was clearly addressed at me and not Nish (first word: "MeteorMaker"), I saw no potential for confusion in moving it down one position.

Let me add that even though you didn't completely retract your proposed remedy for this non-problem, I'm impressed with your readiness to admit a mistake and ability to adapt your views to reality — if everybody were like you, the original J&S question would have been solved in perhaps a couple of days. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice, MM. Coppertwig and I are just like everyone else: we think the world would be a better place if people thought and acted like us. Or, at least, we are *capable* of thinking that. I'm quite sure, in the end, though, that I don't want this, I want people to be free and to disagree when they disagree and agree when they agree, because, then, the sum of us is greater than any one of us. A world of clones would be not only dull, it would be unstable and unable to adapt. Neither Coppertwig nor I can settle differences alone; when at least one involved editor is willing to try a new approach, recognizing the damage approaching from what wasn't working, I've seen it work; and other editors will usually come along. It gets much more difficult when there are many editors, heavily entrenched in struggling with each other, and I can't point to so many successes. In this case, I can say, right now, you and Coppertwig certainly have a better relationship than you might have had if not for the willingness to listen and consider and communicate. You could have been trading salvos over trivialities before ArbComm, and, let me assure you, it irritates them and they will have a tendency to say, "a pox on both your houses." That is, to me, success. WP:DR works, if followed carefully, but too many times critical steps are skipped. In the end, it takes all sides signing on to consensus, when one party is simply refusing, it becomes pretty obvious; most sensible editors will cave at that point, knowing that they were heard and their position simply not accepted in spite of it, sometimes they may even accept a consensus that has sufficiently considered their position and become a defender of it. After all, it could have been worse. --Abd (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

just a suggestion

no offense, but was it really necessary to copy and paste the same statement 8 times on the evidence talk page? maybe you could try rephrasing your objections, or rebutting the statements that the other editor makes. usually you seem to be a very civil editor, but i felt that this was a bit unnecessarily adversarial. just a suggestion. :) untwirl(talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it was disruptive. Perhaps Tznkai's opinion could be asked on that. However, the same false allegation was repeated some number (8?) of times on different parts of the page, and I feel it's important that anyone reading only part of the page be alerted to the falsity of the allegation. I tried to keep my note short; it's considerably shorter than many of the comments it's in reply to. I placed the note immediately after each of the repetitions of the allegation, to maximize the chance that it would be noticed by anyone reading such allegation. Perhaps you would like to ask MeteorMaker to delete or refactor some of the repeated allegations; if some or all of the repetitions of the allegation are removed, then I'll consider removing the corresponding notices. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

well, if you don't want to remove them i'm certainly not going to pester you about it. i was only making the observation because in the past you have taken a more measured approach. was your concern that the arbs might not notice that you objected to the quotes being used? as long as its noted in your evidence i'm sure they will see it. correct usage of quotes seems to be quite a sticking point in this case in several instances. otherwise, i see a chance that the repetitive pasting might instigate more drama into those threads, some of which were a month old. i've only been watching these pages for a little while but that seemed out of character for you. untwirl(talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One aspect of my character you may not be aware of is that when I see a statement I believe is false, I have a very strong tendency to reply to it, explaining why I disagree. I may appear soft a lot of the time, but I have a firm side too. Avi has said of me, "Coppertwig has that rare synergy of the mettle to enforce our rules with sanctions, and the diplomacy to explain, and often prevent the need for, the applications of those sanctions." [86] So perhaps it's not out of character for me. On the other hand, I'm not in the best of health at the moment and it's possible that I might later think it over more fully and regret the edit, as sometimes happens too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I put a note about this at User talk:Tznkai#Explaining repetitive edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"When making an accusation it's particularly important to quote accurately"

I'm sure it's just an oversight, but when you refactored your unfounded accusations of misquotation on my part, you seem to have missed this section, which still reads:

"I don't remember anyone else misquoting someone in this discussion, let alone continuing to insist on the misquotation after it's been pointed out. And as Tundrabuggy pointed out, when making an accusation it's particularly important to quote accurately."

I would appreciate if you looked into this. Given the fact that the remedy proposition was based on a misunderstanding, it would be appropriate to strike it in its entirety, like you did with your proposed finding of fact. [87]

Thanks in advance. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. You've checkmated me. I concede. Leaving such a comment standing while the comment itself called on people to be careful when making accusations was strange-loopy of me. I've struck it. (Sorry about that. I had forgotten about that comment; thanks for pointing it out.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Solutions

I have removed this section as there is no consensus to do this and its not what we do at RFC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, that's fine. I was just trying to be helpful, as it had been asked for on the talk page and somebody there gave the impression that it's usually done. I'm not that familiar with RfC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

enabling banned users

Could you please stop enabling users that have been specifically banned from that specific talk page? He was banned for POV pushing and disruption, not to mention going purposefully against WP:V and WP:RS in order to push his own opinions, and now you are restoring his comments because they are "interesting"? No, please, don't do that. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember right now if you knew about Jed's ban, I think that you did but I'm too tired to look it up now so I'm leaving some links:

• AN thread asking for a ban
• notification of ban in talk page
• Arbcom clarificaton on the ban

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Jed Rothwell is considered banned, I was not editing on his behalf, but quoting his comment because I find it interesting and would like it to be in the talk page archives for future reference. It also provides context for the comments which follow it. I have no idea whether he cares whether his comments continue to appear on the page or not. The whole discussion was inside a collapse box. These are talk page comments, not edits to an article. I see Jed Rothwell's refraining from editing the article as an effort to avoid an appearance of COI; I believe his talk page comments are intended by him to contribute to improving the article, although I find that particular comment interesting regardless of what his motivations were for posting it. There's no requirement that anyone else find them interesting. Wikipedia is not censored.

In any case, this matter is moot, because the discussion in question has been moved by Abd to userspace, with a link to it from Talk:Cold fusion for the convenience of those who find it interesting.

I'm not convinced that Jed Rothwell is banned. I think banning users should involve at least as much process as deleting articles. AIV is like CSD, but this would be a case for AfD-like process, i.e. closure by an uninvolved admin. The arbitration request was rejected as improper process; that doesn't constitute confirmation of a ban. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Coppertwig. The AN report was not noticed to the editor, as I recall (User talk:JedRothwell has been deleted, I think maybe we should ask for that back, it could be relevant). The report was highly biased, nobody there seems to realize that the editor has a COI and is voluntarily restricting himself to Talk, has been under long-term incivility attack, etc. Those who might have had reason to realize the value of this editor's contributions were probably completely unaware of the AN report, which wasn't closed with any conclusion. (I've seen this before, discussions on noticeboards with no neutral close; considering them as conclusive is a Bad Idea, because then we have an alleged community decision with nobody responsible for it; I did, in fact, get blocked last August over questioning exactly this kind of non-decision; in the end, the decision was reversed, though after a lot of fuss, it would have been much cleaner if the admin who later took responsibility for the decision, retroactively had been more careful, but he was somewhat impaired at the time by off-wiki problems.)

A ban notification on the Talk page of an article is utterly ineffective. As I recall, there are some signs that Rothwell was unaware of that notification, and he would be expected to disregard it in any case, since the one notifying him was the same editor who had been, long-term, grossly uncivil toward him, etc. One more reason for admins who are involved to rigorously abstain from use of tools (and threat of tool usage, which is what a ban is, is by consensus covered under recusal guidelines).

And it is thoroughly amusing to see a rejected RfAr/Clarification used as proof of a ban, when there was ample expression of opinion there that the ban was done by an involved administrator, and in the vote to close and reject, at least one arbitrator was very explicit that no decision on the ban was being made.

So what we have, in fact, is a collection of opinions supporting a ban, but no ban. This was raised before by GoRight, and properly so, but I never "litigated" it because the ban is generally moot. Except here, and the problem here isn't the ban, it is the willingness of a certain faction to edit war over discussion, without seeking consensus, which is appalling. I'm not taking this to AN/I, but I certainly could, as could anyone. (Not a suggestion!). Right now, there is entirely too much disruption already, and the train is on track to bring much of this before ArbComm, so, pending ... let's work on articles and specific, productive issues. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I realized in retrospect that my edit was not as appropriate as I thought at the time I made it. Later it was replaced by a link, and I still think it's reasonable to have a link on the article page to where the discussion has been moved to in userspace, but I refrained from reverting the removal of the link in order to avoid edit warring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

request

Coppertwig, the article entitled James G. Lindsay which was written by user:Wikifan was nominated for deletion by user:Nableezy. I think it is appropriate to list this at articles of interest in relation to Project Israel and Project Palestine, but not sure how to do this. Could you help? Thanks in advance. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! I went to WP:ISRAEL, followed the links at the bottom to the Israel and Palestine-related deletion sorting lists, and followed the instructions there to add it. Happy to be able to help. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so very much. Not only did you do it, you taught me how to do it too. "Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime..." Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Not only that ... I learned how to do it at the same time!! And now I've added those deletion sorting lists to my watchlist, too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to assume good faith

Re your allegation of WP:AGF breaches [88], I couldn't figure out this line: "Given a choice between assuming that Jayjg understood that "West Bank" was being used as a short form for "Northern West Bank" and assuming good faith, MeteorMaker chooses the former [89]" Could you clarify by rephrasing it and perhaps also find a less confusing diff? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Page move war

I'm surprised that page doesn't already exist. I would assume that it does not exist for a reason. If I create it, do you believe that it would be nominated for deletion? It is currently located at User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/Wikipedia:Page move war. -- IRP ☎ 21:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know!

Do you think it should eventually be a policy, or a guideline, or an essay?

Maybe it would be better to make it a subsection of another page.

Perhaps it should have more instructions for ordinary users who might be involved in such move wars. It seems aimed only at administrators. Also, it could say something about discussing the matter with the users and persuading them to stop, etc.; and it could say something about where to ask for page protection (WP:RFPP), etc. in case non-admins are reading it.

I suggest that you put a note on the talk page stating that you invite others to edit it while it's still in your userspace, then put a notice at Wikipedia talk:Edit war telling people about it and inviting them to edit it and to discuss it on its talk page, while it's still in your userspace. That way, when (if) it's eventually moved to Wikipedia space, it may be more complete and any problems with it may have been worked out.

If you move it to Wikipedia space right away, I suggest putting an essay tag ({{essay}} on it (or perhaps a proposed policy or guideline tag {{proposed}}). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to the Wikipedia: space and posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:Edit war. -- IRP ☎ 00:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

page protection

Coppertwig, would you protect Charities accused of ties to terrorism until we can settle an issue that is causing constant edit-warring there? Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

note: an rfc is ongoing and the issue has also been take to the BLP noticeboard, with 2 uninvolved editors finding no BLP issue so far. Nableezy (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

and coppertwig is not an admin and the place to do this is WP:RFPP Nableezy (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy is right. I replied on your talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, twig. I also appreciate the comments you made at my talk page. I thought you were an admin. I am not so up on administrative things (wiki-lawyering etc) as I should be, nor do I have the time I'd like to deal with such stuff. Edit-warring is such a drag! Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Coppertwig. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page move war.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Coppertwig. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page move war.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI

Hi Coppertwig. I've mentioned you here, since one of the diffs I cited was addressed to you. Jakew (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome statements about editors

Hi Coppertwig,

On re-reading your evidence section, [90] I find that you have yet not stricken your allegation of misquoting, which has been correctly withdrawn elsewhere. Appreciate if you could fix that pronto. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Also, it appears somewhat disingenous to claim "No evidence he said that" when he did say that no less than 20 times, and the evidence has been presented in extenso three times already. Hope to see this corrected soon. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. I've changed it to "With quotation marks. No evidence he used that exact phrase." If you refactor (or have already refactored) your statements that I'm quoting, please let me know and I may change it further. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello, we haven't talked in a while. Daniel.M (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

providing summaries of Abd's comments

(sorry for not replying before) Regarding your comment here. You adding a summary below every post made by Abd would cause the total text even longer.... Other editors disagreed for several reasons in the RfC's talk page.

Looking at, for example, the comments in this section, Abd even replied to your second summary, making the total text even longer (comment + summary, +reply to summary which adds new arguments), and I found that your summary missed a few nuances of what Abd said. There is also that, when Abd acts, he will act on the basis of what he said in his post and not on the basis of your summary, so I'll have to read Abd's post anyways to search for the lost nuances.

So, no, I'm afraid that I don't find your summarizing to be helpful. It would be great if it worked, but, regretfully, the few summaries you made seemed to be adding noise to the discussion instead of reducing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig is welcome, if he thinks it appropriate, to collapse my original comment with an appropriate header. If I don't like it, I can revert it. Every summary I've seen has been accurate. Sure, the summary may miss a few nuances. However, if I wrote briefly as some seem to want, those nuances may be missed as well. It looks to me, Enric, like you are making up ways to disagree. How about working on article content, instead of tussling over Talk page content? If you miss some nuance, you won't be responsible, this is a wiki and just about anything can be fixed. I find it odd, do you object to an abstract at the beginning of an academic paper because it makes the thing longer? --Abd (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Enric, if I understand the situation, the problem is that you feel compelled to read Abd's posts in their entirety because Abd may act on the basis of those posts, but you don't like to spend the time to read them; that if Abd were to post something shorter, missing nuances, you would be satisfied to read that, but you don't want to read only a shorter summary if a longer version is also posted to the article talk page, even within a collapse box, because Abd could later claim that some detail had been discussed and could therefore be acted on. Is that an accurate description of the problem? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. There are also problems with the flow of conversation being broken by walls of text, and with the discouragement other editors that don't have my patience or time. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, re "making up ways to disagree": I understand that it's uncomfortable to be criticized and that this makes it harder to be open to understanding the position of the person criticizing. However, I think you're jumping to conclusions about Enric's motivations, and I would like to encourage you to AGF and to make an effort to understand, which may take some thoughtful discussion back and forth.

Enric: I would think the use of collapse boxes would prevent the flow of conversation from being broken; they may also help to avoid discouraging editors, who could more easily skip the longer forms of the messages.

Abd said "You have no obligation to read what I write, nobody does, unless I put it into the article" [91]. If I understand right, you think that even if one of Abd's comments has been summarized and put into a collapse box, that Abd might use the details of what's within the collapse box (but which is not represented in the summary) as a justification for doing something (editing the article?) in a way that Abd would not do if the longer version of the comment didn't appear on the talk page at all.

But Abd could edit the article even without saying anything on the talk page first.

Whether some information did or did not appear on the talk page at a particular time is not usually relevant. Content decisions should be based on discussion of what makes the best article, not on discussion of who said what when. But if Abd does make an argument that something is justified on the basis that some information had been on display inside a collapse box, you could reasonably refute that on the grounds that such information was not represented in the summary and that no one is required or expected to read the contents of the collapse boxes.

I hope that helps. If not, maybe you could elaborate on the kind of situation you're concerned might arise. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd would be reverted and forced to discuss his edits in the talk page, so that's not a problem. If his comments are not going to be either read or taken into account for editing the article, then why should he write them in the first place.

And, of course, I doubt that Abd will accept being reverted on the conditions you describe, and summarizing doesn't solve the problems of fringe pushing, endless repetitions, etc. Well, summarize what you want, but I don't think that you are doing anything other than compounding the problem. Summarizing his arguments won't work when those arguments are flawed, or when they are repeated after having been shown as flawed somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I am going to butt in here with my own concerns about Abd's postings. I like to read what the editors write but with Abd the postings are so long, then add difs to go to so one can see what is being said can be an all day journey unfortunately. I tried to catch up, for example, the RFC that was going on and by the time I got through all of the writings and popped into the different locations like arbcom and ANI, I was too late to give my outside opinions on things. There has to be a way for Abd to cut down on the amount of words used so that editors like myself can absorb the information and comment in a reasonable amount of time. I read somewhere, don't remember right now where, that it is too time consuming for Abd to write more concise comments. Well I think other editors time is just as important and since there is a big arb case going on about all of this, I think outsiders are really needed at this point. You may summarize what s/he says but of course you too can miss things that may be of importance to others. I would really love it if Abd would just take the time to write what is needed and leave off some of the cruft at times. My comments are not meant to attack Abd, so my apologies if I sound like I am. I too have medical problems, which makes me a lot slower than most editors here. Though I am slower, I do try to read all the difs and comments and try to come to my own opinions on things. When Abd is involved in an issue, I have great difficulty following in a timely manner. From what I have seen so far in this case about User:JzG, is that a lot of the editors commenting, both pro and con, are deeply involved and know the situation well. I don't and as far as I can remember never had any communication with this editor Cold fusion or User:Abd. In closing, I guess what I am asking is there a way for Abd to reduce comments for clarity and easier ability for others to read? I am trying to read up on the latest arb case and decide if I have anything of use to add to the discussion but at this point the discussions are extreme esp. with a lot of the case seeming to be old and stale. Thanks for listening, I'll butt out now, apologies again if I sound rude in anyway. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Abd can shorten his comments, but because of his particular form of ADHD it takes him a very large amount of time and effort to do so. In fact, even when his comments are long, he has often already expended a lot of effort shortening them from even longer comments. I can also shorten Abd's comments, which also takes me some time and effort but much less, and I'm usually happy to do so on request; in fact, the act of summarizing helps me to understand the material myself. I just posted summaries of two of Abd's comments at Talk:Cold fusion, putting his original comments within collapse boxes. I'm not sure whether your posting a message to me at this particular time was prompted by that, or whether the timing was coincidental. You seem to be interested primarily in the Abd and JzG arbcom case rather than Cold fusion. If you would be a little more specific about which comments of Abd's you're having trouble understanding (e.g. his comments on which page? Project page or talk page?), or which ones it would be most useful to summarize or explain, I can probably summarize them for you. You don't necessarily have to specify a particular list of comments. Also feel free to ask me questions.

Here's a general summary of the Abd–JzG arbcom case and events leading up to it, as I see it; I may be leaving out whole areas, as I haven't read everything in the case yet, and this summary is from my perspective as an involved editor, though I've tried to include descriptions of other views.

Abd was concerned that JzG might be using admin tools in issues related to content disputes in which JzG was involved. Abd decided to investigate the Cold fusion article as an example of JzG's possible use of tools while involved, which was how Abd got interested in cold fusion. Abd started an RfC about whether JzG was using tools while involved. On the RfC, some users endorsed statements that JzG was using tools while involved; larger numbers (about double or more) of users endorsed statements generally supportive of JzG and suggesting that in such situations JzG "palm it off onto another admin" for appearances ("while I agree generally with Fritpoll's advice to Guy on how to avoid future complaints of thus type"). Statements endorsed by a large number of users also criticized Abd's behaviour as wasteful drama, that Abd shouldn't be repeatedly criticizing JzG's behaviour by doing things like starting the RfC.

Jehochman then started the arbitration case as being about two things (as I understand it): JzG's possible use of tools while involved, and Abd's behaviour.

Abd alleges that JzG was involved in editing the cold fusion article, pushing an anti-fringe POV; and carried out a number of admin actions related to the topic.

JzG alleges that his actions were supported by consensus, but admitted that he is "maybe ... not the best person" [92] to carry out those actions.

Abd is criticized for writing comments that are too long, and for raising the same issues multiple times. Abd says he's following normal procedures for escalating dispute resolution.

One of the issues is blacklisting. JzG used his admin tools to add newenergytimes and lenr-canr.org to the blacklist; that's one of the actions Abd alleges to be a use of tools while involved (and I agree). This then gets into the broader issue of how the blacklisting is to be used: what is the definition of linkspamming? Can blacklisting be used to block good-faith edits by established editors because some people believe such edits violate content policies? I think it's important that content policies be enforced by consensus among multiple editors, not by decisions taken by a more limited group such as administrators, and that the blacklist should be used only to handle linkspamming and only when necesssary. Blacklisting, like blocking and page-protecting, is in my opinion to be avoided as a limitation on free wiki-editing, and judgement is needed as to which remedy is needed in a particular case and whether any remedy beyond just reverting is needed

Well, I hope that doesn't just add to the mass of material for you to read! Let me know if I can help further. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gone to the Cold fusion article, at least not yet. I have been to the arbitration and the third RFC. My problem is that I would like to see difs that are recent (within the past month, maybe two months) instead of the laundry list that goes back to last year. (Also JzG has recused himself from any administrator actions which is important I think). I see others showing difs that most of Abd's difs have already been handled in one way or another. To me, this is starting to look more like revenge or something. Now I don't know the history between these two editors but it seems very obvious that there is a lot of history going on. I also read a lot of this as if an apology or something to that affect is being asked for and not being given. I too don't think administrators should abuse there tools but what I am reading is at least back when this all first started, JzG was acting as an uninvolved administrator trying to help clear out problems. Now I don't know if this is true or not since I have a lot more reading to do. I have seen other editors request Abd not to post items that were originally posted by banned editors saying he takes responsibility for the edits. I'm sorry but I don't think this is right. Banned editors are banned, so others shouldn't be taken up their cause and this is what I feel might be happening. I will continue to read what is going on and if I can make any suggestions I will, if not I will just watch and see what happens. I just wish that this drama fest would end already since it's taking time away from some really good editors (not talking about myself :) ) Thanks for your explanation above though. If you are going to check things out then I might suggest you look at the history of difs on the editors who have commented at the cases,the RFC's and WP:FTN (it's also been on ANI, AE just to name a couple of places these discussions have gone to.) to see some of the comments that have been made in the past month or two. A lot of what I am aware of is from postings across multiple boards and editors talk pages prior to the case being submitted. I am trying to keep an open mind about everything and assume good faith. I would like to add so that I am open about things, is that I used to watch Abd's talk page when he had problems at ANI and did a controlled RFC on himself on his talk page. I am uninvolved and probably don't know a lot of the history going on which is making it a little more difficult to analyze things. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) PS: I do have your on my watchlist. ;)

Re "Also JzG has recused himself from any administrator actions which is important I think": I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'd like to see a diff.

Re "To me, this is starting to look more like revenge or something": To me, absolutely not. I see no sign that Abd has anything but consensus, NPOV and the best interests of the project at heart. Abd has repeatedly made clear that he prefers that JzG not lose his admin bit. A win-win solution is the best outcome. Abd delayed on starting the RfC in order to give JzG a chance to change course.

Some of the admin actions have not been "handled", as far as I know: neither reversed, nor supported by consensus arrived at in a community discussion. The most recent example of use of tools while involved that I'm aware of is the blocking of the IP editor who participated in the RfC.

Just because you would make different choices than Abd doesn't mean it's "revenge". Abd is concerned about admin recusal, and considers it sufficiently important to continue to follow dispute resolution under the current circumstances. If an admin refrains from miusing admin tools during the course of an RfC and arbitration case, is that enough to begin trusting them again? Opinions can differ on that. Part of it might depend on how much effort it would be to monitor the admin's actions after the processes close, and who would be available to do that work. It seems reasonable to me to require the person to state that they understand that their actions violated policy and that they won't do it again. An apology as such is not being asked for.

I may not have time to read a lot of discussions, but if you give me links to some of the discussions you're mentioning I might look at some of them. Don't feel you have to; I hardly have time to read the arbitration case itself. I'm not sure what you mean by the history of diffs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If a banned editor posts something, it can be reverted; but if another editor takes responsibility for the material and re-posts it, because they have reason to believe it's good material and not because the banned editor wants it posted, then that edit is acceptable. This is standard practice. For example: ScienceApologist is working on a draft article at Wikisource. It's destined for Wikipedia; Wikisource is letting him use userspace there for the draft. Although ScienceApologist is currently banned from English Wikipedia, when the article is ready, there's no reason that any editor can't just copy it to Wikipedia, provided they have reason to believe that it's good material. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[93] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval, if I understand the above discussion properly, and this diff, what mainly concerns you about Abd's comments is that Abd repeats arguments that you believe have already been refuted. However, in the diff I just gave, you are also repeating arguments. Disagreement can continue. People are not necessarily convinced when they read arguments. Maybe we can explore where exactly the disagreement originates: what is it about the arguments that some people find unconvincing. It might help to start an Archive guide and/or FAQ as I'm doing for the Circumcision article (Talk:Circumcision/Archive guide (guide to the talk page archives) and Talk:Circumcision/FAQ (beginnings of a FAQ. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Purposes in participating in Judea – Samaria arbitration case

I'm participating in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria for the purpose of trying to help achieve the following goals.

• Clear up misunderstandings; establish clear communication.
• Find ways to solve any outstanding problems in order to avoid the need for sanctions that would impede anyone from editing (although, sanctions if necessary).
• Reach consensus on content disputes that all participants are willing to accept
• Participants to understand each others' point of view (whether or not they agree with it) and to feel that the other participants understand their point of view.
• Participants to respect each other, and to feel that they are respected
• Participants to modify their behaviour so as to avoid irritating other participants

I also explain my role here and here.

As part of this effort, I've proposed draft guidelines for placename usage, which are under discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'll probably be on wikibreak until Thursday or Friday (which will be May 1). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for your sweet note Coppertwig, I'll do my best not to wake your family.--G-Dett (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw you should know that I'm a BIG fan of Rube Goldberg.--G-Dett (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I love those types of things.

There used to be a thingy in Mainz. It had about 5 or 7 big wheels, each attached on an axle that was somewhat off-centre. Each wheel was a different size, and each one was attached to the next larger one. Now and then, a motor would lift the largest wheel and then let it go. All the wheels would then spin around chaotically, eventually settling down to slower rocking movements. I loved to just watch it. Many years later when I was planning to go to Mainz again, I emailed the city to ask where the thingy was; I couldn't remember how to find it. But I got an email saying that it had been "built down" and that if I had any more questions I could contact the "Department of Monumental Affairs". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence in Abd-JzG arbitration case

I noted your statement that you intend to present evidence later in the Abd-JzG arbitration case. I think an arbitrator plans to draft a decision in that case fairly soon, so could you advise when you expect to post your evidence? Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, in light of which, I will probably post evidence today. I was waiting to see if JzG would reply to my message on his talk page, but he hasn't been editing. I'll be on wikibreak Monday to Thursday, so if I don't find time to post it today, it will likely be Thursday or Friday. I don't expect you to necessarily wait for me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Coppertwig's Day!

Coppertwig has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Coppertwig's Day! For being one of our kindest and most sensible editors, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Coppertwig! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

May 1 was your day, I was away. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 13:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Very nice of you! When's Newyorkbrad's day going to be? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not for many months – I'm saving the extremely obvious ones for last. :) --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! That's great! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this edit, correcting a longstanding WP:NPOV violation in circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad you consider it to correct a violation. I'm sorry I didn't do it a long time ago. Thanks also to Jakew, for saying the proposed changes looked reasonable. [94] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on University of Maine "flagship university"

Hi Coppertwig! Thought you might like to know Sarek has started an RfC about "flagship university" on Talk:University of Maine. And the article on "flagship universities" on which you posted so much good material on the subject appears to have disappeared, possibly merged with something else. Nobody can find your stuff (at least I can't). Gets rerouted to "flagship.". Do you suppose that's a coincidence? Thanks for elevating the discussion somewhat. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The page Talk:Flagship university seems to be there now, anyway. If I have time I might put messages on the various university pages that mention "flagship" to invite people to participate in the discussion. Ideally discussion should be in one place. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My comments were general in nature, not specific or directed to any editor, and were consistent with comments on the same page by the former Chancellor of the University of California. Yet, so far, I don't see that reason has entered much into the flagship discussion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Flagship university has been redirected to another page, but the talk page is still there. General comments may often be more acceptable than comments directed at a specific individual, but the important thing is how people are likely to feel when they read the comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Coppertwig/Archive 9's Day!

User:Coppertwig/Archive 9 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Coppertwig/Archive 9's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Coppertwig/Archive 9! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A fine choice, Rlevse. :) --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject User Rehab

Thank You For Joining

National Mentoring Month Logo

This user is a participant of the WikiProject User Rehab

Feel free to place this anywhere on your user page. To edit this box for improvement, Click here

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Hi, have noticed you've taken a very active interest in SA's featured drive for the optics article. As you're probably aware, I've been mentoring SA throughout this period. That includes planning and coordinating work, most of which necessarily occurs offsite due to SA's editing status. It's appeared for some time now that you've been attempting to move forward the same things we've already been on top of. Your enthusiasm is flattering. In order to get things happening smoothly, please touch bases about your questions and concerns. Durova^Charge! 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Coppertwig, please stop wasting my time. I think it's great that you and Abd are member's of each other's fan clubs and that you both agree on so many unexpected things. However, please do not post anything like this on my talk page again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have taken up your time. If I'd guessed you felt that way I wouldn't have bothered you. The section I wrote on Abd's userspace essay was inspired by (or is, in a sense, a reply to) a comment of yours, which has been copied to the talk page of the essay. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that you and Abd form a sort of tag-team. You yourself actually seem to have a fairly extreme point of view. At the same time you are very, very polite. However what you placed on my talk page could be regarded as highly manipulative baiting. Can you possibly understand that? You know how to be ultra-polite as far as civil POV-pushing is concerned and are doing your best to make sure Abd is strictly observing the rules of civil POV-pushing. I have no idea why you have now chosen to attach yourself to his ludicrous essay. I regard the content of this essay as paranoid and completely irrational. Instead of irritating other wikipedians (I hope this was not your intent), why not spend more time adding uncontentious and uncontroversial encyclopedic content to mainstream articles in wikipedia. Is that really so hard? ☺ Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I realized after I got your response that my invitations (which I gave to several users) could be seen in a negative light. I would have acted differently if I'd realized that earlier. I'm not sure whether I understand what you mean by manipulative in this context: maybe it has something to do with the fact that the essay is in Abd's userspace and therefore to some extent under his control? I was hoping to open up discussion, in an attempt to improve peoples' understanding of each others' positions. Perhaps unintentionally I achieved the opposite. I'm sorry.

What do I seem to you to have an extreme point of view about?

The articles need not only uncontentious and uncontroversial material, but also controversial material presented in a neutral and balanced manner according to NPOV policy: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

It would be interesting to hear about what you disagree with in the essay and why. The reason I added to the essay was that your comment got me thinking, and I thought up the section of the essay which I think explores some deep and longstanding rifts in the community, and which I hope can be a stepping-stone towards healing those rifts.

When people one agrees with agree with each other, it's easy to call that "consensus"; and when people one disagrees with agree with each other, it's easy to call that a "tag team". If there are any specific aspects of my behaviour, other than sometimes agreeing with Abd, that you find problematic, please specify what they are. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour on the talk page of cold fusion is far more troubling than that. You do seem to have formed a tag-team with Abd. The fact that Abd is in correspondence with a banned user (JedRothwell, whom Abd describes as prickly but almost always right) and Steven B. Krivit is extremely serious. It suggests that both you and he have a conflict of interest. As a professional research scientist myself I know that books published by both OUP and World Scientific are of variable quality, particularly those from WS. Your insistence on backing up Abd almost everywhere on WP and in particular about these sources is exceedingly problematic. If it continues to go on like this, it might be necessary to prepare a more formal report. I have no idea why you are both trying to push cold fusion as an "emerging science". The game of using Abd's mindless essay as yet another tool, Abd's off-wiki machinations and his flooding of the article's talk page - all these are an abuse of this encyclopedia. There is no point in trying to include speculative and unestablished science in an encyclopedia. Alarm bells should have have rung when the OUP review, edited by a journalist rather than a research scientist, is now being discussed at length. Abd has an openly hostile attitude to criticism of his editing methods and suggestions. He has made personal attacks on Verbal, which you have tried to moderate. I have no idea why you are so intent on passing off fringe POV-pushing/advocacy as neutral editing. Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you continue stirring the pot with references to me like this [95], a formal complaint will be made: I had no involvement at all in Abd's revert war. Neither you nor Abd should spend your time disparaging other editors in this way. You seem to be determined to create a bad atmosphere. Your shenanigans are not in the slightest bit helpful. What counts against you and your friend Abd are your very poor namespace editing records. You seem now to be attempting to disrupt the encyclopedia. Remember, Coppertwig, it's you that seems to be fringe POV-pushing/advocating cold fusion, in particular the point of view of Rothwell and Krivit. Steven B. Krivit's journal New Energy Times records interactions between this journalist and the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson which could never be published in a reputable non-fringe journal. I think he also referred to Bob Park there as not being a scientist, although he seems to pay a huge amount of attention to Park's What's new column and any positive spin that can be put on comments there on cold fusion. I have made it clear that I do not intend ever to edit Cold fusion; I have corrected biographical details about Martin Fleischmann with sources, just because he happened to have been a family friend in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Mathsci (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I had no idea you wouldn't have wanted to be quoted like that. I often use diffs of comments by Wikipedians for various purposes and rarely either ask the person's permission before quoting or even inform them that I've quoted them. The purpose of my quote was not in any way to disparage you, but only to explain why I was humourously referring to myself as a member of Abd's "fan club": more of a disparagement of myself, I think. I don't see how you see it as disparaging, but I've deleted it from my comment. I might reply further to your above comments later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted an apology here. I don't know what you think I have an extreme point of view about. I'm not calling cold fusion an "emerging" science: that would seem to me to be predicting the future, which we don't do on Wikipedia. Since you bring up the idea of "emerging science", which I don't think I had discussed, here's my opinion: if a reliable source states that it's an emerging science, perhaps we can (per WP:ASF, report facts about opinions) say that this source has stated that it's an emerging science, (if that's a notable statement, and also balance that with opposing views) but I don't think we could state as a fact in the article that it's an emerging science. Predictions about the future can't be verifiable. I disagree with you about not including speculative and unestablished science: if it's notable, I think it should be included, just as we also include notable information about fictional topics, religion etc. We report not only facts, but also facts about opinions. With something like cold fusion, we have something about which there is no universal agreement as to the explanation: reports of excess heat, and there are various opinions, for example that it may be caused by experimental error. We report all significant POVs about that. At articles like Flat earth even tiny-minority POVs are described.

Use of essays to explore opinions about how Wikipedia works is totally normal. If you disagree with anything in the essay (User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing) you're welcome to discuss it. I don't think I have any conflict of interest with regard to the cold fusion article, and I'm not aware of any behaviour of mine that fits the definition of tag-teaming.

I don't know what the "OUP review" is.

Thanks for the reminder about mainspace edits. I'm trying to increase them, and will do so more in future. However, I'm planning to go on wikibreak for a few weeks shortly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: invitation

Hi Coppertwig,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I think the text is pretty good, and am unsure how I could improve it further. My only concern is that the text seems to assert a contrast between the views of some WPians and the views of "balanced WPians", which could be perceived as offensive to some. Maybe "a moderate approach" would be a better choice of words. Hope this helps. Jakew (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've just nominated an article you've worked on, Make It to the Sun for deletion.Borock (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys RFC/U

I just opened an RFC/U on Mervyn Emrys here. I thought you might have a significantly different perspective on the situation than me, since you've agreed with him more than I have... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

Greetings! You recently expressed concerns over certain statements regarding consensus at User talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion. I have since responded to your most recent statement. Would you mind having another look? While the nature and necessity of the mediation may dramatically change due to the recent unprotecting of the article and the topic banning of Hipocrite and Abd, I would like to, at the very least, make sure all of the involved editors are satisfied in case the mediation is continued (either now or at a later date). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your message. I saw the change you made, and appreciate the thought you put into that decision. I continue to be interested in participating. Thanks for the work you're doing on this, Cryptic C62. All the best. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FV

Your recent edit may have failed verification. You wrote. Some chiropractors are opposed to vaccination, one of the most cost-effective forms of prevention against infectious disease. This is not the same ref from the main chiropractic page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the ref says. "The chiropractic profession has crusaded against one of the most effective public health measures of all time¬vaccination¬and many of its members publicly scoff at the germ theory of disease. Even today some chiropractors are openly opposed to vaccination. Some practice "muscle testing"¬for example, manually, subjectively appraising the muscle strength of a patient with a vitamin pill in his or her hand as a means of diagnosing nutritional deficiencies." QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you changed it in the lead from sound to solid. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the wording at the chiropractic article. I don't think it's verifiable that it's not based on sound science; only verifiable that a researcher has stated that it's not based on sound science. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the ref again that is being used. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Although not problem free is not in the main page. See Chiropractic#Public health. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ernst (2008) says "The core concepts of chiropractic, subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science." and "None of these theories are, however, supported by sound evidence." However, those are Ernst's opinion; they are not Wikipedia's opinion. Wikipedia doesn't state opinions. Look at the Circumcision page: it's full of statements like "The American Medical Association state that circumcision, properly performed, protects against the development of phimosis". It attributes statements to the sources. It doesn't just say "Circumcision, properly performed, protects against the development of phimosis", because "properly" implies an opinion, and whether it protects against the condition is more difficult to verify than whether the American Medical Association has stated that it protects against the condition.

Maybe "not problem free" should be at the main page too; but anyway I thought this page was to be longer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Links for convenience: this discussion is about Chiropractic controversy and criticism and also mentions Chiropractic. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to add simon says quotes all over the article. This was discussed extensively at the main page.

That would be a violation of WEIGHT to add the minority opinion about not problem free. Generally considered is weasel wording. You seem to like adding unnecessary attribution and weasel wording. This degraded the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the ref we can use the word sound. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You failed to add simon says quotes at the main article and now you are trying to add them to another similar article. I hope you now realize what you are doing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a minority opinion. The source says that most health authorities agree on it. Why do you say it's a minority opinion? The solution to weasel wording is to attribute things to particular sources ... not to have Wikipedia assert opinions or unverified statements as if they're facts. Prose attributions are not unnecessary; they're necessary for encyclopedic accuracy.

The source does not say "Wikipedia can use the word 'sound'". It expresses an opinion, and we can report that that source expresses that opinion.

What I'm doing: I'm suggesting wording on the talk page. I've also suggested it at Chiropractic. I see nothing wrong with that. Prose attribution has been added to some sentences of the Chiropractic article at my suggestion, has been supported by other editors and has stayed there longterm.

Your opposition to prose attribution doesn't seem to me to be based on policy or guideline.

If essentially the same wording has been proposed previously, then I apologize for accusing you of ignoring previous discussions, then doing so myself. If you wish you may help me out by giving me a link to the previous discussion. Searching the archives isn't that easy. There's a discussion here where two editors say that we should attribute that as an opinion; maybe I'm missing it but I don't see arguments against that particular point in that discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The solution to weasel wording is to avoid unnecessary attribution. It is a minor opinion when "The chiropractic profession has crusaded against one of the most effective public health measures of all time¬vaccination¬and many of its members publicly scoff at the germ theory of disease." Adding weasel wording or unnecessary attribution is absurd in my opinion. There was extensive discussion about simon says quotes and it was rejected. Now you may try it on another page but I disagree with weasel words and simon says nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a quote from another source? One solution would be to compare more than one source to find out how much weight to give the bit about "problems". Can you give me a link to that source?

We disagree about how best to handle weasel word situations, and we disagree about what weasel words are. WP:WEASEL says "either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". This supports my contention that when there is a footnote, then they aren't weasel words. Weasel words are unattributed statements like "It is widely believed that..."; but when there's a footnote, along with a statement like "It has been reported that...", then it is attributed, so it's not a weasel word. You consider some things to be weasel words even when there is a footnote with an attribution to a source. It also says "Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact ..." This supports my contention that simply removing weasel words makes things worse. You generally support taking statements from sources and repeating them as if Wikipedia agrees with those statements. While I sometimes see that as appropriate, at other times I see the statements as expressions of opinion or as coming from particular POVs. Wikipedia doesn't endorse particular POVs by asserting things as if they're fact, unless they're solidly verifiable fact. The mere fact that a source states something doesn't necessarily make it a fact. I see no policy or guideline that recommends against the use of prose attribution. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though the article runs afoul of WP:NPOV quite systemically. Consider this line from NPOV: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. and Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides. Unomi (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Unomi. Which article are you talking about? Do you think it's taking a side, and if so, which side? Could you quote parts that you consider to be quotes from a heated dispute? In other words, could you please elaborate so that I can understand what point you're trying to make? I'm interested: I just really don't follow what you're trying to say. Sorry. Wait: let me guess. Are you talking about the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article, and do you think it takes an anti-chiropractic POV? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism, and while I hesitate to say that it takes sides, it has passages that stray from encyclopedic phrasing. This is also somewhat compounded by the fact that many items seem to be summarized twice. I have made a few edits which start to address the issues as I see them. Unomi (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The page is a stub. The way to handle weasel words is to inform the editor to not add weasel words. This stub is similar to Aspartame controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The ref says 62% dentists but it was changed to something irrelevant to the health care profession. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatrists are health care professionals, please refer to the primary source and count the number of 'health care professions', its either psychiatry or HMO managers ;) Unomi (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig is commenting on vaccination and now this happened. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(<<outdent) QuackGuru, do you understand that my position is that if there's a footnote with a source, then it isn't weasel words? Do you think it's still weasel words even when there's a source in a footnote? If so, why do you think that? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which ref are you discussing. Here is a Ehreth 2003 (PMID 12531324) ref on vaccination. I understand the mainstream view. Are you trying to stir things up at the article. I understand editors were pretending there was original research in chiropractic. It was my position that all the editors who were pretending should of been indef-blocked until they admitted they were pretending and explain why they did it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

After Coppertwig commented about vaccination, the refs in the section don't seem to be in the right place. The long quote does not have an encyclopedic feel. We should strive to write our own sentences and not write articles with a bunch of quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, for the next couple of days would you please post your comments about article content on the article talk pages, so that I can choose to participate in the discussion or not depending on time available. You're still welcome to post messages here about my behaviour or other relevant issues. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't see the comments by Coppertwig to be honest. Yes, I commented out the line that the ref was attached to, but couldn't comment out the ref itself without moving the ref definition around, I figured you probably wanted to retain the ref so simply moved it a bit. BTW this source contains a graphic which shows that psychiatrists are included in the 7 health care professions. I am watching the articles talk page now for further discussion. Unomi (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that some of my comments were dishonest, Unomi? Would you please give diff links to the comments of mine that you think were dishonest, and explain why you think they were dishonest? There may be a misunderstanding. "Dishonest" is not the same thing as merely "disagreeing". Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he means any impropriety on your part, there is merely a comma missing: "I didn't see the comments by Coppertwig, to be honest". In other words "I missed them for some reason". Verbal chat

Thank you, Verbal. Hi Coppertwig, I did not intend to imply that you were dishonest. It was, as Verbal correctly surmised, one of my many grammatical oversights. :) ,,, Unomi (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to QuackGuru: no, I was not trying to stir things up; on the contrary, when I posted last to Talk:Chiropractic I was hoping it wouldn't lead to a big discussion, which I don't have time for anyway. Re editors who invoked WP:SYN: please assume good faith and try to arrive at consensus rather than just trying to get those you disagree with indef-blocked. I really don't think they were "pretending": why would they? They were expressing reasonable opinions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no evidence of original research presented. Editors claimed OR but it was not based on Wikipedia policy. It is a known that spinal manipulation is strongly assocuiated with chiropractic. When SP is direct related to chiropractic it was not OR. They were expressing what is called wikilawyering. They were pretending in order to say no consensus to get the material out of the article. There could of been some trolls too. There never was a neutral chiropractor editing the chiropractic article. Almost all of them were intentially dishonest too. I don't assume blind faith. Part of the problem were admins who should of also been blocked for allowing the lawyers and there enablers too continue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unomi: Oh, I see. I thought maybe I was misreading it; that interpretation didn't occur to me but now it looks obvious. Thanks for straightening that out, Verbal. :-) QuackGuru: my talk page is not an appropriate place to make accusations against editors other than myself. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If there were any editors who thought there was OR they should of also been blocked or banned for not understanding policy. If an editor is clueless that is there problem not mine. We are grown ups here. We are not here to coddle editors. When SM is the primary technique by chiropractors reported in secondary sources and in the media it could not possibly be OR. Any editor who was claiming there was OR when it is extremely clear it was not needs to understand that Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to waste the time of other editors. What you added was not about back pain. Where did you get the idea to add this. Not some researchers but some editors were contending SM research was not the same as chiropractic SM research. Your proposal was never a compromise. Your proposal would of deleted almost all the sources in effectiveness and safetey sections. You alleged "Accepting this compromise will require some concessions from both sides of the dispute. I urge editors to seriously consider it". You also alleged "An essential element of this compromise is that information can be provided from general spinal manipulation studies which don't mention chiropractic, but only if such studies have been cited by other reliable sources as sources of conclusions about chiropractic". Your suggestion is not part of Original research. You were making up your own policy. There would not of been "concessions from both sides". The purpose of the page was to identify the problems editors who continued to claim OR. As long as the reference is strongly associated with chiropractic it passes OR to include in the chiropractic page. I don't have to provide studies that have been cited by other reliable sources as sources of conclusions about chiropractic. That would go way beyond OR. See WP:OR. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. General SM is directly related to chiropractic and the sources directly support the information presented. Yo wrote in your edit summary Is there consensus for merging the other way? when there was no such consensus but you tried to steer the discussion that way. Why would you allege consensus the other way when the evidence shows consensus to merge into the chiropractic education page. I know why Levine2112 wrote merge chiropractic education into doctor of chiropractic. Levine2112 discussed merging it the other way as a delay tactic to prevent the merge. You alleged your "own position on the merge is neutral" but when you read your edit summary stating Is there consensus for merging the other way? your position was steering the discussion to merge the other way which is not a neutral position but making a statement to support a merge the other way supporting Levine2112's position. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

question about parsing in a template

Coppertwig, I notice you are a member of this category. I was wondering if you could answer a question for me about something I'm trying to do with a template? rainman made a mod to the search function that allows multiple prefixes with one search. This allows searching of differently named parts of wikipedia in one search. I set up a little searchbox here to allow a search of "Votes for deletion", "Articles for deletion", and "Miscellany for deletion". In looking around, I realize there are more sections to do with deletion of articles, and I would like to set up a search somewhere to search all areas related to deletion. However, in the template, I would like to add an option to list the prefixes. The prefix parameter is specified like this: prefix=section01|section02|section03|section04 and so on. For instance, in this search, the prefix is specified like this: prefix=Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|WP:Miscellany for deletion. How do I parse this into the separate sections so that I can list them? is there an easy way to do this without having to treat it as a string and delimit on "|"? I was looking at the help:array writeups, and the examples they point to no longer exist. It also seems to talk more about setting up an array with a number for each possible value and doing substitution picking up only one value in that array depending on an input value. I just want to split up the prefix sections so that I can list them in the search box in addition to setting up the search. I thought it would be better to display what sections are being searched. I was trying to do something like this: x=1; A: If prefix(x) does not exist, exit, else list prefix(x), x=x+1, go to A. Or something along those lines. But, I can't figure out how to do it in a wiki template, at least with the documentation I've found. There doesn't seem to be a way to have an array as one input parameter (that I've been able to find)- i.e., a way to define prefix parameter as an array - . Do you have any suggestions? I would very much appreciate any help you could give me. Or perhaps you could just point me to an example where it is done, then I can figure it out. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 09:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

you can try the search here:

Search all the Deletion archives

I have it set up right now just to search the deletion archives. Try searching for "Courtland County" or a user's name (that brings up a lot of different sections)--stmrlbs|talk 09:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy, but will try to find time to look into this today or tomorrow. Not sure if I'll know how! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Whenever you have time. --stmrlbs|talk 05:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I sort-of understand your question. I'm not sure if I can help. I tried your search box, and it does list the prefixes: searching for Obama, it says "Results 1 - 20 of 378 for Obama prefix:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|WP:Miscellany for deletion". I suppose that's part of the built-in search feature. Where do you want to list the prefixes?

Last I was aware little or no parsing of strings in available parser functions. I found some ways to parse strings at one point, but I'm not sure if I remember where they are, and they were clunky and limited. You could use a trick to take substrings from the end but not from the beginning of a string, or something. Oh, here it is: Template:Str sub; maybe it's advanced since then. (Have they installed an extension to allow parsing of strings yet?)

I'm surprised you're able to pass in a string containing pipe characters. Why isn't it caught by the thing that parses the arguments to the template? If you did parse it as a string using the pipe characters as delimiters, how would you do that? (Maybe you know some things I don't.)

Anyway: I may or may not be able to figure out a way to do what you want, but I would need a bit of a clearer explanation of what result you're trying to achieve. Oh, wait: you mean you want to list the prefixes in the display before the person types in the search terms? And you don't want to list them with pipe characters, but in some nicer-looking format? Is that it? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you got it. And, in the meantime, I was thinking that eventually, it would be nice if the prefixes were displayed with checkboxes, so a person could pick which areas to search. But.. right now, I would just like to display what the template is searching - which would be variable, depending on what areas the person setting up the template specified.

As far as having a pipe in the string... have you noticed that prefix seems to be a positional parameter? That prefix: has to be last to work? This was not in the documentation - but after you bust a few times, you figure it out. I added this to the Search documentation [96] I think the software uses this positioning of prefix to allow pipes because it knows there are no other parameters following. There also is the requirement that the name is in the article form, not the URL form. That is something I had to change in the Search Archives template to get it to work. I will ask rainman why it was done this way. In the meantime, I will look at Template:Str sub and this, Category:String_manipulation_templates --stmrlbs|talk 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, here I've listed the prefixes being searched for (by typing them in separately). Is that the sort of thing you want to do? Do you need to be able to do it as a variable, and if so, why? (I may be leaving in less than an hour and perhaps back on Wednesday.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I see that this is a busy time for you. So, if you don't have time for this, no problem. But, I will go ahead and try to explain what I was trying to do. I would like to create the template so that a person can set up a search of as many separate areas as needed - the areas of their choosing. I did this in the template I have on my user space for discussions on a article up for deletion (which is how this whole thing came about). Right now, this template is fine to search the deletion discussions. But I would like to set up a template anyone can use to set up a search of areas they want to search for whatever reasons - and have the template display those areas as part of the search box. That's it in a nutshell. --stmrlbs|talk 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand what you're trying to do. I think that isn't really about parserfunctions as such but "inputbox" which I guess is one of those thingies that look like html tags but aren't because they're processed by the Mediawiki preprocessor (or something). I don't really know that much about those sorts of things, or what order things are processed in. Just as a guess, I'm wondering whether slathering lots of "subst:"s all over the place might help (as is done on my signature page User:Coppertwig/Signature) but maybe they're involved in the wrong stage of the processing to be any help. Also, you might have to limit it to a finite number of arguments and list them all, e.g. "{{{arg1}}}|{{{arg2}}}|..." in which case it would only work for a number of arguments up to as many as you typed in before you got tired. Some things have to be done that way. I'm sorry I haven't been of more help! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig.  :) --stmrlbs|talk 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know if this would have any chance of working, but I was thinking of putting the opening inputbox tag in one template, and the closing one in another template, and subst-ing them both into a third template, with stuff in between like {{{1}}}|{{{2}}}... to form the prefix information and also the other information you want to form. And possibly using one final "subst" when actually using the whole template. If I knew more about the order in which things are processed, I might be able to guess whether that would work. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Hi, Have you got any ideas about what to do about this terminology after the lack of interest in my first attempt? Apart from the row on terminology at Talk:Israel, there has also been one at Golan Heights with, to my mind, a ridiculous conclusion with the term "dusputed" used only by the right wing of Zionism being placed on one used by the vast preponderance of reliable sources. (I think I'll also ask the ARB who has been keeping an eye on the other discussion.)--Peter cohen (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I already made a suggestion. Also, I suggest putting notices on some article talk pages. I've been busy, sorry. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagships

Good plan. Please keep me posted. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At least two of them were reverted. When I have time, I'll ask them whether it's objective and verifiable and if so what it means. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Any movement? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't done anything yet. I might or might not in the next couple of days. Coppertwig 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

If you think Scibaby has been unjustly banned,[97] you are of course welcome to take up his case. The admin noticeboard is probably the best place to do so (rather than WP:ANI, as doesn't seem to be an emergency). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Scibaby. I was speaking about bans in general. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. For non-urgent matters WP:AN tends to be a bit less of a noisefest than WP:ANI (it could hardly be more of a noisefest). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So I've heard; though it's also been said that there's not much difference between the two. Thanks for your suggestion, anyway. All the best! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence in Abd-WMC

Thank you for your evidence in the Abd-William M. Connolley case. As I read through it, I was unsure whether in some instances you were referring to "bans" (meaning sitebans from the whole of Wikipedia), as opposed to "topic bans." If you could look your comments over with that in mind, it might be helpful. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you

on Avi's assumptions of bad faith? Do you care? Apparently not. Blackworm (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Blackworm. Please note that I've been editing Wikipedia much less often these days than I did previously, (due to RL), and spending much less time here; even before, I couldn't do everything. I've put a message on Avi's talk page. I try to respond in some way to certain types of comments whenever I notice them, but an exception is if someone else has already commented on them, then I often don't. In this case I did. I could have decided not to, because you had already commented in response to the comments themselves, and especially because you had commented here. I prefer to notice things like that myself. If they're pointed out to me I might just reply on my talk page or something. Things that might appear to you to be ABF might not necessarily appear that way to me, or might not be obvious to me and I might miss them. I do care.

I appreciate the way you acknowledge your own POV here. I try to remember to say things like "this phrase appears to me to be neutral" rather than "this phrase is neutral", to acknowledge that I have a particular POV, not a magical ability to recognize neutrality. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

COIN thread re Circumcision

To save space at the COIN noticeboard, I'm putting some replies here to comments at WP:COIN#Circumcision.

• Blackworm said "An attempt to calm an edit war" -- how hilarious" [98] It's not clear whether this means you don't believe that it was an attempt to calm an edit war, or that it was ineffective as such.
• Blackworm said in the same diff, "("psychological is medical!" (paraphr.)) " Thank you, Blackworm, for complying with my request to label paraphrases as such; I appreciate it.
• Avi said, "Now the claim is I *am* Jake?"[99] I don't see anything that looks to me like such a claim in Blackworm's post; I think he just means that you and Jake always agree with each other.
• Blackworm said, "Please strike or refactor your statement that I claim you to be Jakew, as it is unfounded." [100] That wasn't a statement: it was followed by a question mark, so clearly it was a question and doesn't need to be struck; thank you for answering the question.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm and Gary, in reply to comments of yours at the COIN thread: I'm sorry if I misrepresented or mischaracterized anything. Please quote what I said which you think misrepresents or mischaracterizes something, and explain why you think so. I may want to refactor. Gary, I think it might be a misunderstanding: I don't remember saying that you were in a content dispute. I gave a link to a comment by Tremello; maybe you thought I was referring to a comment by you. In any case, I'm under the impression that there's a general, long-term content dispute about the circumcision page in general; that's what I was thinking of. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, re [101]: I never intended to attack you nor to aid any attack against you. I'm sorry if some of my actions have been perceived by you as attacks. My intention was to ask you to change your behaviour so that others would not be subjected (unnecessarily or unduly) to unwelcome comments or implications about themselves. My goal is to have nobody attacking each other. I'm truly sorry for any discomfort my edits may cause you.

Re putting "Note" in bold: it would waste time if everyone were to compete with each other to preface their comments with "Note! Read this first!" etc. Similarly, it would be pointless if everyone competed to put "Very very strong support/oppose" in discussions. However, that's not happening. What actually happens is that relatively rarely, someone writes "strong support" or "Note:" etc. My intention is to indicate that I consider that comment of mine to be much more important than other comments of mine, and I hereby^{(00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC))} invite people to slightly downgrade the attention they pay to other comments of mine to compensate. I considered it important because it was pointing out what I consider to be an inaccuracy in someone else's comment. What I sometimes do in such cases is put my comment immediately after the comment I'm attempting to correct; in this case I put my comment further down in the thread, since some people don't like having comments added above their own. I don't begin comments with "Note:" often. More often, perhaps (but perhaps still rarely) I put small parts of my posts in bold type, so that if people choose to read only part of my post, they'll read what I consider to be most important or a reasonable summary of the post, rather than some random part. Perhaps that's more productive than adding "Note:", which takes up space without adding any real information. I had no intention of implying that any comments by others were less important than mine and I'm sorry the word and font I used gave that impression. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary, in further reply re [102]: you haven't told me what I said that you believe misrepresents the situation. I'm not trying to get you or anyone blocked or banned. My goal, besides writing an informative, well-organized, NPOV etc. article, is to influence everyone to discuss article content rather than editors, respect each others' right to have an opinion, and collaborate. Bringing up COI concerns on Jake's talk page and then at COIN was probably reasonable and appropriate and I'm not criticizing you for that. My concern is the totality of all the remarks by all editors about an alleged COI, especially on the article talk page and also on other user talk pages. I appreciate your recognition in your post of the effect this may have on Jake, and hope that regardless of how the thread is eventually resolved, that we can go back to discussing content without ongoing repetitions of such allegations except appropriate WP:DR if particular circumcstances require it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Blackworm's question at Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision: The context is this edit: [103] As far as I know, the edit did not "remove" the phrase "and benefits" from a quote already existing in the article, but instead added a quote to the article, using an ellipsis to indicate words which were not included in the selected text.

I didn't say Wikipedia "should" have replaced "and benefits" with an ellipsis. I said that to do so was reasonable in the context. When I think a version of the article is reasonable, it doesn't necessarily follow that I think we "should" use that version. Rather, there may be multiple possible versions that I would consider reasonable. I think that for us to have a reasonable chance of finding a version of the article that we can all accept, it helps a lot for each person to be willing to accept a number of different variations.

The reason I think it's reasonable in the context is that that part of the paragraph is discussing risks. The previous sentence is 'The British Medical Association (2006) stated that "... it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks"'. Jake felt that this gave an incomplete picture of the BMA's position, and added another quote from the BMA, also about risks or harms. Since Jake wanted a quote about risks or harms, and since that part of the paragraph was about risks or harms, Jake selected a quote about risks or harms by leaving out the part about benefits, which was irrelevant in that context. It's fine if you don't agree with me, but that's my opinion; you can try to convince me otherwise, but I'm not sure whether that's necessasry since I may be willing to accept other versions too anyway. Regards, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Special barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For showing superior knowledge of policy and guideline, and for remaining sufficiently detached and objective to see what parts are applicable. For having a big heart, and thinking of the effect on others of certain Wikiprocesses. And for making a compelling, eloquent argument for all this. Last, but not least, for tolerating this — somewhat dubious — grammar. I humbly award you this, the Special Barnstar. Jakew (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment about Jake

Hello Coppertwig. Thankyou for alerting me to your use of my comment to make a point on the COI. I stand by what I said. By the way, the modern definition of egregious is "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". I presume you were using the word in the rarely used archaic sense? Tremello22 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that "egregious" means (etymologically) "outside the herd". Wiktionary says "Exceptional, conspicuous, outstanding, most usually in a negative fashion." I don't consider that meaning archaic. It doesn't say always in a negative fashion. I like to use words to mean specific things without having a judgement of "good" or "bad" mandatorily tacked on. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Infantilism RfC reference

It was included in text linked to in the comment that followed the RfC: [104] but it wasn't obvious - this is the source:

• Money, John: Love Maps - Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transpostition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity, New York, Prometheus Books, 1986

No page number was attributed. Mish (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The inadequacies of {{unsigned}}

I used {{unsigned}} here, but then I realised it isn't adequate as it doesn't include a datestamp. I think this is important because the threading would otherwise imply that it was present before Mish's comments were made, potentially changing the meaning of his/her comments. Could you substitute your real signature, please? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See {{unsigned2}} -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned allowes a datestamp too, but #2 allows a copy off of the page history. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks, Avi! And thanks Coppertwig! Jakew (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Anyway, the signature can always be typed in by hand or something. I usually use unsigned and copy just the date-time from the page history. I hadn't noticed it's supposed to be subst-ed. Anyway, this time I put in a signature using three tildes and a date-time from the page history (no template needed). Is the only advantage of unsigned2 that the order of the arguments is different, so that you can copy both at once from the page history and insert a pipe between them, or is there more to it than that? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Extension:VariablesExtension

Coppertwig, do you by any chance know why Extension:VariablesExtension and especially loops haven't been installed on this wiki? --stmrlbs|talk 07:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

never mind.. I found this. [105] Wow.. I thought I just couldn't find it.. I never thought that they wouldn't have a simple looping (and dowhile) ability for the templates here. Can't believe it. A first for me. --stmrlbs|talk 08:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's because it would take up CPU (and possibly allow infinite loops). But maybe they could allow loops with a limit on how many times the loop is executed. I've wanted to use loops at times. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, usually there is either a check for a max loop number, or it is automatically taken care of by a timeout interrupt. I looked and looked, and thought it was funny I couldn't find anything on looping; but it is hard to find a lot of things on Wikipedia - so I didn't think much about it. So, when I found loops, I thought, "I knew it had to be somewhere!  ::: Then.. I find it isn't installed here. arg! I've worked with a lot of different programming languages and this is the first time I've seen one where they inhibited looping capability. It really is.. limiting. Like trying to write a template with your hands tied behind your back. But, I see someone created Template:Loop. It is not really a loop, but generates x number of iterations of whatever. So, I will see if I can use this.

Well, they are discussing it, so maybe they will put some kind of looping capability in. I hope so. --stmrlbs|talk 03:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the loop template!! For substrings, see Template:Str sub. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is another loop template: Template:For loop. Unfortunately, I can't pass a parameter for the number of times. I was trying to figure out a way to process the parameter first into a number (making it convert before using #IFEXPR (something I've done in other languages with similar ways of processing templates/macros) - but I can't figure out how to do it with this. The documentation is rather sparse in areas, so I end up just trying things to see how it works. Or sometimes I will find something interesting, then I see "doesn't work anymore with the new software"! Arg. So, I'm getting to the point I might just hard code it. But the "for loop" is pretty nice. --stmrlbs|talk 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

added 1 diff

I added 1 diff to my evidence, to address the comment you made. I found it at your evidence at Abd and JzG case.

P.D.: next time, for this stuff, consider first leaving a message at the talk page of the user, I think that this sort of fills the evidence page with comments about errors, then corrections of those errors, and then corrections of the comments to point at the correct error. Or maybe putting a message in the talk page of the evidence page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't consider your claim about what Abd said to be supported. ("Abd says that he can't make shorter comments because he has ADHD...") Consider only quoting Abd verbatim. If necessary, you can use a NPOV section heading which merely names the section without making a claim. In the diff you provided, Abd also said "there are two types of communication: polemic and discussion." Therefore his statement which you quote doesn't appear to me to apply to all "comments" he would make, but only to one of the types, i.e. "discussion". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, Coppertwig. Many editors are accustomed to polemic as the standard for "discussion." They are irritated by real discussion, in fact, because they will constantly be looking for "the point," and since there may be no strong point, but only an attempt to discover one, they can't understand it and will think that the discussion is pointless, evasive, wandering, etc. Others will see the point of it, which is exploration, not promotion of conclusion. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@Coppertwig. Abd says that his long discussions are all discussions, and those are the ones that he can't shorten due to AHDH. If his polemic is already brief then he doesn't need to shorten it, and it just shows that he can be brief when he wants.

As for exploring the topic and stuff, see WP:NOTFORUM and go to an off-wiki discussion forum where that sort of discussion is encouraged, and don't fill article talk pages with stuff unrelated to improving the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. "When he wants." But it's not just "wants," it's also the time it takes to do so. I have limited time. In discussion, the question is "with whom am I discussing?" I'm discussing in public with editors who are willing to read long posts and consider them, with editors who have an open mind and will take the time to think about the issues. And not necessarily with those whose minds are made up. I don't waste time editing down "discussion," because it would be utterly chilling, and produce no useful effect commensurate with the effort it takes. When I am ready to interact with those who need polemic, I write polemic. Which takes far more time per word, maybe ten times as much more more. I already, by the way, probably eliminate a third or more of what I write, even in discussion, it is not mere stream-of-consciousness as some think. It's designed to be clear, and not necessarily compact, and when I'm compact, people frequently misunderstand it, much of your laundry list in the RfAr is based on ABF of short comments or comments taken out of context.... can't win, sometimes.

Enric, your position is one which is, if sustained, guaranteed to freeze the community into polarized positions, with recurrent disruption and bans and blocks and, in fact, articles that aren't NPOV, they only look like NPOV to those who don't understand what true NPOV is, who don't understand the issues and who see no problem with article text that is, in fact, biased, because the bias matches their own. I'm not demanding, at all, that you participate in useless debate. Indeed, you should not. But let those who want to discuss, discuss. And those who don't, don't. Follow dispute resolution instead of just warning and then popping off to a noticeboard to try to get editors blocked or banned who don't follow your demands. I'll say it again. You have utterly no obligation to read long posts on Talk Cold fusion and if you are offended by them, you have options much simpler and much less disruptive than trying to ban the editor for "dominating the Talk page." Have I ever edit warred, in substance, over a collapse?

All my discussion is aimed toward seeking consensus on the article, it's just more indirect than you understand. --Abd (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That sort of discussion does not belong to article talk pages, which should be limited to discussing improvements to the articles. You are refusing to accept that simple fact. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bans should be clear

I've just read your proposal. I'm confused. Do you believe that my ban of Abd was in any way unclear? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, WMC, Coppertwig will answer, but it was both clear and unclear. It was clear to me based on an understanding of our prior interaction; it was clear at AN/I because editors who had already concluded I should be banned supplied their own reasons. However, when independent editors asked for reasons for the ban, you pointed to WP:TRIFECTA, which provides no reason, only IAR -- which is a principle, not a specific reason for a specific action. And then you denied that IAR was your justification, and claimed that your TRIFECTA response was just dealing with trolling. So if it's asserted that your reason was "unclear," perhaps you might look at why. It's all largely moot, in fact, because the real core of the case is that, whether you were involved or not, then, you became involved in a dispute with me, and not a moot one, or ArbComm would not have taken the case, yet you continue to insist that you have the right to maintain the ban and block me based on your personal judgments of my overall editing behavior. And that is driving off the cliff, while your friends cheer and egg you on. Don't say you were not warned. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it was unclear, as expressed by GoRight here: "It is unclear whether WMC was involved personally with Abd prior to his taking administrative action. It is unclear whether a individual administrator has the authority to create such bans sans and specific community discussion on the point. It is unclear whether WMC has the ongoing authority to continue to assert the ban beyond the community "sanctioned" one month discussed at AN/I", and, as Abd's comment above reminds me, it was unclear what behaviour the ban was supposed to address, or what behaviour Abd would have had to change to end the ban. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, it is quite clear. If Abd stops his unwanted meddling in wikipolitics and administrative policy, stops confronting administrative recusal failure proper blocks and bans of POV-pushers, and is re-educated by working in the fields only edits noncontroversial articles like good obedient slaves editors, the wikigod WMC will generously consider being lenient. In fact, even with controversial articles, if Abd starts revert warring on behalf of the cabal majority POV NPOV, and trolls for return incivility by personally attacking global warming skeptics calling POV-pushers what they are, he might even get a barnstar.

(The name Abd means "slave," and I've done plenty of work in the fields (minor work, I'm not a general-purpose article creator and am not much for creating more than stubs even when I'm expert in a topic), but, as a literally senior editor, I see myself more useful facilitating the work of others, such as by undoing the blacklisting of lyrikline.org, so that a good external link (or source, lyrikline.org is reliable source) can be added to hundreds of articles, and I've done a few of these additions as I had time. That's a job not finished, and that I might be able to help with even if blocked here, because it's been whitelisted here due to my efforts, was previously whitelisted at de.wikipedia, and what remains is a crazy meta blacklisting.) My major task as I see it is helping develop better process so we can ban fewer editors and focus on efficiently developing broader consensus, thus increasing our true neutrality and reducing, perhaps greatly, disruption and the treatment of Wikipedia as a battlefield. --Abd (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Cold fusion talk posts by Kirk shanahan

Per discussion at Talk:Cold fusion#PAWAR neutrons but not charged particles?, Kirk shanahan has commented, as he often does. The claim that he's been driven away by me is preposterous. Shanahan is a veteran internet POV warrior, been at it since the early 1990s, he's not about to be driven away by disagreement, and instead he responds with habitual incivility (But not in this post, he's not specifically uncivil in it). He's the best thing we have so far as a skeptical expert, and it would indeed be a loss if he left, but his lengthy posts and arguments are not to be accepted as valid without careful verification, he's highly POV, as many COI editors can be expected to be. Below is the original with my comments. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on posts of Kirk Shanahan to Talk:Cold fusion re neutron detection

Please note that the term 'ultra-low momentum' is applied to the neutrons postulated by Widom and Larsen (W-L). This means they are extremely reactive, very very high cross section for reaction in the solid state. That means that essentially none will escape at all, and this fact is noted in the W-L article cited above. That means that the 'neutrons' supposedly observed by the SPAWAR group _disprove_ the W-L theory. Further, the W-L theory does not say anything specific about charged particle generation, it predicts transmutations in the solid state which may lead to tritium and He formation in some cases. However, they point out they are not excluding anything by making that prediction. In other words if someone can come up with a nuclear decay chain initiated by a neutron capture event that would emit charged particles, they would love it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Half truth. The slow neutrons proposed by Widom-Larsen are, indeed, not confirmed or denied at all by the SPAWAR work. The detected neutrons are at very low levels and could not be from the primary reaction. They are proposed as being from secondary reactions, not from the primary reaction. Mosier-Boss suggests Be-8 fusion per Takahashi, in the Naturw. paper January 2009, so they certainly don't disprove W-L theory, which is about the primary reaction that could produce hot alphas, as with the Be-8 theory, and the hot alphas would then cause some level of secondary reactions. If fusion is taking place in the cells, we expect some hot reaction products, which are, in fact, detected (charged particles), and, then, an expected level of secondary reaction products (including neutrons). I'm not familiar enough with W-L theory to suggest a decay chain, and I'm personally skeptical of W-L theory, but that's just my opinion. The theory is notable, that's what matters to us. We don't have to accept it! and reply by Navy Physics Geek And the stated criteria that all three of the works in question (neutron detection, charged particle detection, and congruent theory) have been discussed in other peer-reviewed literature has been met for half a year now. I should point out that EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C and JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B are two of the most reputable physics journals. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC) He's right, though I'm not sure about the impact factor of those journals, I haven't researched it. They are peer-reviewed, for sure, so review of other work in them can qualify as "peer-reviewed secondary source." My view is that impact factor and other measures of "reputation" are not relevant until we encounter conflict of sources, and I'm not aware of a conflict with regard to whatever we would currently report from those sources. Recent comments about the state of the field today or recently do not contradict comments that may have been made ten to twenty years ago as to the state of the field then, and it's preposterous to consider this, but this is exactly what's been done at cold fusion; because there was some negative work published in Nature (journal) in 1989-1990, it's been claimed that recent sources "contradict" these "very reputable" publications. That's synthesis, and bad synthesis to boot. This is being used to justify exclusion of reliably-sourced fact, which is a serious corruption of policy. (Where something hasn't been broadly accepted, a reasonable compromise is to attribute the claim, not treat it as a fact in itself.) to which Shanahan replies: So NPG, let me understand this. Theroists X propose Theory Y which states that the occurrence of Z is a "rare event", i.e. has a nearly zero probability of occurring. Then Researchers A report that Z was observed multiple times and in strength enough that a "5% of Z" observation is used to prove Z has occurred. Of course, both X's and A's results are published in peer reviewed journals. So just to summarize: X says Y proves Z doesn't happen, buy A says they have proof Z occurs easily and with significant strength. Then I say that A's results disprove Y, and you need someone else to tell you it is true? I think we are looking at a case of 'pathological skepticism'. I seem to run into that a lot whenever I point out the internal inconsitencies of the cold fusioneers position. I'm not going to argue basic logic with you NPG. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) It's typical of Shanahan that he presents an incoherent or at least difficult to follow argument as if it was obvious and anyone disagreeing with him is seriously misguided. NPG replies again: I don't see the figures "nearly zero" or 5% being used. The theory was selected to match empirical results. Do you think that the SPAWAR claim that charged particles come from the same source of neutrons should be included in the article? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) NPG gets it wrong. The SPAWAR group doesn't claim that. Rather, they claim in the Naturw. article that the neutrons are from secondary reactions, and they claim elsewhere that charged particles result from the primary reactions. There is dispute in the field as to whether or not the levels and energies observed are consistent with the various theories, and it's beyond the scope of my comment today to go into this in detail. And Shanahan: Hmmm…what do you consider to be the numerical equivalent of “These will rarely be experimentally detected.” (Widom, Larsen, Eur. Phys. J C , 46(1), (2006) 107)? Typically a ‘rare’ event will occur at less than 1 in 1 million probability, i.e. “nearly zero”. But, I suppose you could wiki-lawyer that, so let’s discuss the other big problem on top of the fact that there should be nearly zero neutrons detected. I already mentioned this, but to explain further… The W-L neutrons are ‘ultra-low momentum’. Since momentum is mass times velocity, and the mass is not changing much, if at all, this means the velocity is ultra low. That translates to ”very, very slow”. However, the claim by Szpak, Mossier-Boss, et al, in Naturwissenschaften 96(1) (2009) 135, that the ‘neutrons’ are of >= 9.6MeV marks these ‘neutrons’ as fast neutrons (look up ‘fast neutrons' in Wikipedia). Thus there is a fundamental disagreement between the W-L theory and reported observations. The data in fact offer no support for W-L theory, and point to another as-yet-to-be-determined mechanism for ‘neutron’ production. Shanahan is responding to the claim that the SPAWAR group findings support W-L theory. In fact, they are irrelevant to that theory. Any cold fusion reaction should, at least rarely, produce neutrons through secondary reactions. The primary reaction if Takahashi's theory is correct is 4D -> Be-8 -> 2 He-4 + 57.6 MeV. Or there may be other reactions such as fusion between palladium and the TSC, which is neutrally charged (because it includes the electrons) and can approach heavy nuclei, causing various transmutations with complex results, which I won't address. The primary reaction described produces very hot alpha particles, quite capable of generating neutrons at low levels (the levels are low because most of the alphas are quickly slowed and absorbed without causing additional nuclear reactions; Bremsstrahlung radiation is expected and seems to have been detected. So he's basically correct in this paragraph. Detecting slow neutrons is quite difficult, though I could imagine means, such as setting up a certain concentration of fissionable uranium in the electrode. Slow neutrons will cause fission, with detectable signatures. To my knowledge, not done. (Fast neutrons don't generally fuse with nuclei, they "bounce.") You are correct that “The theory was selected to match empirical results.”, but the empirical results matched were ‘no neutrons (or other radiation), only He atoms produced’. This points out again the problems with most CF theories, they ‘cherry-pick’ the data they use to base the theory on. And here he generalizes according to his POV. In fact, it's quite possible, even probable, that more than one LENR exists, and so no one theory would explain all results. It's a false constraint. Rather, theories can, and must, be used to make predictions that can be tested, or the theory is practically useless except for speculative purposes. So Preparata, for example, predicted that helium would be found in proportion to the excess energy generated, which has been quite adequately confirmed. Shanahan rejects this by completely sidestepping the issue of correlation; he claims that the excess energy data is bad and that the helium data is bad and that therefore the combination is bad, which is a non sequitur argument. Using correlation, you can build a strong case with quite bad data! Just consider the astounding unlikelihood, for example, that if, as reported by Storms -- indepently published by non-fringe publisher secondary source! -- twelve out of 33 CF cells produce no excess heat, the same cells, analyzed independently and blindly, show no anomalous helium, but that of 21 cells producing excess heat, 18 showed excess helium (with some other differences that could easily account for the three odd cells), that the ratio of excess heat to helium is in the right ballpark for a process that has deuterium as input and helium as output, regardless of what happens in between, and that from an analysis of a series of studies from multiple research groups, Storms comes up with 25+/-5 MeV/He-4, which is right on for the 23.8 MeV expected. Regarding the “5%” number, I admit I was grossly overgenerous there. The actual number should be about 0.1%. Using Fig. 2 of Phillips, G.W, et al, Rad. Prot. Dos. 120(1-4) (2006) 457, we can round up to see that it takes about 10e4 neutrons to produce one recoil track (average, energy dependent), and using Al-Najjar, S.A.R., Nuc. Tracks 12 (1986) 611, Fig. 5 and 6, we can likewise see that one gets about 10 triple tracks per 10e8 neutrons (on average, energy dependent). Thus the ratio is 1e-7/1e-4 = .001 or 0.1%. By the way, this is still over-generous, because that does NOT fold in the 1 in 1 million probability of actually ejecting a neutron from the solid state that can be potentially detected by the CR39. When I used the phrase “5% effect” I was using chemical jargon that points out the size of the effect is consistent with Langmuir’s Pathological Science criteria, as 5% is where most chemists start getting nervous about reliability, i.e ‘working in the noise’. Less than that of course is progressively worse. Both references cited above were cited by Szapk, et al in their ‘triple-tracks’ article. He's beating down a flawed argument. The recently published SPAWAR work confirms that nuclear reactions are taking place. It's consistent with Be-8 theory, but also with practically any other mechanism that will produce hot charged particles and thus secondary reactions. Getting back to the point of the original discussion here, I also need to clearly correct a prior statement of mine (correction was noted above already). The Szapk et al results do not ‘disprove’ the W-L theory, they simply offer no support for it for the reason noted above _and_ point out that it is incomplete since it does not predict the formation of fast neutrons. I'm not familiar with the details of W-L theory, but if fusion is taking place by the absorption of neutrons, we'd expect some level of fast neutrons from secondary reactions. However, the erratum to the 2007 Natur. paper does clearly attribute the mechanism proposed in that paper to W-L. Thus Szpak, et al have actually proposed this mechanism in slightly diffrerent terms in their 2007 paper. The 2007 paper is about charged particle detection, not neutrons. W-L theory can explain that. However, as noted above, the energetics are completely off for this to be true. He claims. In fact, I've seen no decent analysis, and Mosier-Boss et al are continuing to work to identify the range of energies found. It's tricky, because the hot alphas, if that is what they are (they could also be other charged particles, it's difficult to distinguish except by means which they are pursuing), are being generated at the reaction site, which may be below the surface of the electrode, and, in any case, the particles rapidly lose their energy. He might be right, though. I've asked about Be-8 theory on the Vortex-L list and have gotten some similar response from some involved with the field, but when I asked for specifics, nothing but speculation and vague theory. So, we are left with several reports of ‘neutrons’ and ‘charged particles’ that seem inconsistent with the W-L theory, and we have no alternative mechanism to consider except ‘mundane’ D-D and D-T fusion, which most people agree is not happening for the usual reasons. In other words, there is no mechanism for the formation of these supposed particles extant. _And_ we have Szpak, et al apparently not realizing what their results mean (otherwise one would expect some comment on this in their 2009 article that presents the energies determined from the tracks). Unfortunately this is an all-too-common situation in the CF field. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC) See the trick? It's true that most people are claiming that ordinary D-D and D-T fusion are not happening "for the usual reasons." But what Kirk avoids mentioning, why I don't know, is that if there is fusion taking place in the cells that will produce energetic charged particles, especially alpha particles, this will cause that very traditional hot fusion, with the usual reaction products, including neutrons. Imagining that the highly experienced and extensively published SPAWAR group is "apparently not realizing what their results mean" is pure projection. They are definitely working on the problem; they are an experimental group and their primary job is to discover what actually happens, not the theoretical consequences, but in the January Naturw. article, they most definitely do ascribe the neutrons as coming from secondary reactions, specifically D-D or D-T fusion as possibilities, and, in fact, Krivit criticized them for that. Those reports may or may not be inconsistent with W-L theory, depending on details, but, if so, Shanahan has not explained why. Rather, for him, this is an excuse to denigrate the entire field, as he normally does. Lost in all this is that there are now multiple publications regarding charged particles and neutrons, which are characteristic of nuclear reactions and which are never produced by chemical reactions in themselves. Forest for the trees. The detection of charged particles by the Chinese in 1990 using CR-39 was reported in Hoffman, 1994, a reliable source that we've often overlooked. A skeptic who doesn't present the information he has in a biased way, he tries to be complete. That's why I claim that Shanahan cannot be relied upon as if he were a neutral expert. He's quite biased, thoroughly committed to debunking cold fusion; his only related peer-reviewed publication is a proposal for an alternate theory to explain excess heat, not accepted by practically anyone ("believer" or skeptical). Definitely worth looking at, but it certainly isn't going to explain charged particles and neutrons. If you look closely at his Calibration Constant Shift theory, it relies upon an unindentified chemical anomaly that causes unexpected changes in heat distribution in cells; therefore the calibration of these cells by heat sources at other locations or distributed in the cell is incorrect. I think he may propose a mechanism, but that this would affect many different kinds of calorimetry seems to be unexplained by him, and his objections to the helium correlation are quite far-fetched, besides being completely unsourced. In 2004, the helium correlation was raised in the Hagelstein paper that was the basis for the review. In a remarkable error, the review summary completely misunderstood the claims, and presented them in a blatantly false manner, I showed this in a discussion in Talk cold fusion maybe two months back. We can't state that in the article, as such, because it's OR, but we can place the original source (primary source) in juxtaposition to the very dumb claim by the anonymous bureaucrat who compiled the paper. In any case, what we have is an article that, under "Helium correlated with excess heat" shows no correlation at all and, in fact, quotes the review summary, blatantly false, which, if it were correct would not only show no correlation but would, on the face, show that there was no correlation, that the data was probably bad. It's an example of how the article has been badly distorted by pushing of the skeptical POV. We have secondary reliable source on helium correlated with excess heat, being rejected, not even being allowed as attributed claim. This is all in clear violation of RfAr/Fringe science, even if we continue to treat Cold fusion as fringe science, which I find completely inconsistent with the substance of the 2004 DoE review. Cold fusion is obviously still very controversial, but the level of acceptance seems to rise dramatically with knowledge of the research, which is the opposite of what we expect with pseudoscience or pathological science. Robert Duncan (physicist) was skeptical, until CBS retained him to investigate the situation. No longer skeptical. The reviewers in 2004 were quite likely mostly skeptical, until they were given a reason to read the more recent research. We've mistaken the "majority opinion" of that review -- evenly divided on excess heat, one third considering that evidence for a nuclear origin was "somewhat convincing," for a scientific consensus, which it obviously is not. It's an expression of no-consensus, in fact. There is no longer any "scientific" consensus on cold fusion; if we look only at peer-reviewed reliable sources, though, we might even conclude that the question has been closed: cold fusion is real. That might be unfair, to be sure, there is obviously still quite a controversy, but it is a social and political one, not a scientific one as would be based on, say, peer-reviewed secondary reviews. Those exist on the positive side, none on the negative in recent times. (Amd I'm not sure there ever was one that actually refuted the basic finding of Fleischmann, except by appeal to theory: if they had found that much excess heat, there must be neutrons at a level that would have been fatal to the researchers. That is not a refutation of excess heat, it's a refutation that any excess heat is being generated by classical d-d fusion or the like. Which turns out to be completely true, nobody believes that what is happening in the cells is the kind of reaction seen by the plasma physicists at high energies and expected by them as characteristic. It's not tunneling past the Coulomb barrier to produce the same effect, and it's probably not something like muon-catalyzed fusion which, as I vaguely recall, if I'm correct, has the same branching ratios as hot fusion. For this reason I'm skeptical of hydrino theory as an explanation, if hydrinos catalyze fusion, acting like muons, which they could do if they form, we'd expect, I'd think, the traditional branching ratio. And copious neutrons. Or would we? Hydrino theory is notable, it should be in the article, and that was even accepted by consensus, no longer contested, until WMC reverted it out with his capricious edit under protection. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike User:Rootology. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - i'm assuming good faith here, and therefore i will point out that this looks rather like "prepping the help" to do what Abd is currently restricted from doing, i don't think it is - but i really think you should remove this (and my comment with it), so that this impression doesn't catch. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure: I think maybe Abd was expicitly allowed to make comments on this topic on user talk pages. It's not a topic ban; he's been encouraged to participate in the mediation page discussing the cold fusion page. I don't mind having the message here. If Abd chooses to remove the message (along with yours and mine) that's OK with me too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But he is restricted from interacting with Talk:Cold fusion, which is what is being discussed here... not the mediation page, which was why i commented. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I should, perhaps, compile a page with beautiful examples of wikilawyering. KDP, I was banned from editing Cold fusion, not from the topic and not from working on the content, nor from discussing the page elsewhere. I was not banned from interacting with that page by means other than editing it. Working on the topic at the mediation is one example; I've also discussed cold fusion based on comments on Talk with many editors, on their Talk pages, since being banned, and yours is the first objection to be based on the ban. Creative, I must say. If this is a ban violation, why don't you inform WMC so he can act accordingly, or warn me, which would amount to the same thing. It could be quite useful. But I don't advise it, at all. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.... i wasn't aware that i was wikilawyering at all. I was simply pointing out that this particular discussion looked (notice the emphasis) like something that you didn't want it to. Abd, please take a short breath and read this part carefully: When you are asserting that other users are forming a cabal, then it is rather foolish to let anything (no matter how innocent) even hint at meatpuppeering (and that is certainly what this could be suspected of). Now, i came here, and commented on this in very good faith - but i can see that you are unwilling to listen, and instead turn on the accusationary tone (and a rather uncivil one, if i may say so). Final comment: What does what other people do (or do not), have to do with this? I'm sorry to have bothered you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Sure, it would look like that to you, KDP. What about Raul suggesting that Enric Naval propose GoRight be banned from the RfAr, because it should be a party who does it, or Raul suggesting to Stephen Schulz that he block a new suspected Scibaby sock? I'm not topic banned, KDP, you've got it wrong, as usual, I was actually encouraged to continue working on the issues, specifically at the mediation, but not limited to that. And when an editor is banned from a page, as distinct from a topic, the editor is required to suggest edits elsewhere, it's certainly not prohibited. But this post didn't suggest any edits at all, it just responded to Kirk Shanahan's comments on Talk:Cold fusion, with background. I assume that if Coppertwig does anything based on this, she would research it and verify it and source it, and, of course, if she or you ask for sources, I can supply them for anything that would go in the article. If you think this behavior improper, please, raise it in the RfAr so that your behavior can be more clearly confronted where it can do some good. It's a beautiful example of what the cabal does, wikilawyering everything toward their desired end, exclusion of minority POV, no matter how well it's sourced. If I'm restricted from doing what I did here, it's totally news to me! My POV and my knowledge weren't banned from the article and Talk, and, indeed, it's quite unclear what was banned, though a common theme is long posts. So if the long post is on Coppertwig Talk, with a presumably consenting editor, it is still objectionable, which simply proves that the objection isn't the length, it's the challenge to cabal POV, and the rest is just rationalization and excuses for that.--Abd (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, Abd is right here, he can discuss the topic in other pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enric, i'm not disputing that Abd can discuss the topic on other pages (see below), i'm pointing out that the above conversation "looks" like coaching. Please reread my comments, and consider the posting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I see what you mean. Telling Coppertwig what specific objections he should raise in Talk:Cold fusion. Yes, it can be seen like that, and the post can have that effect. And yes, when Abd wrote that comment, he might have had in mind that Copper, or someome else reading this page, could take his objections and post them to the talk page that he can't edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments carefully, then consider whether i indicated or even hinted at you being topic banned. Now if you still come to that conclusion: Reread it. If you after that still come to that conclusion, well then i am truly sorry, because then it seems that i am unable to communicate with you, in a way that you can understand. (and what exactly does scibaby have to do with this?? Try sticking to one thing at a time). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(An edit conflict seems to have occurred between the two messages above.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me get this straight. KDP is merely pointing out that the comment I made simply "looks" like coaching, not that it's coaching. Just being helpful, wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand it! But who is going to misunderstand it? You-know-who, he-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned, who would take this to the (cue dramatic music) Noticeboard, as Raul654 (oops! did I say his name?) has just taken GoRight to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby.

What does Scibaby have to do with it? Read the reference gain, KDP. It was a parallel, or actually more blatant, an administrator giving what certainly seems to be instructions to another admin or editor. Stephan Schulz did immediately block the alleged Scibaby sock. Enric Naval did support the proposed restriction on GoRight, though I think it isn't what Raul654 had in mind, and I haven't checked the sequence, and it doesn't matter, that was my ultimate point. (Enric, by the way, thanks for the comment above, it's appreciated, and, to my mind, if Raul654 gives you good advice, you should take it. However, watch out, be careful. He's probably on his way down, from the signs I see, and he might drag a few editors with him. Just remember how everyone was claiming I was beating a dead horse with JzG. Including your kind self.) --Abd (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i've stirred up your conspiracy gene.. it was well meant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But what's wrong with coaching? If I'm prevented from editing the page, what's wrong with pointing out issues to another editor? It could be done off-wiki you know? Would you think that safer and better? What's your advice, Kim? Is Big Brother watching? There is no cabal. Repeat as needed for anxiety. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEAT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Don't cite policy pages in toto to editors who know the policy intimately. Oh, we don't have that? I wonder why? Could be because it's effing obvious? WP:MEAT doesn't prohibit cooperation among editors, you should know that, since you are such a cooperative fellow. Maybe you should read it yourself. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And here i was walking around innocently and thinking that "recruitment of (typically, new) editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another editor," was exactly what this might look like. But i'm sorry that i bothered you - i can see that your ability to be civil apparently has reached its limits. (perhaps you should do something about that? Since it is what Coppertwig, GoRight and others find your most likeable attribute...). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I had intended to add here, but forgot: Besides, Abd's one-month community page ban had expired. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Becky Quick

Thanks for the input.

I don't have a clue who WMC is, nor do I think I should have to know. It seems quite a trivial "dispute," if even deemed that, amid the real thing to be discussed.

It is amazing how a Very Minor edit darts down a wormhole in a nanosecond.

Does it ever at Wikipedia get back to the integrity of the data, rather than the minutiae of the process? : )

(Please don't think me rude for not signing here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do prefer that you sign, but it's not a big deal for me. It would help if I knew why you don't want to sign. It's OK because SineBot has signed for you, but that leaves two entries in my talk page history: a minor disadvantage. I like having the link to the person's talk page in their signature, and to be able to see who it is (i.e. I recognize you as the number "162..." whom I was just talking to).

It is about the integrity of the data. It's just that some people disagree with you. You need to present a more convincing argument. It would help to find better sources.

It also helps to give a link to the page being discussed: Rebecca Quick. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now the system is supporting the other edit-warrior. Because I did take the steps to discuss this through the talk page. I did reach out to previous editors in this matter.

Registering an account? I barely do anything at Wikipedia. Don't have the time. But this is a principled stand. The person in question was previously married. That's all. No more no less. And an edit-warrior both denies the truth AND remains one step ahead of me. For now, that is. The data will win out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It may be true that she was previously married, but that doesn't mean the article necessarily has to say so. Why can't the article just not mention that? See WP:V and WP:BLP. Actually, this not signing thing is starting to get inconvenient -- it would be much easier for you to type four tildes than for me to sign for you,have an edit conflict with SineBot and you haven't explained why you don't. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I saw this edit on WMC talk, I was putting the girls to bed, had my i-Phone and just rummaged around a little. Very strange. First of all, the argument about IP editors not being allowed to remove talk page warnings because they might be for someone else is odd because if they were for someone else, that someone else will never see the "you have messages" notice, the new editor will and by having read it, the message is suppressed. I see no reason to disallow IP editors the same courtesy on their Talk page as afforded other editors, it seems contrary to policy to discriminate like that. So, I wondered, WTF is going on here? I looked at contributions and saw an edit which simply stated that Becky Quick had been previously married. Apparently so, the source there is a newsletter, 2003, but indeed has a picture of Becky Quick at a fundraiser, with her parents and "husband Peter Shay." Her present husband is Matthew Quayle, her producer. Recently married. Source for this? [106]. Gossip column, but used as a source. Consider this from the New York Times, January 22, 2006. Ms. Quick turned to television and returned to the Garden State, where she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer. So she was married to Peter Shay, apparently a computer programmer, we assume they were divorced, and is married now to Matthew Quayle. What exactly is the big deal here?

Wait! The plot thickens. Another gossip site has this, with sources. But then it has this discussion of the Wikipedia article, discussion dated May 13, updated July 27. It refers to article history, including IP edits by IP allegedly registered to NBC Universal. The edits involved are:

[107] Yes, NBC Universal, [108] A little COI, anyone?

[109] User:Mquayle removes infobox data "Peter Shay, divorced." Husband Matthew Quayle. Gee, I wonder if there is any connection here? That's the only edit from Mquayle. Registered at 17:26, eleven minutes after the IP edit above, four minutes before the edit to Becky Quick. With no checkuser rights at all, I have cleverly identified 64.210.199.231 as the husband of Becky Quick, who does, after all, work at NBC Universal (or I assume so).

Enter, stage left, User:KeltieMartinFan. Registered 4 February, 2008. Began immediately editing Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) -- more later.... --Abd (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd Been monitoring this, too. So glad to see your input/insight!  : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter, is that you? Of course you have been monitoring this. My condolences, but, in the immortal words of Lenny Bruce, when he reported telling the Chinese waiter who had asked where "your beautiful wife" was that night, and he replied "We divorced." And then the waiter responded, "Oh, you betta off." Of course, I suppose, you may not be Peter and all this is stupid inference.

You've been going about this the wrong way. When Syrthiss advised your friend, or whoever the blocked IP is, to discuss the issue in Talk, he did not intend for the editor to continue to actually edit the article, insisting on inserting the fact. And, take a hint: you are irritating everyone by not signing your edits, and you've left edits that appeared, from the way you put them up, to be from someone else, for example, posting a copy of material from Syrthiss with his signature, copied, at the end. And no signature from you. People here don't like this! Sign edits to Talk pages with four tildes, this: ~~~~, and the software will insert your IP address -- or account, if you register and are logged in -- automatically, plus a timestamp. I don't know if anyone will be able to help you with this situation, it's a bit of a mess, and I'm quite tied up at the moment, facing ... WMC ... before the Arbitration Committee. --Abd (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Peter. (Nor Paul, nor Mary.)

It sure looks like the IP editor did due diligence today on a minor edit that the facts support. All but for one editor in the Wikipedia universe who rejects it.

Really, don't tildes seem like the least irritating part of the whole matter?

Good luck with WMC/arbitration committee. That IP editor might be headed there, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) KMF seems to edit articles related to NBC programming (?), plus some other stuff. First impression, aggressive, uncivil. See [110], for example. Blocked in May for edit warring, unblocked as a result of an AN/I discussion. With regard to Becky Quick, KMF began editing the article Rebecca Quick July 2nd, with a punctuation correction. The removal of the information about the previous marriage had not attracted notice, apparently. July 7, IP arrives and restores "It is her second marriage." KMF reverts with Not really appropriate to mention. Note that objection is not based on lack of source. A bit more than a week later, another IP adds "(Quick was previously married and divorced.)" This IP, 76.114.133.44, is from Comcast, New Jersey. Gee, I wonder who this could be? (It seems unlikely that these two IPs are the same user, the first one, 162.6.97.3, the one whose talk page was protected today, is Red Cross IP National Headquarters, Falls Church, VA, pretty far from New Jersey.) Edit warring ensued. This edit by KMF seems typical of the many reverts.

Sure, the information should have been sourced, but that, obviously, was not the issue! KMF is doing what Quick's husband (I speculate) previously did, removing reference to the marriage. I suspect, of course, that the NJ IP is the former husband, who'd like to not be erased from history. The Red Cross IP could be a friend. WMC jumps in, protected the article, and then reverted to the version favored by KMF. The article had been semiprotected on July 20, which, of course, favored KMF, and had come off protection on August 3, with the Red Cross IP immediately replacing the marriage comment, referring to talk. The comment in the article was not sourced, but there were sources in Talk. The IP editor is unsophisticated, and may not know how to set up references, I can speculate, since the information is sourced and seems highly likely to be true. It's not defamatory, rather there seems to be a personal agenda here (on both sides). You have, of course, seen the information on the Talk page, since you commented there. Strictly speaking, WMC's revert back to KMF's version under protection seems inappropriate. This is not a BLP issue, in fact, since the information does have adequate source. The comment from Syrthiss was inserted by IP from New Jersey, 68.50.128.120.

I have sourced the comment from Syrthiss. WMC, as you have noticed, has extended the block to indef for 162.6.97.3, which, if I'm correct, is improper (for shared IP like that), and there doesn't seem to have been sufficient cause, plus he edited under protection to prefer the position of KMF, when there is, as Syrthiss pointed out, more source for the marriage to the "computer programmer" than for the producer. KMF was, long-term, uncivil in this matter, and was also edit warring. No action with KMF. The IP indef'd had complained about WMC's protection at [111].

I notice that Durova previously semiprotected this article in 2007 for COI edits by NBC Universal, as shown by the page log. The IP involved then was 64.210.199.232. Adjacent, i.e., later IP was .231.

Can of worms, Coppertwig. Hungry? --Abd (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd re: 2nd/additional post

I would suggest your facts in many places are leaky, but your opinions overall are sound! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I make lots of mistakes, and there isn't enough time left in my life to find most of them. You could, in fact, be more specific, eh? I'm aware that I speculated about certain things, and there are lots of possibilities that I didn't cover.... Given the sources you found, I believe that you can get the information about the former marriage in the article, but you will have to be patient. I highly recommend sitting on your hands for the moment. WMC invited your blocked friend, or whoever that was, to write him. If we approach WMC and demand that he reverse his actions, knowing him, he's likely to dig in his heels and the whole thing could take a long time to clear up. If your friend writes, explains the situation, he might unblock. And you could register an account and work on this openly. You would disclose your conflict of interest, if you have one, and simply advise us in Talk or make requests, and rigorously avoid incivility, accusations, etc., etc. (Even if you have no conflict of interest, as a single-purpose account, you are vulnerable if you become pushy, and if you are blocked, and one of the bulldogs decides to attach himself to your leg, it can get difficult to even get a word in.) Try to work it out directly. I don't know who KMF is, but it wouldn't hurt to try negotiation, if it fails, you are back where you started, not worse. KMF is on thin ice as well, though. --Abd (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Look at the whole kerfuffle and it's amazing anything occurs at Wikipedia!

It's boggling how the statement of a simple fact consumes So Much Opinion.

Is it possible to have a conflict with the truth? Regardless of who the IP editor is, or even if the editor had some motive, how does that factor into whether a public figure was previously married? Where is anything untoward in presenting that?

There appears to be principle at stake here. Being blocked or banished is no threat to being right.

The methods keep getting questioned, but the fact will prevail: solid evidence of a previous marriage.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

New editors often don't understand that truth is not the standard for inclusion; rather there is a dual standard: verifiability and notability. That something is true doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. When it's said that Wikipedia is the "sum of all human knowledge," people miss the "sum" part, which could mean everything put together, or it could mean "summary." Hint: summary. Yeah, I agree: unclear.

That wasn't the problem here. The problem was that there was a seriously tendentious editor hell-bent on excluding this. I can speculate why, I suspect a conflict of interest. Difficult to prove, and even IP evidence wouldn't be conclusive, but it is definitely a reasonable suspicion. The same thing was probably true on your side, IP. People whose purpose is not building the project overall, but who want something specific in or out. I think you can understand we'd have a problem with that. The editor pushing, and willing to edit war, for exclusion had some factors on his side. Biographies of Living Persons have specially strict rules for sourcing. And the sources asserted at first for the first marriage were weak. However, we can see the bias: the source for the second marriage, the present one, was *also* a gossip column. As it was pointed out, there really is better source for the first marriage to a computer programmer than for an NBC producer. Behind all this is, I'm sure, a human story, even a tragedy, but Wikipedia isn't about fixing tragedies or even about documenting them, unless they are notable enough to be reported in reliable source. The exact definition of reliable source can get a little murky, but, in the end, we rely on consensus to make these decisions.

When there is an editor like what you were facing, and perhaps an administrator not inclined to investigate, which can be a lot of work, you can get a quick response like you saw. Happens all the time, don't hold it against that admin. They are overworked, though some of them are more careless than others. Technically, what WMC did in editing the article after protecting it was improper, he should not do both things: touch the article or the editors with his administrative tools, and edit the article content more than trivially. However, with a BLP, and if he accepted the argument that the sources were weak, he did have an excuse. He was just wrong, that's all, and this is a wiki, you can be wrong, it can be fixed.

Fortunately, being blocked, to a sensible human being, should be somewhere way below normal dentistry in terms of pain and suffering. Yes, I know. If it's important to you, it can hurt. That's a good sign that it's time to step back and take the long view. You were right. Truth will out. If Becky Quick is notable enough that her husband(s) should be mentioned, then they should be, if there is decent source. It's not impossible that there could be a compromise on this, that both mentions are removed. I wouldn't personally support that -- there is reliable source and no sound reason to exclude the information that has been given -- but I also wouldn't tear my hair out or run screaming to ArbComm if that happens. You pick your battles, and there is so much to do around here that one little fact in one little article can't become the center of the universe. Unless it's about you or your spouse or ex-spouse, of course. Then it's absolutely fundamental and crucial, and Censorship the Crime of the Century, right? Or, alternatively, from the other side, That Jerk Doesn't Deserve To Be Mentioned, All He Ever Did Was .... something awful, I'm sure. Or nothing at all awful, and it's none of my business, and we wouldn't report it if we knew, unless it became a matter of serious news coverage.

Probably the healthiest attitude to adopt overall, here and in real life, would be one of water-under-the-bridge, it was good, it was bad, and it was in between. If someone else wants to be obsessed, that's their business, but obsession seriously interferes with moving on, and there is life after being married to the most beautiful woman on the planet, I can testify, and, in fact, my life later, with a woman who was very much not a looker, was far more deeply satisfying, in ways that I could not have dreamed of, and my story is still being written. And, by the way, in between I was married to a woman who at first didn't seem quite as beautiful as that first one I mentioned, but she not only stayed beautiful, she grew more and more beautiful as she aged. I just saw her a few months ago, she's sixty now, and still beautiful, whereas the first woman, whom I last saw maybe twenty years ago, had already seriously fallen apart, physically, at least, and, sadly, perhaps in other ways as well. With love, it wouldn't matter, I'm sure -- and I know -- but, still, what seems great from one perspective may not be from another.

Meanwhile, could I interest you in a nice diversion, editing Wikipedia where you aren't so attached? It can be quite fun, and it's always there. If you register an account, introduce yourself, send me an email. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind this, Coppertwig, this little chat.... You know that you can delete or archive it as you like. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: your posts are very welcome here, Abd. Read and enjoyed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quicker (and faster)

Hey, really, thanks for all your help!

When the rhetoric and the logic are advancing, it's irritating to get dragged repeatedly through administrative hell, especially on a four-tilde sidetrack!  : )

I will say this: facts should always be concensus-builders at anything ending in "pedia."

If I ever can be of assistance in return...

162.6.97.3 (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! It looks as if the matter is swiftly getting resolved! It can be confusing at first, figuring out how things work around here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As you're well aware at this point, it's such a MINOR edit. I know I'm very much part of the drama at this point, but it amazes me there was any drama to produce. I gave, I took, I could have shut up. But I was kinda thinking some administrator might get the gist of the sentiment. Without kicking me all over the block (or "blocks")!  : )

162.6.97.3 (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to edit it in maybe today but seems it's been rapidly taken care of. Now that there's consensus on the talk page I expect it will stick (with perhaps minor tweakings to the wording). Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for manning the bilge pumps this weekend (and being involved at all)!

There is solid evidence of both marriages now.

162.6.97.3 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "bilge pumps"; note the civility policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than civility, please look up Wikipedia's definitions for "bilge" and "bilge pumps." :)

162.6.97.3 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision article

I prefer being bold rather than explaining first on the talk page. The reason being is that it is easier and less time consuming to illustrate what I am proposing by making the edit first. I agree with the WP:BRD way of doing things. Also, demanding major edits to be discussed first may put off new editors. I think the article would benefit from having new editors instead of the usual ones. I feel we may be too invested in the article.

I agree with your "why, what, where" method of doing things if one is working with editors that are not biased and don't have an agenda . However going on past experience, this is not the case with the likes of Jakew and Avi. Somewhere along the line I thought - should I waste my time preparing a convincing argument only for it to be stonewalled?

Regarding the Jesus image. Most Christians don't circumcise because they explicitly did away with circumcision and the other ceremonial, ritual and civil laws of the Old Testament. Jesus was the new covenant and all that was required to be Christian was faith in Jesus. Paul is often thought of as the founder of Christianity; he and the other church leaders of the 1st century convened and said that circumcision was not required. See Circumcision controversy in early Christianity and Biblical law in Christianity. So, because it is not obligatory , it isn't important to Christians. Also see : http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/clark2006/ which reviews the Catholic perspective. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "except when performed for strictly therapeutic reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

Because there is only one image that could be attributed to the Christian religion, it effectively represents the Christian view of circumcision. Which is why I am a bit concerned as some may get an incorrect impression of the Christian view from this image - that Christians celebrate circumcision. Also, I think I am right in thinking that the feast of Christ's circumcision is a) not a major Christian celebration and b) only practiced by a minority of Christian denominations. So all in all I think it would be undue weight to include it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circumcision_central_Asia2.jpg is a featured picture. Of course, how good a picture it is may be dependent on the article it is in. If people still want to include it then I think it should replace the Jesus pic.

My opinion on the close up pic of a circumcised penis is that it is informative, especially considering that the article seems to focus on the medical aspects. I'd prefer it if it was instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Circumcision_central_Asia2.jpg at the top of the article; the people at this discussion seem to agree: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Explicit_lead_images; the current lead pic is not really a good representation of the operation. Tremello22 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

agree with your "why, what, where" method of doing things if one is working with editors that are not biased and don't have an agenda . However going on past experience, this is not the case with the likes of Jakew and Avi. Somewhere along the line I thought - should I waste my time preparing a convincing argument only for it to be stonewalled? Funny; I tend to feel similarly about you and Blackworm, Tremello. Now why would that be? -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is biassed. Everyone has an agenda (generally, implementation of NPOV as they interpret it). The "what, why, where" method still works nevertheless. (See the example I put on MishMich's talk page.) If you've found something that works better, please let me know. Editing before discussion doesn't improve the chances of getting something agreed on; it just annoys people, which makes cooperative discussion more difficult.

Here's an idea: editing a bunch of new material in, then self-reverting pending discussion. That way, people can easily see what you're suggesting, and if it's agreed on, it can be easily put back in.

Tremello and Avi, please comment on content, not on the contributors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your patience and diligence in trying to help new editor David Rohl. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have responded

Hi Coppertwig, sorry for taking so long but I just responded to you. I won't repeat what I said there in total but basically I was trying to see if the problems were resolved or at least resolved enough for me to be able to participate. My first few responses at the workshop were made after multiple times that my browser had frozen. I had taken to writing my comments at home and then copying and pasting it in where I wanted it to see if it froze. I didn't want to have to keep writing the same thing over and over.  :) Thanks for your help, much appreciated. I can't be the only one having this problem can I? If I am then I would think it would be a setting on my computer or something along these lines but I have a fast computer with lots of memory, I don't use dial up either so I shouldn't have had a problem with the length of the page. I have never had this kind of problem before and ANI I watch and it can get quite long. It does slow down but the freezing doesn't happen. Oh well, water under the bridge for now, thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hard to know. At some time in the past (a year or more ago?) I was having trouble loading the AfD page with all the AfD discussions for a given date; my browser would crash, presumably because the page was too long. More recently, I was experiencing browser crashing which may have been a combination of having installed some other new software, plus loading large pages; but again it's hard to know. (The first crash was during the installation of the other software. I'm not sure if it would have helped if I'd closed the browser while installing the software.) I've switched to a different browser and it seems to be OK now. Also possibly the first browser is also OK now, since some updates to it have been loaded in. One thing to try might be to deinstall and reinstall the browser, or at least make sure it has the most recent updates. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hate computers! :) LOL. Thanks for the thoughts, you seem to be thinking along the same lines as me. My husband takes care of the maintenance of updating my my browser. With having Microsoft software running everything, he does the updates first of his laptop then updates me for what I need for what I do. If this continues to be a problem for me I'll ask him if he changed anything in my setting that might be causing a conflict or something. I do appreciate your help here though because whatever has happened in the past day, today I (knock on wood) haven't froze my browser yet. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope the browser keeps browsing! It was mostly MBisanz, I think, who moved the motions and analysis of evidence to subpages to reduce the size of the page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an update, well it was s l o w but working until....Ikip put his picture up and kaboom. Now it's weird, my browser looks and acts frozen so I end it, but what I said is added to the page. So I type, hit save, browser freezes, I hit the red x in corner to close page, hit yes to end and no not to send it to Microsoft. I come back here to see what I wrote at least saved. But this is way to long and frustrating a way to get my opinions in on things. So I am just going to pick the proposals of real importance, at least to me, and say what I want. Boy this is the last time I do an arbcom case. This has been frustrating to me, esp. the cabal accusations. I know you are friends but there is no way that accusing people of this can be seen in any other vein other than rude at the minimum. That's all I will say about it because you are friends. Thanks for at least trying to help me though, it is appreciated. I guess you and your friends are happy the case seems, at least right now, to be going your way. I hope what ever happens it doesn't bring a lot of fallout, which I am sorry to say I think it will. :) I guess we'll have to see. thanks and be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, you can judge whether or not this should stay on your user Talk page....

It's not over till the fat lady sings. As they say. It's quite possible that ArbComm will not address the whole cabal issue; the proposed finding that there is no evidence for a cabal, though, is ... like legislating that pi equals 22/7. There is evidence for a cabal, lots of it, that's just a fact, but the key point is the definition of cabal. Crohnie, you assume it means one thing, and you know for certain that you aren't a part of that thing, if it exists, you aren't a member. But you have not understood the meaning of "cabal," it's a word with a wide range of meanings, and the meaning here has been made quite explicit. You think it rude; however, you apparently don't think it rude when the cabal -- this faction of editors, and in at least one case with your participation, has defined other editors as worth of being banned. Which is ruder: claiming an editor should be banned, or claiming that an editor is function as if a member of a cabal, with it being made plain and clear that this, by itself, isn't an offense?

"Cabal" means, as I use it, a faction of editors that (1) has some power and (2) collectively uses that power in ways that frustrate certain policies and arbitration decisions that the cabal rejects. WP:TAGTEAM is an activity that a cabal can pull off, often, with no conscious or deliberate collusion, it just happens. When it happens again and again, with the same editors, across a family of articles, and with the same editors taking the same positions in disputes where non-involved editors, including highly experienced ones, come to distinctly different conclusions, we can start to suspect that we are looking at a cabal. You may not believe this, but everything I've told you has been true, and this is one more thing. There are probably many cabals, but I've only clearly seen one: the global warming cabal for want of a better term; it also takes strong interest in pseudoscience, fringe science, quackery, and the like. I encountered it when I saved RfC/GoRight from speedy deletion because Raul654 had failed to certify it; he wrote it, and left it for WMC to certify. GoRight was correctly claiming that it hadn't achieved the required two signatures and should be deleted. However, I moved it back to unlisted, so that it wouldn't be deleted; Raul654 then came back and certified it. And then I read it. You might look.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight. I could see, when I put together the diffs, that GoRight had been greeted with incivility, tag-team reverted, quickly blocked by an associated administrator, and was now being RfC'd with a laundry list of offenses. And, overall, while he'd certainly made mistakes, his behavior was not the worst. Look at my evidence, that was the first process that I presented evidence in. Look at the comments in the case, and look at the analysis in my evidence (there is a summary evidence page, and a detailed on, this is on the detailed page) regarding comments in the RfC and involvement in edit warring with GoRight. Each of those editors normally did not exceed 1RR. But it was still edit warring, just not the easily enforceable 3RR kind. A group of editors was, across a family of articles (and I only examined a small part of this family, I've later seen much more), pushing what I've called Majority POV. Which is still POV. There were neutral editors who commented in the RfC. The difference between them and the "cabal" -- I wasn't thinking of that word then -- was striking. Note that two of these editors were subsequently elected to ArbComm, and what they thought of my evidence. And it's striking in the current RfAr pages. Assumptions of bad faith, distortion of evidence to amplify a point, easily refuted points that have been refuted, repeated over and over (what they accuse me of, in fact) and this is visible to ArbComm. They are not stupid.

The cabal is not an organized cabal. If it were, it probably would not be so dangerous. I can easily understand, Crohnie, that you don't like being identified as a member; but I applied the same standards to all, roughly. You have taken positions that you think are perfectly sensible that are, in fact, rejected by the community overall. You are not fully aligned with the cabal, you have simply been sucked in by some appealing arguments that fall apart when more carefully examined, I'll assert. You are not in danger from my naming you. It's somewhat unlikely that ArbComm will do anything about the cabal, per se. And if it does, it might be something like this: (and I think your name might not be on the first list I describe)

Editors (list) have participated in TAGTEAM reversion, across many articles. Edit warring is prohibited, and even a single revert may be considered edit warring under some circumstances. Editors should be careful to seek consensus in Talk and not rely upon superiority of numbers to maintain and article in a preferred state. Administrators in this list should avoid using tools in a dispute where another member of the list is involved, to avoid bias due to personal affiliation.

Editors (list) have participated in ban discussions where the ban of an editor in conflict with other members of this list, without any apparent involvement in the same articles. For a community ban, a "consensus of uninvolved editors" is required, and an administrator closing such a ban may consider all listed editors as involved if one of them is. Arguments from editors on the list are to be considered; however, arguments without evidence that is actually verified, presented in discussions where the presenting editor is involved, may be discounted.

Something like that. The edit warring thing can be serious, but it would properly not result in blocks until there had been warning. Good luck with your health issues, and one more comment: you might notice how dismissive your "friends" have been of what I was doing. That was pretty foolish, one very likely result of it is the desysopping of WMC. He was overconfident because of this mutual reinforcement of the cabal. It makes members think that they are the consensus and everyone else disagreeing with them is fringe, isolated, whacko, and surely the right-thinking members of ArbComm will see how WMC is BOLD in working for the project. Except, cognitive disconnect: one of the cabal traits is a mistrust of ArbComm and consensus process. That's a clue to what is really going on. My experience with the cabal, when it is acting to frustrate policy, is that, in chaotic process, at AN/I, at individual articles, it can prevail. But if an editor or two are patient, civil, and steadily examine the issues, breaking them down into baby steps, in an orderly process, they lose. (Ore accurately, the individual editors who may have been blocking consensus defect agree, possibly to some compromise, or disappear.) It's the old difference between mob rule and deliberative democracy. And so, because my goal is true, deliberated consensus, they find someone like me threatening, they have since RfC/GoRight, but until RfC/JzG 3 and the RfAr that followed, they didn't take it particularly seriously. They call the patient process I described WP:Civil POV pushing, though, in fact, it is simply the seeking of an informed CONSENSUS, which almost always takes work, it does not appear by magic. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, I don't know what you mean by a picture by Ikip; could you explain? I'll see what I can do to try to get the page shortened. Let me know if you'd like me to copy sections of the page to subpages for you again. If you can read the page but not post, you can put your posts somewhere (e.g. your own talk page) specifying the subsections they're supposed to go in, and I or someone else can post them for you. You can put a note on my talk page asking me to. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Size of workshop

We tried having proposals on subpages in the Ryulong case a few months ago, and it was widely disliked as it hindered navigation, made it difficult to compare proposals, and broke up discussion, among other complaints. If you don't mind moving in Crohnie's comments, that would be fine; just make sure to say something like "comment from Crohnie <original diff>" in your edit summary each time. The only other thing I can recommend is that Crohnie try to work on improving his browser, memory capacity, and/or bandwidth; there isn't much I can do. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Involvement of William Connolley in dispute

Connolley's supporters are repeatedly claiming that WMC was not involved in this dispute, with little or no rebuttal from you, Abd and others.

What is the evidence? If you notice, editors can't argue against my overwhelming evidence of administrator abuse.

Remember:

If you say something enough, people will believe it.

These editors continue to say that Connolley is not involved, with little rebutal. We need to create an effective rebuttal.

I will let Abd know I messaged you here, and read over the case in more depth.

Please explain in detail with edit diffs to me here or via email what evidence there is of Connolley being involved. Ikip (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm basically overwhelmed, but I'll answer questions. I already presented evidence of prior involvement in dispute with me. I presented evidence that we were involved in a content dispute at the time of his ban. That he insisted on the right to block me for any edit at all, even after the community ban expired, is a dispute. Administrators have no right to sit in judgment on another editor like that. They cannot, without support from a community ban, block an editor for a non-disruptive edit. We were involved in a dispute over that! He maintained his position even though we were in an accepted RfAr over the issue, and finally, having had quite enough of the bluster, rejected it and withdrew my voluntary compliance, once again. And made an edit when it presented itself, a carefully non-disruptive edit, considered on his own. He proved that he would do it. Which made all the rest moot, given his clear -- and continued! -- intransigence. He's agreed to submit to raw power, he has not agreed that he was involved, so we must assume that he would do it again with another editor, given the opportunity. And, as you know, he's done it many times.

I did not force him to block me, nor did I "ask him" for it, as he's stated, for if he considered my edit disruptive, he would, if he understood recusal policy -- he probably does not -- have sought help. He could have made it difficult, he could have arranged for another cabal administrator to block, maybe. On the other hand, he'd possibly have had to go outside the named circle, I'd guess, and if affiliation were later shown, there would have been a risk to that admin. I don't know if he even tried; his character is such that he probably simply responded, knee-jerk, to my defiance. Blocking for defiance has gotten other admins desysopped. It's not a legitimate block reason. Defying a warning to stop disruptive edits is moot. The disruptive edits are what counts.

Essentially, Ikip, read my evidence page, minus the responses to individual editors. It's not long. You can also skip what may be the longest of those direct evidence pages, the cabal claim. It's there, but it is in references to history, at present. There is, as I recall, the same basic evidence presented in the RfAr itself. (Likewise part of it hypertexted down, to keep the request brief on the surface.) --Abd (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Skip getting ensnared on the talk pages, they are a waste of time which few look at. I am trying to help as much as I can. I have other suggestions which I won't elaborate on.

After the block 3 days ago, it is now not a matter of if connolley loses his adminship but for how long. Congratulations. Ikip (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Documenting the involvement_of_William_Connolley_in_ the dispute

Based on the concerns above, about Connolley's supporters repeatedly claiming that WMC was not involved in this dispute, I think this page maybe a good idea:

User:Ikip/Connolley Abd involvement this is a page we can all create together, and all link to in the arbcom. Ikip (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The talk subpage of this was moved to User:Abd/Connolley Abd involvement --Abd (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: involvment

there is so much going on the workshop page, you maybe missed this: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop#Background which very effectively lays out the details of what happened, the best part, is

1. it makes negative conclusions about William Connolley's behavior, whereas User:Ikip/Connolley_Abd_involvement is generally neutral,
2. it is written by an arbcom.

So instead of quoting our page, [112] I would quote and link to Stephen Bain's section instead.

Our page is not complete, User:Ikip/Connolley_Abd_involvement but I see no reason to complete it, Arbcom Mr. Bain has made a more convincing arguments on the facts because of the air of authority they have than we ever could.

User:Coppertwig/Connolley Abd involvement Here is the text of the page we did together, it is now your page, if you want to finish it, go ahead, if you want to revert it, go ahead, if you want to add it to the record (which I suggest in some form, in case others may need it in the future).

Hammer on the Abd block on August 9, as clear evidence of involvment, which all arbcoms universally condemn. Quote the arbcom members repeatedly. That is all you need to do. Use other people who have much more authority make the argument for you.

I would go even further: all you should write in the arbcom anymore is quoting arbcom members. No matter what argument any editor makes, if you feel you must answer them, somehow bring it back to the arbcom quotes.

Much more valuable than arguing with editors, I would compile a User:Coppertwig/arbcom quotes list, a list of quotes from the past week, you can use and reuse, ad nauseum. But at this point there is no good reason to write much more. Ikip (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you've copied it onto the evidence page, I'm going to request deletion of the userpage now. The contents of the page can now be found here: [113].

I hope the arbitration case works out well for all concerned and for the good of the project. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd may want his statment on the talk page. Ikip (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Ikip. I completely forgot about the talk page. I've removed the CSD tag for now, but I don't expect to keep the page in my userspace indefinitely. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I referred to that comment in Talk for the evidence page, it was so important that I made it the last thing I referred to in withdrawing from further comment in the RfAr. It shows that WMC is aware of the cabal. He doesn't think of it as such, of course, but rather, simply, as an "us" maintaining Global warming against others "sticking their oars in." This was in reference to the protection of Global warming by Jennavecia, and his unprotection, to which she properly protested, since the "administrators" he claimed were watching the article were precisely cabal administrators, who either edit warred themselves or aided and abetted it. --Abd (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that the user talk page User talk:Coppertwig/Connolley Abd involvement has not been deleted, although its associated userpage has been deleted. I don't see any links to it. I'm sorry, Abd, I don't understand where you said you'd mentioned it; I looked for that and didn't find it. Perhaps you'd like to move it into your userspace, Abd; I'll likely request deletion, perhaps when the case closes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll check. The link would be from the redirect at the Ikip page. Moving and deleting probably ended up trashing the redirect. There should be a redirect at the Ikip version. This was, shall we say, messy, to move those pages around like that.

Okay, User_talk:Ikip/Connolley_Abd_involvement still exists. I am moving the evidence page to my user space and I'll rename as well, and fix the redirect. The original reference is in Evidence#Incident_demonstrating_cabal_existence_and_activity --Abd (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The talk page for that discussion has been moved to User:Abd/Connolley Abd involvement.

Che

Oh, it's no problem! Good luck on the G.A. nomination! -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you, and thanks for all the work you did on First American-Roumanian in my absence! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

template question

Hi Coppertwig, I have a parsing question I can't seem to figure out. The code I am trying to modify is in User:Nableezy/sandbox. What I would like to do is make an if statement that will set the value of "region" to something if the value of "district" is something (I'm sure you can figure out what the somethings are). Let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks, nableezy - 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it is being called at User:Nableezy/Sandbox so you can see the results there. Thanks, nableezy - 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working on it. I hope you don't mind I'm editing it with test edits. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything you can do to help however you want to do it :). My idea is to change the region code to be an if else statement with the if being if district=js region=WB else region=whatever it says now. But I cant find out how to do that first if or even if there is an else in wiki markup. nableezy - 22:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry, actually I didn't understand what the problem was; I thought it wasn't displaying at all, but it is. I don't understand what you want to do. Currently there's a "switch" statement. Do you want to change the "switch" statement to an "if" statement? Why? You can use a default with a "switch" statement, like an "else": you just put the last value after a pipe with no "something=". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to have the region field be dependent on the district field for the specific case of district=js and be displayed automatically. nableezy - 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Which part of the template are you talking about? What do you mean by "region field"? (I don't see anything like that in the current display.) What do you want it to say if the district is js? What do you want it to say if the district is not js? Sorry for all the questions; I can't guess what you want to do. If there is a part of the template that you've written that isn't doing what you want it to do, please tell me which part; you can quote part of the wikitext of the template to let me know what you're working on. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The region field is defined, just not being called. See Modi'in Illit for how it looks with region=West Bank. The idea is so that if the district is defined as js the region field would be auto-defined as West Bank. The reason for this is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (West Bank)#Infoboxes. If the district is not defined as js the region would be either not shown or set to whatever the calling page sets it to. That code to allow for region to be defined is in the template, it is
{{#if:{{{region|<noinclude>x</noinclude>}}}| {{!}} valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid dimgray;" {{!}} '''Region''' {{!}} valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid dimgray;" {{!}} {{{region}}} }}
. nableezy - 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand now what you want to do! I think I can do it. I'll have a look. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I should have just said all that to begin with, but thanks for the patience. nableezy - 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it! So, when you said "js", you literally meant "js"!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That is awesome, but one tiny problem. If not js and region not defined it still displays {{region}}, see User:Nableezy/Sandbox. Before it was a conditional if region is not defined it would not display the field (see here). Any idea of how to keep it from displaying anything if not defined at all on the page and district != js? nableezy - 23:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Would you like to put this code into the template or would you rather I do it? nableezy - 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the name of the template? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Israel municipality. nableezy - 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just put it in. Please check whether it's OK. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't displaying properly, at the page mentioned above, so I took it out again. You can try to fix it if you like, or I'll probably do it tomorrow. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I got it working, take a look. nableezy - 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you find an example page where region is specified, just to check that that possibility works? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I just put that field in today, so no, but I made User:Nableezy/Sandbox call the main template now. Here it is with district js and region garbage; here with district js and no region; here with district north and no region; and here with district north and region defined. All working fine. nableezy - 00:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; and I realized I can test it on another page using preview, anyway. I'm trying to re-arrange it so that the region parameter takes precedence, but I seem to have counted the parentheses wrong. I might try again tomorrow. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont think an override of region for district=js should be allowed. That just opens it up to saying "region=Judea". My personal opinion though. nableezy - 00:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other, although having flexibility seems more wiki-like. Since you've opposed such a change, I'll probably just get it working (tomorrow) and then revert it out again, so that the option is there in the history in case people want it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, you have been a huge help. nableezy - 00:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi Coppertwig, thanks for adding the "region" parameter to the Israeli municipality infoboxes. I can't see how to edit it, e.g. on this article, as I can't see the region parameter. I'm thinking we should be able to make clear that it's an illegal settlement, rather than just saying "West Bank." Or perhaps if we add "Palestinian territories," that would make it clearer. My apologies if it's obvious how to do this, and I've somehow missed it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The region parameter is hardcoded to "West Bank" if the district is defined as "js" (which sets it to "Judea and Samaria Area"). If you want to change that you need to change the line
{{!}} valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid dimgray;" {{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{district}}}|js|[[West Bank]]|{{{region}}}}}
to
{{!}} valign="top" style="border-top: 1px solid dimgray;" {{!}} {{#ifeq:{{{district}}}|js|[[West Bank]] ([[Palestinian terrotories]])|{{{region}}}}}
in the template. If the district is not set to "js" then you can just add a region parameter to the page and that will display. But if it is "js" you cannot the region in the article, at least not now. nableezy - 05:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Is there a benefit to setting it up that way? Personally, I'd prefer the boxes to be easier for people to edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Only way to guarantee that Judea and Samaria Area is not used in the infobox unqualified (though this would also need to be done at the kibbutz infoboxes used for smaller settlements, but that one is a bit more complicated). Which seems to be your argument on a few pages, unless I misunderstood something. The version I put in earlier just had a region field that is editable on each page, you can see above how this version came to be. nableezy - 06:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think what you're concerned about, SlimVirgin, is that when the district is "js", currently the region parameter is ignored and the region is displayed as "West Bank". There had already been a "region" parameter; what I did was (in response to Nableezy's request in the thread above) I made it so that if the district is "js", then the region is set to "West Bank". I'm currently trying to edit it so that it will only set the region to "West Bank" if the user doesn't specify a region parameter. As I said, I don't feel strongly about what it ought to do; I'm just helping with the parserfunctions. When you say you'd prefer the boxes to be easier for people to edit, I guess you mean for people to edit the wikitext calling the boxes in the articles that use the template, not editing the template itself. Once I make the change I'm trying to make, it should be more self-explanatory (i.e. "region" will mean "region") so I hope that will be OK. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I fixed Template:Infobox Israel municipality (as I had been intended to anyway) so that if the region parameter is specified, it will display that region, even if the district is js. If no region parameter is specified, and the district is set to js, then the region will be displayed as "West Bank". See it displayed with 4 different calls at User:Coppertwig/Sandbox4 (for now). Let me know if you would like me to make any other changes. Since I have the impression you prefer it this way, SlimVirgin, I won't self-revert to the version Nableezy prefers, as I had originally intended; allowing flexibility seems better to me than hard-coding. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)