User talk:Enric Naval/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, Enric Naval, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
I see you've been here for a long time as a user, but I thought you might like a welcome anyway!Inner Earth 22:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Enric Naval 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
House of Aragon/Barcelona
References
Thank you! I will use these standards from now on. I appreciate that! --Polylerus (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sad day when a bot needs to remind me of stuff :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 09:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No worries, Enric. You didn't waste my time. I'm just sick and tired of American grammar and spelling being used concerning European affairs - again not your fault. Cheerio!
I'll have to go through the article again - don't worry! The only one I noticed was "onward" when it should be "onwards" in English. I'll skim through it again - there weren't that many to begin with.
Re: Jenni Potts
Hey, there! Thanks for your note.
I do remember nominating this article for speedy deletion but I'm not an administrator so it must have been someone else that deleted it. Since the article was speedy deleted, the creating editor is not restricted in recreating the article the same way he/she would have been if it was deleted through an AfD discussion. If you feel like the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, you can nominate it for AfD and I will be sure to stop by the discussion and lend my opinion.
Thanks again for contacting me.
Peace! SWik78 (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Note
Hi. Thanks for your notice on Randy Blackamoor's page. My issue with him is he consistently ignores WP:CIVIL[1] and doesn't respond to feedback, except for short periods of time. I have even recommend that he get mentored.[2]
Prado edits
Just checked out your reasoning... quite correct in what you say now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.44.177 (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Travel Concern
Hey,
I'm still new to wikipedia, and I responded back to your comments on my talk page. Is that correct protocol?
Mpalmer22 (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I'm still new and still trying to figure out how Wikipedia works, since it seems different from most other things I've worked with. You've raised a lot of valid points. I don't really have any problems with what you said, I guess I'm just trying to figure out how best to contribute. I do work and feel that his content is going to be useful and helpful, but I'm not sure how it would be best used without any conflicts of interest or going beyond my understanding. Any ideas? Thanks for the help.
RE: Generation Z deletion notice
Thanks Enric Naval. I've repaired the talk page. The article Generation Z has actually been nominated twice for deletion. The first nomination, from 2006, located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z was in fact a delete result. I had nothing to do with that discussion or result. The second nomination, the one that I closed in 2008, was a keep result, located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Z (2nd nomination). I've fixed the talk page to reflect both discussions, located here. I wouldn't recommend a new deletion discussion as the last one only closed about a month ago. If you disagree with the closing of the discussion and feel that the discussion as it happened and containing what it contains should have led to deletion instead of being kept, you can list it at Deletion Review. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. It looks to be sorted out now. Thanks for the talk message though, as the talk page was indeed incorrect! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of UC-26C, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-26.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Jellyfish
It's not currently prodded. You did a good job of providing references, but the tone is still too advocatory/promotional, with a side of "here's how it works." Generally, "here's how it works" is not a good thing to see in an encyclopedia article, for tonal reasons if nothing else. It smacks a little of the newspaper article or even press release. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored the previously deleted versions, so you can find them at the beginning of the article history. I hope this helps. Ty 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
einsof.gif
Re your query: no, it actually isn't from the book you posted, but was worked up from a 17thC copperplate image on the Kabbalah page. It does, I agree, look rather like the one you put up though, so if it has to come off, then it comes off. All that work in paintbox/PaintShopPro for nowt! :( abafied (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just seen the image page and the image you put up. I used image 4, but worked it up, basing my design on a particular medieval kabbalistic concept. It looks as though image 1 may have used similar sources, though I couldn't say for sure. I notice, though, that that has Hebew on all the white rings, which mine doesn't. However, I think I've come up with a solution - to put the Hebrew into English, esp. because more people will understand that abafied (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've put up the gif. now as ein_sof_1. It's in English and for free use, so I hope it complies with Wikipedia requirements. It's on the page for Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi abafied (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
"If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say the template says it shouldn't be removed? Perhaps you think I created this article? I did not. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Sorry, I didn't know that was a tag for speedy deletion. Thanks. BTW, do you think my signature is too big--RyRy5 talk 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Saint Petersburg
Please, leave the sister cities alone, Ill try to find some information. Just keep them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Saint Petersurg #2
Alright, Ill make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albania T (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Strange Name
Good job finding my Secret Page. By the way, what name was it. Was it hamhampopo. That was the only strange name I could remember.--RyRy5 talk 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- the name was "Y?????Y". Now that's a suspicious name if I ever saw one :D --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Program
This is my own program for my adoptees. I'm not trying to create a new program that way. In My program I, give my adoptees tests to complete. It helps them learn more about wikipedia. If they do well, I then ask them to graduate. This is OK, right.--RyRy5 talk 19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- My program is almost like Tiptoety's. His program is in this link.--RyRy5 talk 19:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Query re gif wk1
Last year I made a gif for free use on Wikipedia, from a photo of Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi by the photographer, Mayotte Magnus. She had given her permission for the image to be used on WP, provided the photo itself was credited to her on the Image Page. I didn't understand the WP copyright process, couldn't find or fill in the right forms and it was deleted. I'd like to re-upload it, if that's still possible, but would need help with the form-filling/finding. Can you help, please?
I've also since found out that the same photo has been used by other organisations on the internet. abafied (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- A photo of the image is now an image page: Image:Wk1.jpg Could you check it over for accuracy of origins, please?
- Thanks, enric. I've put up the image on the Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi page, but am unsure where to put your suggested "Non-free fair use in|name_of_article_that_has_the_photo", or how to go about sorting out the licensing. Could you advise further, please. abafied (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added the fair use summary, but are you saying that, in addition, I need both a free-use license and a fair-use license, or am I being totally stupid? abafied (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help, again, enric. It's appreciated. abafied (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep them
Keep them there for a while, I will find some information. But do not delete them yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait
Just write citation needed next to the ones I wrote. Then I will find some information. But do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know
Wow, I guess my I didn't know that. Sorry.--RyRy5 talk 20:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that was a userpage, not an article, Sorry again.--RyRy5 talk 20:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I may have over 2300 edits, but I've only been here for a month. So what do I do now.--RyRy5 talk 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- That account was for giving out awards to others. By the way, that's my dad's acount. He has been watching me edit for a while so I had to teach him. He also know's how much I contribute, so it's not technically a sock, right?--RyRy5 talk 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)--RyRy5 talk 20:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I may have over 2300 edits, but I've only been here for a month. So what do I do now.--RyRy5 talk 20:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not mi image
No. This is not my image. I have uploaded an image which was a photo of Retiro, in Buenos Aires. This is the 9 de Julio Avenue. You will see that the title is incorrect.
guestbook barnstart
I just wanted to let you know that I'm sorry if I came off as harsh or mean in that discussion. I was thinking about it just now, and realized that I wasn't very considerate in that TfD. You're right to bring your concerns to TfD, and I do understand the argument about discouraging the use. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted this one in the past as non-notable, and now the guy has revived it. He has been upfront in his efforts to make his case, so I feel ethically bound not to speedy or even prod the article; but do you feel he's made even a remote case for passing WP:COMPANY? Frankly, I don't. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem
When I add each one, I will try to get source for it. I will do my job best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Robert Zeltser (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Archiving my talk page
I already archive everything over 20 days; 9 threads this morning alone. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Village pump
Yeah, I know. Actually I was holding back. That wasn't Rich.lewis? (e.g. "I still perosonally [sic] think..." Did he say something earlier? Or is it a joke?) Thanks for the reminder all the same. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Userbox?
Hi Enric. My dad is not going to use his account anymore. Also, it said on your reminders to check new pages often. Would you like the New Pages Patroller Userbox? It is exactly like your recent changes userbox except that it is instead "new pages".--RyRy5 talk 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's good to hear how much work your doing at wikipedia. If you plan to become an admin in a few months and you keep on doing what your doing now, you won't have much problem passing your RFA.--RyRy5 talk 20:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Recommendation
Per this edit, I'll just intrude here for a moment to give you some help. First, never ever ever, unless it's something dramatic, refactor someone else's post to the talk page, especially the postings of a very experienced editor. You might want to check out WP:TALK for some helpful guidance. In addition, if there are too many colons, you can reduce indent, especially if you're starting a new thought. Some people are creative, I just type <RI> meaning "reduce indent". It's always good form to state that you're reducing the indent. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, you are right there. Even if reactoring is technically still supported by policy on Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages, I am making changes so extensive that one day I'll make a mistake and leave a wrong indentation and change the meaning of a discussion (if I haven't done it already without noticing!). On a controversial page like Homeopathy this could cause a storm of drama that wouldn't quite help to build a good article. Ah, well, i'm going to read again WP:TALK, since it seems I still didn't grok it enough. Ah, the joys of reading policy pages! Thanks again for help --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2008
Alright
I'll find source on them then.
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar! There were a couple more articles that I had hoped to cite last night. I'll try and do it soon. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job on the sock puppet case
I hope an admin gets to it soon. I wonder how Aimar chose you. Enigma message 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ha, listed as adoptee of a sock. That's embarrassing. Got my name wrong anyway. I sign with Enigma, but the actual username Enigma is taken. It was last used in 2003, but I still can't usurp it, unfortunately. Enigma message 14:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I saw a silly edit on Hamburg by an IP [3]. I corrected it, and then I went over his contributions to delete all the nonsense. (Btw, there is one edit that he did that I still don't know if it's true or not [4]). I left warnings on the IP talk page, had a discussion with him over the guitar thing, and then he saw my user page and found it funny, and decide to screw with it. He remembered about an old account that he had some time ago and logged into it to keep vandalising, and then his brother got a throw away account to help him. Apparentely, he also finds my reactions funny :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I can always point at it when the involved users trash more articles, and admins will eventually get to processing that case. The important thing is that their behaviour seems to have stopped for now, so maybe we can put a bit of order on those articles and restore them to a good state --Enric Naval (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I joined it. I would also like you to join this if you can:
 |
Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept! |
my talk page
You are welcome to argue with me on my talk page in reasonably polite language as much as you choose. You are not welcome to use it as springboard for attacks on other editors. Comments such as "Right now I could be way harsher to you and get away with it." no matter whom they may be addressed to, are not appropriate. In fact, it seems imprudent language, to say the least, in any situation, on or off wikipedia To be fair to others, I am deleting your last few comments. Please dont take it personally, but they don't belong there. DGG (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
My User talk
Go to my user talk.
WikiProject Beijing
Hey Enric Naval/Archive 1! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Clouseau
LOL, it was a joke. Today is April Fools Day! :) Apologies for any confusion though. :) K. Lásztocskatalk 23:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was all I could think of. :) I think I was better last April Fools day....K. Lásztocskatalk 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply to your very verbose messages
If what I'm doing makes me look bad, then let it be so. I feel very strongly about this topic, and I think that you people who want to delete many of the secret pages are, in a sense, coercing others by forcing them to delete these. I admit, some of these are very irritating, but some others aren't. Regarding my edit summary, I'm not really seeing where you're trying to go with this. Are you saying that I am not using Wikipedia how it's supposed to be because I tend to edit my userspace a lot and other non-articles, i.e. templates? Are you saying that each Wikipedian is supposed to have only one or two edits per page? Please clarify this, because I feel right now like you're trying to criticize me for so many things, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to do by criticizing me. I just remembered... please put your criticisms on my editor review page. I'm apologize if this is too long. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply to your response
I'm sorry, I sometimes take things the wrong way. If my reply sounded at all sarcastic or attacking, I apologize; I was just sort of irritated this morning. Sorry! It's not your fault at all. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 22:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
documenting Ullman
No no: this is how you do it =P Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Anonymity
I saw this comment, and I didn't want to discuss on Ldemery's page, since he's a bit odd to me. I think that many of us prefer anonymity, for whatever reason. There are individuals who have been attacked for posts here. There was a professor of Medicine in Toronto, who, as a result of his edits to the Abortion article, was outed and attacked. I think they even accused him of pedophilia or something as repulsive. I intentionally do not edit in any article with which I have a professional interest, just so I do not have to claim to be an "expert", and therefore, do not have to make an Essjay mistake. So, I would never, under any circumstance, agree to publish anything about me. And Ldemery's requests are ridiculous at any rate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Warning
I do not like the naked accusations you are making against User:DanaUllman.[5] Please include evidence in the form of diffs to substantiate what you say; otherwise, you may find yourself blocked for violations of civility and assume good faith. Jehochman Talk 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, because civility rules around here and Dana is free to continue to bring up the same tired studies over and over (and have them rejected over and over) because it seems everyone has the memory of a goldfish. Sorry for this rude awakening, Enric. As someone who has had many dealing with this editor, I will just advise you to tread lightly. Baegis (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please avoid attacking the messenger just because you don't like the message. I try to provide RS and NPOV references, and I do my best to AGF and maintain civility. We may not agree with each other, but let's be civil and avoid personal attacks. You have done editing on lots of different subjects, but as Jehochman asserted, you haven't been adequately civil nor AGF with me. I have taken a break recently from homeopathy articles. Perhaps it is time for you to consider doing likewise or at least edit on subjects for which you are more technically competent (and less emotionally charged). Please also know that just because an editor criticizes a study for one reason or another does not mean that this criticism is either valid or RS. Unless there is a secondary source for that criticism, it is often OR and has no place here. Finally, as you read past dialogues on the homeopathy article, please note that many of the strong antagonists to homeopathy have later been found to be socks. We all need to tread lightly and be kind to each other. DanaUllmanTalk 17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- In any case, that comment was posted just above about 20 diffs that I had carefully set out and explained. Hence, Enric, as I believe you were aware of it, I'm not sure why Jehochman's criticising you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please avoid attacking the messenger just because you don't like the message. I try to provide RS and NPOV references, and I do my best to AGF and maintain civility. We may not agree with each other, but let's be civil and avoid personal attacks. You have done editing on lots of different subjects, but as Jehochman asserted, you haven't been adequately civil nor AGF with me. I have taken a break recently from homeopathy articles. Perhaps it is time for you to consider doing likewise or at least edit on subjects for which you are more technically competent (and less emotionally charged). Please also know that just because an editor criticizes a study for one reason or another does not mean that this criticism is either valid or RS. Unless there is a secondary source for that criticism, it is often OR and has no place here. Finally, as you read past dialogues on the homeopathy article, please note that many of the strong antagonists to homeopathy have later been found to be socks. We all need to tread lightly and be kind to each other. DanaUllmanTalk 17:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Updated a bit. Here's what I think is the best new section: [6] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but it's clear evidence of him saying that assume good faith = I am right. The details are just to show his claims are groundless. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, the correction is wrong: I don't think he IS capable. That's my paragraph setting out the case for banning him. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Let's face it, he's Dana Ullman. His entire career is devoted to promotion of homeopathy, and part and parcel of that is his representing favourable studies in the best possible light, and denigrating any negative ones. To get him to follow Wikipedia policy would require that he give up using the things that have made him famous and made him such a major promoter of homeopathy. His entire career and livelihood are based on those things. He's not going to change them because Wikipedia asks him to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, the correction is wrong: I don't think he IS capable. That's my paragraph setting out the case for banning him. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
He created yet another new sockpuppet again. (User:Radiospeed) What shall we do? -Danngarcia (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Rational
There is nothing wrong with my rational, the issue of independence in 1700's is disputed, yet presented as a fact, and large portions of pre-Islamic history have been neglected or suppressed while the minor events in post-Islamic history (ie Saudi tribal incursions) have been given undo weight. Please do not remove the tag, I am merely asking third-party users who are interested or familiar with the topic, yet not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality, as most of the editors who have constructed the section in its current form such as User:Arabbi, User:Slackerlawstudent and User:Dilmun , appear to be from from an Arab background (either Saudi Arabia or Bahrain). Please do not remove the tag. -- --07fan (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- If I was disputing it, then I would be using "POV" or "accuracy" or "totally disputed", not "POV-cehck". You do realize the difference between these tags, don't you? The whole point of POV-check is to raise questions and ask uninvolved editors who are not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality. I seriously doubt, you're familiar with this topic, so please allow the tag to remain, so that we can get the section reviewed by such editors. --07fan (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, thanks v. much for your intervention and taking the time to review the POV tags on the Bahrain and History of Bahrain pages. I think the interpretation is the right one, given that the justification on the Talk:Bahrain page used for placing the tags provides nothing specific that can be refuted and there's no justification at all on the Talk:History of Bahrain page.
On the Talk:Bahrain page, User:07fan has been invited to amend the page to include the information he wants as per wikipedia's POV policies, but hasn't done so. With 07fan's reverts of the deletion of the tags we're back to the same situation, whereby User:07fan's providing nothing specific with sources that can be responded to yet insists on leaving the tag there.
If this is acceptable under wikipedia policy, then this again raises my original point at the start of this subsection: does the policy need to be tightened up on POV tagging?
Thanks,
Dilmun (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I explained to Erik, his interpretation is not the right one, I have given sufficient rational on Talk:Bahrain, and I am not "POV tagging", if I was actually disputing the page or wanted to "amend the page" in the fashion you're describing, then I would be using "POV" or "accuracy" or "totally disputed" tags, not "POV-cehck". There is a difference between these tags for a reason, and the whole point of POV-check is to raise questions and ask uninvolved editors who are not associated with the topic, to review it for neutrality. A simple "POV-check" on a section of an article does not "undermine the credibility of the article", it actually serves to improve the article by inviting uninvolved editors to review and improve the article.--07fan (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Huh?
I don't appreciate your false accusation that "07fan is clearly not abiding by this policy on Bahrain page, since he has engaged on drive-by tagging of other tags [7], has not made any other edits to the article except for tagging (which means that he didn't try to mend the article before or after tagging)"
Since when an editor needs to ask for permission to place a fact tag in front of an obvious false claim that English is the official language of Bahrain? The fact that you're using that as an example that I engaged in "drive-by tagging": shows your total lack of knowledge of the issue at hand, and a total disregard for WP:AGF and associated polices. I invite you to take back your false accusations, and assume good faith. Also, "POV-check-secton" is the right tag, not "POV-section", unless you're disputing the section in question, which I doubt, given your unfamiliarity with the topic. --07fan (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Justified how? Show me the policy that one needs to use the talk page in order to use citation/fact tags [citation needed] or that it should be used as a "last resort"? Either do that or take back your accusation. As someone aspiring to become an admin, you should know better. --07fan (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- You just can't claim that placing a fact tag, in front of the false claim that an Arab country's official language is English!?!?, is an example of "driveby-tagging", that's a false accusation against an established editor. I am really disappointed by your one-sided and assumptious conduct. I understand that you're trying to become an admin, and think that you're helping out. But if you really want your future RFA to succeed, I would advise you not to get involved in topics, on which you have absolutely no expertise to make a sound judgment, so that you'd not lose the support of the editors you would needlessly offend by doing so.--07fan (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, your advice was ignored
By –MattisseTalk, more than an hour after you warned him ... He is still going on about Notability Redthoreau (talk TR 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, great edits to the article thus far. Much improved and appreciated. Redthoreau (talk TR 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Bahrain
Hi Enric,
Regarding your solution to the POV tag on the Bahrain page you proposed on 6 April, you didn't go forward with it because the other two editors came to an agreement to go for RfC, with 07fan stating that he was going to file a request the following day. Its now over two days and nothing's happened. Therefore, I think we should go with your proposal, which is most certainly in line with wikipedia's guidelines on tagging:
- "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."
Three days starting from today seems reasonable for those who want to keep the tag to provide concrete information. Otherwise the tag goes.
Dilmun (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was away on business, I will file the RFC shortly. Nobody has the authority to remove the tag until the RFC generates response, and the section is reviewed by third-party users who are familiar with the topic. --07fan (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Enric, given wikipedia's policy above, is there any onus on me not to put wikipedia's rules on tagging into place and, as you proposed before, give 07fan 3 days to come up with some concrete sources to substantiate his objections before deleting the tag? I wasn't a party to the agreement to go to RFC, but the RFC 07fan's raised on the page doesn't relate to the issue of the POV tag but to the page's content - even though the placing of the tag was the issue of debate when the two users agreed to go for RfC. I'm not saying an RFC can't take place & I'd welcome it, but an RFC doesn't require a section tag; browsing through the pages listed on the RFC page and few of them have POV tags on the page.
Furthermore, 07fan has stated that the tag can only be removed when the page has been reviewed by "third-party users who are familiar with the topic". How this is defined and work in practice is unknown, and do you know of anything within wikipedia's policies that could support such an approach?
Dilmun (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, this looks more and more like a content dispute than a NPOV dispute. However, since the RFC is already open and it has a limit of 30 days, I strongly suggest keeping the tag while the RFC is open, and then re-assess its need on view of the RfC comments, since this would avoid unnecessary edit wars and disputes among editors. I have to say that if after the RfC closes there are still no sources for the information that is claimed that is lacking from the history section, then the tag should be removed. If sources are found, then the information can be added to the section, and the tag removed then. As I think I said before, the tagging does not devaluate the topic of the article, it's just about the way the topic is treated, so it's not damaging for Bahrain's fame to leave it on place a few days more. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: even if looks like a content dispute, we are still using the POV tag because the editor disputing the section claims that the lack of information is due to a POV. (Then again. I compel 07fan to find sources for the missing information and post them on the talk page, so the info can be added to the article). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Enric. I'll go for that. Unless some evidence which so far hasn't been forthcoming is provided the results going to be the same: either now or in 30 days time.
- Regarding my second point about 07fan's requirement for "third-party users who are familiar with the topic" to have edited the page, do you know anything in wikipedia's that could justify this or how this would work? 07fan hasn't provided any evidence that wikipedia's policies support this requirement.
- Sorry to keep asking you questions, its just that I understand you've ambitions to be an admin, so in effect I'm doing you a favour making sure that you're fully au fait with implementation of wikipedia's policies. :D
- I'm sure that a RfC is enough for any reviewing requirement for the tag. Once the RfC is closed, the need for the tag needs to be re-evaluated. Notice that you can improve the article during the RfC, specially if some of the comments provide info for improving the article.
- About the admin, thing, erm, well
:DI think that you need to look at my comments on 07fan talk page [8] --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- About the admin, thing, erm, well
Barcelona
Refering to your message: About this edit [1], the prefered domain by the city council is ".cat" even if examination of it would indicate that it's just a redirection to ".es". From a neutral point of view of wikipedia, none of them is preferable to the other one, and there are political reasons for Barcelona prefering .cat and many of the internal links on their website point to bcn.cat even if you enter thought bcn.es, so let's use .cat and leave it at that --Enric Naval (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
well the use of both .cat and .es at the same time is as you said for political reason, so then, why take sides? bcn.cat probably just used to apeace the nationalists, but the real domain is .es which points to the country where Barcelona is. At any rate both should be present. Besides, some other wikipedia languages use .es (ie Galego and Spanish). If there are two domains, let's include both, there are two domains for a reason
Well, ERC, PSC and ICV were voted by the people, but from that you can't infer that people elected them to form a coalition. The Govern had to mainly apease ERC I guess as you say, which is a party centred on identity and ethnic politics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahuelmarisi (talk • contribs) 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Tanoli page
Hello, I appreciate your work on recognising and banning vandals on the Tanoli page. The page has improved and is now in very good state. I want to know how the stubs regarding 'factual accuracy' and 'tone' of the article can be removed as these are no longer necessary there. take care Wikitanoli (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you consideration and removal of those stubs, I will footnote refrences and further improve the quality of the article. Cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Consider focusing on content issues rather than attacking the messenger
Sadly, it seems that you believe that if you throw enough mud at the walls that some of it will stick (there are too many instances to reference here, but you certainly know about which I am referring). I sincerely hope that you will now focus on content issues rather than attacking the messenger. The fact that I remain civil and that I work to provide RS, notable, secondary references, and NPOV encyclopedic information has seemed to inflame you. It is a tad ironic that you have asked me to take a break, when it seems that you are spending a lot more time and energy evaluating me and the people who appreciate me than I spend on wikipedia in entirety. I hope that you will show good faith by working harder towards moving to consensus rather than towards attacking me. Can't we get along? If not, please consider taking your own advice and take a wiki-break or focus your editing on other subjects to which you are less emotionally connected. Let's move into a different gear. DanaUllmanTalk 04:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, Dana, I think you are referring to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DanaUllman, which was of course something I did based on compelling evidence based on multiple diffs, coincidences on account date creation, similar writing style, similar lacking of technical hability, editing on the same topics, apparent bias on the contributions, gaps on contribution history, etc. I am not going to remind you of AGF again, since other editors have already done so. I had already brought up two sockpuppet cases based on similar evidence, so I had no reason to not do the same with this evidence. I would have done the same for any other user, given the evidence, mind you.
- Please notice that I have taken already a break of those articles, specifically of discussing the studies. Mind you, I couldn't stop myself from pointing at past discussions of Ernst, which I hope is not too controversial [9] [10]. I also had to edit to mend the duplications you caused when reverting the thread archiving [11] and tell Misza not to hurry so much on archiving [12] (I see that I didn't tell you then: the archiving is done automatically by a "bot" called Miszabot for every thread that has not a comment on a given ammount of days). Mind you, I never stopped editing on the probation incident page, and I also posted on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Homeopathy/Selection of studies. I have also added the "cite study" template on Arsenicum album [13] and made some minor uncontroversial change on Water memory [14].
- Compare all of the above with you defending the studies many times on talk pages (too many diffs to put them here) and making a change on Water memory referencing a consensus on the talk page that didn't exist [15] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ahem, Dana, opening a sockpuppet case when I think that I have evidence to support it is not "throwing mud" and doesn't get me "more and more dirty" [16], specially when it later turns out that one of the accussed socks was blocked like 8 days for before for "obvious meatpuppet" by an admin, which means that at least he was giving the appearance of being a meatpuppet. I hadn't seen that last message of yours before writing my comment above. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Misdirected Message?
Apologies, but I'm afraid I'm not responsible for the edits outlined in this message:
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to User:Colchicum, you will be blocked from editing. Also, unexplained removal of text on Economy_of_Canada, Spanish Inquisition [17], George Shrinks [18], etc --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I recall that I reverted the George Shrinks vandalism edit. I think the user you should be directing this message to is actually User talk:64.141.49.2.
24.84.5.55 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Pinoybandwagon's "sockpuppet"
Uhm... I don't want to be to conclude it too soon but I think he created another sockpuppet (User:Martindanza). Check out his recent contributions. Thanks! -Danngarcia (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I can't believe this, Martindanza is still not blocked despite of proofs presented against him at the noticeboard. An editor even said [19] that the sockpuppet case is not a proof that Martindanza is a sock of Pinoybandwagon despite of the obvious similarities.
Waco siege
Okay, I added the attributions and did a little cleanup. Critic-at-Arms (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
My User Page Deletion
Yes, not needed, but thanks for the thoughful notice regarding it. Best wishes for a good weekend. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work on cleaning this stuff up. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
GDS
No point in voicing on the AFD. NPOV is an editorial problem. Sceptre (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Coat of arms of Catalonia
OK, I'm waiting for you to explain what's the problem with my version of Coat of arms of Catalonia. --Jotamar (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that you have taken the time to revise the recent versions in Coat of arms of Catalonia, and it's obvious that you know Wikipedia policies very well. Anyway, I think you haven't reached to the root of the problem yet:
- I've been dealing with Sclua since January the 5th, and I've come to the conclusion that he has zero interest in Wikipedia's principles, for him Wikipedia is just another way to advertise a certain view of History in accordance with his likings. Please check his 'list of contributions'. It's the first time in 2 years as an editor that I come across such a guy.
- My version for the article is as bad as it gets, but it tries to be NPOV. I'm no specialist in medieval History or anything similar, and I don't care very much about whether the four bars are Catalan, Aragonese or Chinese. I'm just enraged by Sclua's unabashed manipulation of the article, and you would be too, if you took the time to review all his edits. Please read the complete discussion for the page, including the Cabal Mediation that I had to call in.
- I suggest that you write the vital page heading and a framework for the rest of the page, then I can work on it. But I very much doubt that Sclua will be willing to do that, he'll sooner or later revert anything that can threaten the idea that the catalanitat of the four bars is beyond any doubt. --Jotamar (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Ditto
Anyway, thanks for the advice. I won't be becoming an admin until maybe in at least 6-8 months.
Well, I've been doing good. I redesigned my userpage if you haven't notice, but let's get to the important parts. I've been really active, editing articles. I'm also in the verge of upgrading 2 articles for WP:GA.
How about you?--RyRy5 (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'll be voting on WP:AFD's and editing articles. I guess I should tell you that I put Jackie Robinson for WP:GAN. That's all really.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Your evidence
I was reading through your evidence here, and it seems that your provided diff for the claim "Claiming effects similar to cold fusion" doesn't really support it. I can see Dana talking about atomic bombs here, but this is far removed from cold fusion. Did you perhaps link the wrong diff by mistake? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy article probation
The homeopathy article and related pages are on article probation, due to past editing problems. Please read the terms at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation and be sure to comply.
Hello Enric, after your recent contribution here I realised that you haven't been formally notified yet, although obviously you already know about it. Please be aware that you are responsible for what you propose, even when OffTheFence has proposed it before you. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
NTC's list of radio stations
Well, I think that the list can be helpful someway but we can't check whether if some of the stations are real since it only shows the number of stations in every region in the Philippines. Also Pinoybandwagon and his sockpuppets created radio nav templates by province and/or by city. I'll also try to find a more detailed list so that we can verify those articles if they are real or not.
I wish that NTC will create an updated list like this... -Danngarcia (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
warning thingie
(moved here from User talk:Doug for unified discussion)
What template did you use for the exclamation mark here? I use {{clerknote}}, but it generates the text "Clerk note:" and I think that it's not totally appropiate for a non-clerk like me to use it, and I would like to use the same template as you, but I don't know its name --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hah! I didn't, I just added [[Image:Pictogram voting comment.svg|18px]] - raw as it were. There once was a template Template:Votecomment that resulted in the exclamation mark that you used: 20px, but the logs show it was deleted back in 2005 as part of a mass deletion of all voting templates. I don't think there is any such thing as a "clerk" outside of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks but I've certainly seen the template used other places; I suppose caution dictates a lack of pretension in any case. You got me thinking and I checked the cat that {{clerknote}} is in (Category:Image with comment templates)and it has a number of other options, though none seem to fit the cat's criterion of being "navigational templates". {{TakeNote}} is probably the best or {{Remark}} depending on the importance of the comment as a procedural matter. {{Admin-note}} would have probably worked fine for me too, now that I look around a bit.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think I'll use {{Remark}}. It looks cool and calls the attention enough. I'll leave {{TakeNote}} for really important comments. Thank you very much for your help. I would have never thought my myself of checking the template categories. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
homeopathy lead bit
Thanks for moving the lead sandbox thing out of 'mainspace' - it's clearly a better fit where you've put it, and I hope it can achieve something useful in its new home - so thanks for that! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Any comments and/or opinions on it?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
VG Cats
The problem is the the link to the discussion goes back to the 2006 discussion. I was not aware that the article was AfD, but I can tell that the link is incorrect. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that! I wasn't really sure what was going on there, so it is a good thing that you know how to fix it. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Iantresman
Thank you again for your offer to provide "concrete evidence". I went through the links you provided and analysed them in the "Notes" subsection on my talk page. If you think I've missed anything, I would appreciate it if you would take the time to find the diffs. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
H Arb
Thanks for the notification. Perhaps I am misreading, but I think you are misrepresenting a number of facts in the section you added regarding me.
You wrote On the same section User:Anthon01 tells Jim that he was topic banned also for removing the category [37], however, on the ban notification on his talk page we can see that he was actually banned for stonewalling, and that at the time of his comment on 3 February he had been already warned for socking to avoid the ban.
1) I never removed the category. I only made a suggestion and was banned for making the suggestion. Additionally, a section in RSN on the matter where 15 editors weighed in, 10 of 15 editors agreed that the standard for pseudoscience was not met by the available references. In that section the 'best of the best' reference was rejected as proof of homeopathy as pseudoscience. [[20]] Here is the result of that tally abbreviated. [21]
2) At the time of my comment I was not guilty of "socking to avoid the ban." FT2 wrote
| “ | "He also emails that his computer being logged out, he wasn't aware of east718's message at the time of his 2nd post as an IP, so he posted as an IP, then realized it was logged out, then saw the message. Again no reason I can see to not give this good faith. ... As a result I'm inclined to give good faith that there was not a deliberate intent to circumvent scrutiny, but that not remembering to log in has had that effect and caused difficulties. Hopefully that's behind
now."[[22]] |
” |
I assert that this misrepresenting of accusations constitute victimism, and I use Anthon01's comment to show how usual and widespread it is even between editors that claim victimism. I assert that those editors really believe that they are victims of bias and that they are not lying consciounsly. They actually believe that they are not misrepresenting anything, even when pointed at solid evidence, and this causes problems with getting them to recognize that they ever breached a policy even in the most obvious of cases.
3) You may want to change this. Anthon01 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have responded to your statements here.[23] Anthon01 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You wrote:
On the same section User:Anthon01 tells Jim that he was topic banned also for removing the category for saying that the category should be removed [44], however, on the ban notification on his talk page we can see that he was actually banned for stonewalling, Anthon01 contested the stonewalling claims saying that no diff was provided on MastCell page,on ANI again on ANI, it's on this last ANI thread where Jehochaman finally tells him "My impression is that you are tendentiously pushing a point of view, using whatever measures you can to try to get your way and frustrate the editors who oppose you. Look at your own contribution history. Virtually every edit you make related to homeopathy fits into that pattern. I think East718 can provide specific diffs to support their actions ..."
You are making a diffless claims. If you really want to get you point across you should provide the proof necessary in the form of diffs. Otherwise all you have is rumors.(he said, she said) I was banned soon after posting the "remove the categoties" comment. East718 never provided any diffs and neither did Jehochaman. Jehochaman says "East718 can provide specific diffs," but East718 never presented any diffs.
User:Fyslee also told Anthon01 about disruption User_talk:Fyslee#H before the topic ban, and, from his comments to Anthon01 about the topic ban, does not disagree with the east718's reasons."
The link you provided on "Anthon01 about the topic ban" are not comments made to me. east718 never provided and diffs, just a baseless claim. I asked him 3 times to provide them. He disappeared. You supporting evidence is shoddy. If you really are serious about your RFa and want to be taken seriously, then you need to prove your POV with diffs. Anthon01 (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
At least in my regard, you are wasting your time. You think because Fyslee said the ban was justified that that proves it? Fyslee and I are often on the oppositte ends of content. Have you been here long? Arb isn't going to make a decision without diffs. If you want to prove stonewalling then you have to provide diffs, not someone else's diffless claims. Get the diffs that prove it. Anthon01 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
And why do I care about someone suggesting you become or thinking you're an admin? Anthon01 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. I meant RFAR. Anthon01 (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you Vanished user? Anthon01 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Leave my page alone. Anthon01 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
His name is not on my page. Adam is a common name. Anthon01 (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I forgot to say thanks so, um... thanks! Oh yes, Justin Masterson made his Major League Baseball debut yesterday. So I can probably find some more info about him.--RyRy5 (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for looking into that IP's report and for highlighting the dead link on Feminism--Cailil talk 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
On the subjectivity of "trolling"
Enric, could you please make sure that you are not developing a sense of ownership concerning the homeopathy talk page? [24] The comment you tried to hide was definitely not trolling, and much less is the anonymous editor (who apparently has a static IP address) a troll. If we go by your standard, a lot of people will no longer be able to contribute, or will be censored if they do. If we go by your standard, your suggestion to Colonel Warden that WP:V must be followed on talk pages was an obvious case of trolling because it made no sense whatsoever and you have been long enough with the project to know this. If making up rules in order to lecture other editors isn't trolling, then I don't know what is. [25] Do you think it would have been a sensible action for me or Colonel Warden to strike your comment, with an edit comment referring to you as a troll? Don't you think that would have been a case of assuming bad faith, and very unconstructive? --Hans Adler (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I was going through my watchlist in chronological order, and I didn't notice that you were actually going to ask me for my opinion. The tone of my comment would have been very different if I had known that. Sorry for that. I am curious what Fyslee will say. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your help with my pages
It is greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanrenewal (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
RV
Sorry, Enric I seemed to have missed the window for comment on RV. (olive (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
- I'm not so sure Guy respects my opinion at all. At any rate .... I'm not sure either if I would want to add this phrase .... consider this statement which is what I do believe ... from a very wise man (paraphrased): There is truly no extra sensory perception, that is, perception that can exist in the human being without the senses, since that is all we have to sense with, as long as we have human bodies . There are, however, refined aspects of the senses that may allow us at certain times to experience finer levels of the created universe not necessarily available to us at other times . We also have grosser levels of the senses too . So its all about the senses , not about what is beyond our senses .... in reality not a possibility . So, if it was referenced and was neceassary to the lead, as such, a different matter.... I apologize for not being more help.(olive (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
- I think most of my edits on RV were in the nature of copyediting . Although I may have reverted once.... I was more trying to make some kind of progress rather than wholesale agreement with anyone particluar version . I do want to comment on purported, though(olive (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
Hi, I was just wondering why you removed (by UNDO) two images from this page. Thanks! Qqqqqq (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Kodiak bear article
Feel free to contact me directly if you want to discuss the best way to improve the Kodiak bear page.
larry.vandaele@alaska.gov aka Taquka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquka (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know...
I've added this, so you might consider reducing some of the coverage of that particular event in your ArbCom evidence, particularly if you're worried about the size of your statement. — Scientizzle 20:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that in your comments in this deletion review discussion you wrote "The AfD was a joke with a lot of delete votes that should have been ignored". Did you mean to say "a lot of keep votes that should have been ignored"? I assume so since your vote was "overturn, delete" but it still looks a bit confusing. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
RE: Remote viewing
What I removed was the infobox and reworded the "generally considered pseudoscience" statement. I don't believe there's anything wrong with the category link because there's quite a few people who feel the topic is pseudoscience, it's reliably sourced as a notable view, and Wikipedia articles can have more than one category associated with them. There's a difference between that and saying it's generally considered pseudoscience, especially when the US Government didn't feel that way when they were doing their research, nor stated anything like that after the research concluded. The infobox brands the topic as such, which is inappropriate in this particular case. WP:PSCI makes distinctions on what should be generally considered pseudoscience and gives an example of astrology, something the US Government (to my knowledge) never spent $20 mil pursuing. For example they never considered pursuing astrology as a means for predicting military conflicts or something like that. They did, however, see remote viewing research as something worth sinking money into. There's a separation of issues here. One one hand, the research concluded that it's of no value to the intelligence community. It's a waste of time and money. On the other hand is the question of whether coming to that conclusion can be done scientifically. Obviously they thought it could, which counterexamples the notion of it being generally considered pseudoscience.
Believing that remote viewing is supported by science is a pseudoscientific belief, of course, like believing astrology is supported by science would be. Astrology is also a system that people misrepresent as scientific because it looks scientific, asserting that tracking planets and stars and relating them to events in one's life is actually science. That's a misrepresentation of science, pseudoscience, and why Popper used it as an example when popularizing the term. Remote viewing isn't a system posing as science like astrology. It's just an idea, an idea that some (like the US Government) thought could be tested in a scientific way. The topic itself isn't pseudoscientific, nor the research. The topic doesn't misrepresent itself as science, and the research was conducted using scientific standards. It's the belief that remote viewing is either partially or completely supported by science that is pseudoscientific. Those beliefs could be generally considered pseudoscientific, but the US Government didn't see the topic itself as pseudoscience.
I don't know anything about water memory. If there's some misrepresentation of science (like astrology is when it's referred to as a scientific system) then it's pseudoscience. If it's not supported by science, but people claim it is, then those beliefs are pseudoscientific. I don't know what the issues are surrounding that topic, however. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just carbon copied it to my page for the folks who review my page. I do that when I write something more than a simple response, sort of "for the record".
- I would think that there is a separate criteria for an infobox and a category link, whether that's officially implied by WP:PSCI or not. A category link is a relatively minor addition to a page and serves as much as a "see also" as it does as an actual category or label. It also serves a technical purpose as being one of three ways people navigate in the MediaWiki system -- search, interlinks to specific pages, and categories or groups of like pages. A non-strict interpretation of WP:PSCI would be that the ArbCom didn't mean categorization like we use it, but categorization as in characterizing it as that. My opinion, since one could put multiple categories on a page, and since the category link isn't intrusive, as long as one reliable source calls it pseudoscience that's enough for the link, whether it is generally considered it or not. That's just my opinion though. Editors who don't think it is at all pseudoscientific remove the category link as well, but I don't agree with that decision if a reliable source describes it as such. I don't know what the ArbCom's intent was about "may be categorized as such", whether that meant "characterized as" or if it had to do with the actual system of category linking.
- The infobox is different. It dominates a page. Like I said above, it's like branding the topic as pseudoscience, much different than a simple link at the bottom of the article. I can see how an infobox fits on a topic obviously falling under the topic described by the infobox (like an article about a Buddhist practice having the Buddhism infobox), but if not explicitly falling under the topic it may be POV by nature of the dominance of the infobox (see WP:UNDUE where it describes prominence of placement as affecting neutrality). If you look at the list of articles where the infobox is transcluded [26], they're more "obvious pseudoscience" as described by WP:PSCI and biography pages of purveyors of pseudoscience rather than "generally considered pseudoscience". I don't believe the infobox should be included on an article that even meets the criteria of generally considered pseudoscience. I think it should be reserved for obvious or explicitly pseudoscience.
- That's my take on it. Me and ScienceApologist bump heads all the time on the extent of what is generally considered pseudoscience. He uses it more liberally where I believe it should be more conservatively, basing that on what I believe is the "spirit" of the ArbCom decision. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- On the RfC, definitely. Let me know when you post it so I can add the above. I'd like to see some consensus reached as well. --Nealparr (talk to me) 07:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- You suggested Is there enough evidence of Remote Viewing being considered a pseudoscience to guarantee the addition on the pseudoscience infobox as the title.
- I would keep it more general instead of just being about remote viewing, since the consensus would be for any article presumably relating to pseudoscience, like water memory as well. When asking about evidence it begs the question of whether the commentor is familiar with the sources, evidence, and issues surrounding the topic. You'll get a lot of grief from promoters of pseudoscience saying "Oh, you just don't now about the ultra-cutting edge research being conducted on X, so who are you to judge?" You wouldn't want the RfC to degrade into who's more familiar with the topic, and in keeping it general it's better to ask what should be the "criteria" for including the infobox. I don't know anything about water memory, for example, like many other editors won't, but I can comment on what criteria I think should be met for including the infobox on an article.
- This also goes to what you said about asking the ArbCom to clarify if you can call something "pseudoscience" when the most basic research on the topic has been proven to be non-replicable and full of flaws. I don't think the issue is defining pseudoscience and setting up a criteria for what constitutes pseudoscience. There's already a definition and a loose criteria established by science philosophers. As Wikipedians we're only interested in other people's opinions about the topic anyway, per WP:OR, so it shouldn't be about whether we think it is pseudoscience. Rather, I think the issue is 1) what sourcing criteria is needed to establish the topic as pseudoscience, and 2) at what opinion-level is it appropriate to use the infobox (obvious pseudoscience, generally considered pseudoscience, etc.). I would title it "What should be the sourcing criteria for including the pseudoscience infobox on an article, and at what opinion-level established by WP:PSCI is it appropriate to include it?" and see what comments come out of it. --Nealparr (talk to me) 08:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Talk:Remote viewing#Pseudoscience infobox --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Re User:128.111.95.38
Hi Enric regarding the long conversation you had last night with the tigerish IP User:128.111.95.38 this is a sock-puppet of the banned editor User:Anacapa who has used IPs from the university of Santa Barbara California as socks in his (it seems on-going) disruption of the project (if you want to know more about this guy's history of disruption and why this an obvious sock see this report). I've reported Anacapa/128.111.95.38 to a sysop familiar with the case and I just want to let you know because as per WP:BAN all comments by banned users will be removed - if this happens your good faith and very reasonable comments made in response to Anacapa might be removed as well--Cailil talk 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You can also see from the block log of Ip 128.111.95.171 that this was an IP he had used previously as a sock--Cailil talk 12:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Clesh AfD
I've been following your comments on the Clesh AfD, and I noticed that you make a claim about WP:CORP. Though I have no opinion on an article about Forbidden Technologies plc, for the purposes of accuracy, you should know that there are multiple - dozens by now - of independent articles about Forbidden Technologies, including many in the UK national press, such as the Telegraph (with photo), Independent (with photo), Financial Times and Sun (all well read UK newspapers), much in the trade press, and many mentions in the Financial press as you might expect from the World's best performing new flotation in 2000, the peak of the TMT bubble. This would seem to imply that Forbidden Technologies does meet the requirements of WP:CORP. Although tangential to the main debate, where you have presented other, coherent, arguments, you might be interested in accuracy in this regard. I am not commenting on the substantive matter in the AfD for reasons of Conflict of Interest. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Trolling and so on
Please, take into consideration that what looks trolling for you, for some other people makes 100% sense. On the other hand, your acts of vandalism by deleting content only show that you are trying to apply censorship. Wikipedia has to be free on censorship. Your attitude could be more neutral on this terrain and allow all points of view. It is a proven fact that calling a non-Greek Macedonian is an insult to all Greeks and should simply be removed. Why is that so hard to understand? And by the way, a proper explanation on why Slavs try to steal Greek history and territory is a must. Everyone has the right to know why they are doing that. Until 1950 their territory was called Vardarska Badovina. Do you have any clue? This is not about forums, this is about proving to the world the truth. Thank you for your cooperation and please, stop spreading hatred with your actions. --87.221.5.240 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
DYK
What do you think of my first DYK Baseball uniform, which is currently on the mainpage?--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 03:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Candace on Alexander the Great
83d40m, please read Talk:Alexander_the_Great#Battle_with_Candace_of_Mero.C3.AB? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Moved here for further discussion if necessary... I will investigate the source you have noted and rewrite the section in my next long session to include your reference and its implication. Thanks, 83d40m (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Clesh
Thanks for tidying up the references section. It is appreciated. mk (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
GK1973
OK.
Thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by GK1973 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please check. MBisanz talk 07:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hum, I must remember to check my mail more often. Yahoo mail says that I have 3803 unread mails....... (I am not joking, I really have them). I love how one of the editors emailing me says "Probably you got in touch with others by email and they convinced you of the tripe that's been put out about me". Uh, no, I didn't. Actually some editors have attemted to enter in touch for unrelated issues and their mails have gone unanswered (ooopsie) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I redacted most of my ArbCom case evidence
Hi Enric -- I substantially redacted my evidence at the Homeopathy case; new version here. I think we simply had a misunderstanding in an area where emotions can run high, and since you agreed that it probably wasn't a good idea to fork talk page discussion to the ArbCom case[27], it didn't seem necessary for me to belabor that. Best we let the ArbCom focus on more important things. No hard feelings. BTW, on a different subject, I completely agreed with your giving Vassyana that barnstar[28]. regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Oldcfdfull template talk
Hey. I think it would pe possible to add an extra expression like "user", but it might just be easier to create an entirely new template. I'll look into it tomorrow for you and see if I can easily modify the template. I'm guessing adding a standard {{ifexp... would do the trick. The template would check to see if there is a |User= variable declared, and if so then the template would be reworded. I'm pretty tired right now but I can look into it tomorrow for you. Sound good? -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply
It's okay. I commented there BTW.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 01:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Madonna
Hello
I don't see why Madonna's upcoming tour page keeps getting deleted. This will be a large-scale world tour, and it's been confirmed by Madonna.com. All of Madonna's other tours have their own pages, so why not this one too? PatrickJ83 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Martindanza and his vandalisms
This latest sockpuppet of User:Pinoybandwagon has been blocked. Unfortunately, months of vandalism/move mischief has to be reverted now. I'd like to ask your help in this project. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, I see than martindanza went on a moving rampage, I'll take a look to help undoing this. Frankly, I have no idea of what the heck is this guy thinking. Also, I can see another possible sock: User_talk:Aztegdude. Looking at stuff like this, I think his contribs are similar to Pinoy's socks, atough he has never engaged on directly moving pages --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- This contrib history [29] shows quite well the close relationship between those accouts --Enric Naval (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- And now he's back and doing it again as Raleldude!--Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- :) --Enric Naval (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The Bard
Is gone. Thanks for finding those pages. MBisanz talk 09:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 12
I wanted to let you know that I left some additional comments on this article Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 12--Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Tagging Photos
Thanks for the help with my pictures. Sgt. bender (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
the_unertow's RfAr
Hey, uh, just to let you know this comment you made could not be farther from the truth, a check user has already been done and it has determined that his account is in no way compromised. Please read the arbcom case a bit closer, thanks. Tiptoety talk 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Documenting additional evidence at RFC talk pages
There's a longstanding convention of adding evidence of more recent disruption to now-dormant RFCs, I can point you to some examples if you doubt me. As for your suggestion that I "use a proper forum, aka, one that is active and where sanctions can be taken", that is the proper forum, Moulton has already been indefinitely banned hereWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Moulton#EnoughWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297#Moulton and the Arbcom has already rejected his request to be unblocked. What exactly do you suggest a "proper forum" is, and what do you think they need to do? He's banned, all that remains for us is to do is document any further disruption he causes from offsite, which I was doing before deleted it. I've restored it, and I suggest that you stop intervening in admin's dealing with disruptive editors until which time you have a better grasp of policy and convention. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- When one is a new editor, there are many conventions and procedures at Wikipedia that seem strange and even detrimental or counterproductive. I admit that many still seem strange to me, but I rely on people who are more experienced than me to guide me in the Wikipedia traditions and policies that have been established over the years. Maybe some of these traditions and policies should be changed, and will be changed if better methods are found. But rather than "rage against the machine", I think it is best to just try to learn how things work, and then understand the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches, so one can weigh in in a constructive informed educated fashion when these sorts of things are discussed.
- Unilaterally declaring that procedure A or B or C is stupid before one understands these procedures and the reasons for them is probably not an optimal thing to do. Others that have followed that path have not found it to be particularly beneficial.
- It is not that I think Wikipedia operates perfectly. I think Wikipedia functions very poorly in many areas. I am increasingly giving my opinion on this and weighing in on discussions about methods for improving Wikipedia. However, I did not start to do so until I understood more about the place and its policies. And no offense, although you are a valuable contributor, you have a little farther to go before you understand more of the inner workings of the place and have enough experience to lecture experienced contributors about the shortcomings of various procedures. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- heh, ok, you right, I'm not experienced enough on RfCs, so I dropped the issue. Thanks for commenting, Fill
- There is probably some dark reason somewhere and some obscure precedent somewhere else about adding evidence to RFC talk pages after a user is blocked --Enric Naval (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I still have some trouble with this. I'll sleep on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 15
Please feel free to revert my question after you've answered it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kremlin (bar)
You voted twice. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Question
Could I copy and paste your comments at this DRV on a deceptive source onto the second AFD, if not could you leave your comments at the AFD yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Misuse of a noticeboard
It looks like Colonel Warden continues his revenge campaign against me at the Administrators' noticeboard. I have mentioned your role in my reply there. -- Fyslee / talk 02:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen D Ullman's comments on Colonel Warden's talk page! Very funny! He manages to turn one of his fans against him (although not entirely). Surely bad behaviour on D Ullman's part. --81.186.243.88 (talk) 07:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, I like his comparison to Jesus Christ's healing work, altough I can't imagine a bald Jesus :D (see photo).
- I think I have said other times that it's a pity that he doesn't learn to cooperate more with other users, doesn't understand that he is too involved to make neutral decisions, doesn't let other editors make the final decision of inserting or not stuff on the articles, and he doesn't stop trying to insert anything with a pulse that gives a positive light to homeopathy. He has just brought this upon himself, which is a real pity. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Dirty-pair-i-honestly-hate-you.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dirty-pair-i-honestly-hate-you.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
non neutral thing
Hey Eric, Why is it an non neutral thing to do?? I changed the word Albanian Rebels to Albanian Freedom fighters! how id that non neutral??? I mean the Original comment ALBANIAN REBELS in itself was originally Biased Racist and non neutral. And one more thing How I'm a supposed to source the change Rebel, to Freedom fighter ?? you make no sense I will change it again and again and if you delete me I'll make a new profile and if i have to I'll make 94,000,000 profiles because I will not stand for your Biased, Racist, xenophobic and rabid Anti Albanianism. I further have at least 20 other friends who will join me in deleting Biased and racist anti-Albanianism, It would be wise for you Eric to either reinstate the word Freedom Fighter or place both rebel or Freedom fighter as a neutral to both parties. A source for the word Freedom Fighters??? what a Joke!! Are you racist?? What did Albanians ever do to you? Words like rebel Imply terrorism, radicalism and so on and so forth. there fore I would prefer you change it to something neutral on both sides
I see that not only did you strip the ability to edit but you also replaced the word rebel with the evan more Offensive Radicals!! did some albanian kid bully you in school? robed your milk money or something? maybe stripped you of your girlfriend? or maybe all of the above, Because I don't understand why you would partake in such deliberate Racism, and Misinformation! why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigwolfx (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I answer on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Henry Bauer
Hello Enric, I see that you are expanding the Henry Bauer stub, and I also note that the sources you are using are mostly self-published by Bauer or (for example, in the case of JPANDS) published in non-peer-reviewed, partisan publications. If you look into reliable sources on Henry Bauer such as news reports you will find that Bauer seems to have made the news for his opposition at Virginia Tech to measures meant to increase the representation of underrepresented minorities at the institution and for his adherence to fringe theories. If the article is not going to be deleted, it will need to address these realities. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of this, because from what I've read today, Bauer's controversial views suggest a further expansion of the article could become very uncomfortable, very quickly. Regards, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Enric, I am somewhat disturbed by some of your recent comments, and I have probably responded too much in kind. I think we may both have violated the collegiality we should try to maintain here. Part of this might be a generational difference, and I will try to respect that. However, I would like to request that you please try to assume good faith, and I will do my best to do the same.
Second, I didn't want to correct you at the Henry H. Bauer page, since I recognize that English is your second language, but I thought I should tell you here, since I appreciate when people correct my mistakes in the other language I speak. A "seminar" in most of the world means an academic course (in the continental European tradition), but in the United States, where Dr. Bauer taught for most of his career and where he gave the talk in question, "seminar" means a talk. The speaker usually talks for almost an hour, then has a Q&A. That's it. You don't have to believe me; it's made clear in the media report that covered Bauer's talk. (Also, the phrase is "at a university" not "on a university".) I'm not trying to be snide here, I'm just correcting you as I would want from others.
Third, the "AIDSWiki" is not a reliable source and it does not belong on Wikipedia. There is no assurance that the "transcript" is correct or even real. As MastCell mentioned before, the AIDSWiki is a one-man labor of love that is utterly unreliable. And if the transcript is real, should we really link it? I know there are some people who feel it's just information and all information should be out there. But there's information and there are lies. I can't judge Henry Bauer's motivation, in fact I suspect he's just an ignorant contrarian. But I can judge his science. I have read his book, and it is based on simple misunderstandings. He is trying to be a statistician when he's not, and a biologist when he doesn't know much about biology. Intentional or not, his musings on AIDS are lies. The sad part is that many people take them for truth. It's understandable. When you are sick, you don't want to admit it. You don't want medicine. You want to think you will live forever. And when a big science professor and former dean comes along and tells you you're fine, you take his word and don't notice that he hasn't done any science for the past thirty years, is a member of what some people would call a right-wing hate group, has made strident comments about homosexuals in his memoirs, and is an authority, at most, on historical pseudoscience.
Have you known anyone who died in AIDS denial? I have. It makes me sad and mad. It reinforces my view that, in a few rare cases, we have not just a guideline, but a social obligation to uphold policies like WP:UNDUE. And that includes not making a puff piece out of a stub on an obscure fringe professor like Bauer. You're welcome to disagree with me and take the libertarian tack about freedom of speech and letting people decide what to do with their own lives. But I encourage you to at least think about this issue before adding more puffery to the Bauer article. Sorry to write a damn book here, feel free to delete if you don't want it. Thanks, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize again for my unfortunate comments.
- I'm from europe, and I wasn't aware that "seminar" had a different meaning on the US. Thanks for pointing this to me. I'll change it to "has given talks promoting the subject" with a link to the page where he lists them. I would like that article to reflect that he is doing a continuous promotion campaign on his personal blog and on his talks. Otherwise, the readers might think that he just published a book and a pair of papers and then he made no other mention of the subject.
- The transcription was accurate, I just saw that Bauer has a copy of that same PDF on his personal page. I replaced it with the new link. I suppose that it's an accurate transcript, since Bauer points people looking for his seminar information to it.
- I understand that you are mad to people whose actions have caused harm to people that you know personally. However, I try to keep a neutral point of view when editing articles, and I try to report relevant and accurate facts, even when I disagree with those facts. If someone is an authority on historical pseudoscience, then I'll report him as such, and I'll cover his research, even if I personally think that he is full of crap or self-deceived, and I'll make sure to the limit of my possibilities that my beliefs don't tranpire into my edits. I'm sure that his theories on AIDS are wrong, but his wrong research has been nonetheless discussed on notable places, so I'll report on that. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words, but I ask you, please take care to distinguish Bauer's possible expertise on historical pseudoscience (Velikovsky) from Bauer's current involvement in the much more dangerous pseudoscience of telling people that HIV does not exist and that whatever causes AIDS is not contagious. By insisting on linking to Bauer's self-published material, you are also lending undue weight to a thoroughly discredited and scientifically indefensible set of lies. If that's what you mean by NPOV, then I suggest that yours is not a "neutral point of view" but rather an ultra-relativist "no point of view" that says, so what if it's a lie, let's link to it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Template
I saw what you did with with {{Anonymous and the Internet}}. Albeit I think a bit more of why those things are all interlinked w/ each other could be added to the main article at Anonymous (group). Nice work, Cirt (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well this type of interlinking/integration etc. along a topic or theme should hopefully foster more collaboration among editors of those various articles and perhaps even speed up their overall improvement along quality status. So yea, nice idea, and nice job w/ creating it and taking initiative. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Co-X_Entertainment
I've noticed your good work cleaning up unfortunate redirects. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like you to consider the redirect Co-X_Entertainment. Searching the target page for "Co-X" shows only an extremely brief reference. That reference is a link back to the original redirect.
I have no idea if this is brilliant forward planning for when the redirect is turned into a full page, or whether it should be cleaned up. I'm hoping you have time to deal with it (or take a lot longer to explain it to me, and I'll do it). --Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I started preparing to add the redirect to WP:RFD when I saw that User:Rossami has added a long list of redirects from this user, including this "Co-X" one. I'll wait to see how that discussion develops, and may add my thoughts. Thanks for your explanations. --Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Anonymous and the Internet
Template:Anonymous and the Internet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Wafulz (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts
Please see User talk:Vassyana#User:QuackGuru. Vassyana (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Maurice (talk page)
Enric, you showed much interest on improving the article of the CoA of Catalonia from what i've been able to read. I'm willing to read your point and reasoning about the edits made in last days. About you asking for a pair of days... Take your time buddy, wiki is not everything in life! ;) --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
quick opinion
Sorry to bother you. Wikipedia's policy against essays and so forth on userspace; do you think it would cover User:Axlrose365? it IS a conspiracy theory, but it can simply be taken as his opinion, however much of a nutjob it makes him sound like. Thanks for your time!. Ironholds 09:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A whole barn full of stars
| A whole barn full of stars! |
|
 
|
   
|
| ...that's what they should give to users who can change their mind, as you did here. Truly, the rarest quality among Wikipedians. Congratulations! NikoSilver 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC) |
- Thank you very much! :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Greetings from Indonesia! Thank you for informing us about that. We will tell the user that what he is doing is inappropriate. dragunovadiscuss 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
your message
they can't place their tag on every article on which they don't agree with. additonally they don't adher WP:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.54 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we just edit-conflicted in the sorting. Give me 10 minutes and I'll merge your changes in. Sorry. Rossami (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm done now. I could keep going at it for hours but I need to get some work done. I'll stand aside and watch for a while. Thanks for your patience. Rossami (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your long, hard work on this massive project. In addition to checking out about 80-85% of your list, I've been weeding out categories of his creation and seeing if I can get them speedied (so far, I managed to get rid of about 20 cats, with about another 10 in the pipes). One thing that I've noticed was a very heavy reliance on {{DEFAULTCAT}} so that a one- or two-paragraph article could have as many as 20 categories(!). B.Wind (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think that it was Rossami that did most of the work, but thanks :) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Semiprotect
Semi'd Template:Anonymous and the Internet as high risk, Its only a few days old and already getting hit. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
your clearly unjustified accusation for "edit warring"
i want you to appologize for your unjustified accusation of "edit warring". if you have problems with me i suggest you discuss your "problems" directly with me instead of makeing false accusation against me just to get my differing opinion out of wikipedia SomeUsr|Talk|Contribs 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Sclua despicable manners
Enric, this user is higly disruptive and unwilling to cooperate in the good path in order to improve the articles. This user has been warned a number of times (even by admins) and keeps committing the same faults in a a harder way each time.
After what I've read in your links in Sclua's talk-page about him calling us "Spanish fascists", his xenophobic comments about chilean and/or southamerican people, his edit warring and personal attacks, I decided to finally report this user to an Arbitration Committee.
Do you wish to back me in this? --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Enric, I've reported Sclua. Here is the link if you wish to add anything. I hope that now, we will be able to improve the articles seriously. Cheers --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Editing the lead section only
You're welcome - glad it worked. There are a *lot* of things in the gadgets section of preferences now. Graham87 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
RV
SA is currently edit warring highly contentious material into Remote viewing (along with an admin who probably has no idea what's what). Your help would be appreciated. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
duplication on the lead of article
- Hello User:Enric Naval, Thanks for the comments [[30]]. I was aware of the wiki conditions, my problems was that User:Kwamikagami was being specific with just one postulate when there is approximately 12 listed in the “Popular UFO hypotheses” section. By focusing on just one User:Kwamikagamiwas is slanting the alien postulate, thus to his end slanting the page to the alien view thus its an anti POV. Best regards Vufors (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)