User talk:2over0/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Janet Hunter PROD

I have read your post on my talk page about the PROD of Janet Hunter. To PROD a redirect is perhaps a minor slip, but to PROD a redirect in an edit which also declines CSD A7 on the grounds that it is a redirect not an article is a fairly striking error. Maybe I was tired. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of that last bit of the AfD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tyop

I nominated one of your edit summaries at TCM for WP:Best of Bad Jokes And Other Deleted Nonsense and it got enough votes to make it in here[1]. HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

We vote on BJAODN now? I thought we were just s'posed to keep discussing until everyone else wanders away in disgust, just like everywhere else? Then again, I also thought that BJAODN: a) was reserved for deleted articles, such as List of people who have died with a turtle on their head (a cookie for whoever can find the actual title - it was deleted oh, about six or seven years ago or so, and only had one entry); and b) had been deleted. Besides, I have been making typos for nigh on tow years now, and nobody seems to have complained. Ah well, back to work. Internet disclaimer: tongue firmly in cheek. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Vote" was a joke. You only need ONE vote to meet the threshold. I liked the self referentiality (or whatever you call it) of "tyop" as an edit summary. BJAODN is for any deleted stuff, but now also for WIki related stuff. For example, "logical positivism vanished in a puff of logic" was deleted from the logical positivism article, and made BAODN. The further fact that "logical positivism vanished in a puff of logic" vanished in a puff of WikiLogic could also be in BJAODN since it is about Wiki, but was not deleted from anywhere. I put in the two Wiki jokes just above your tyop edit summary. (PS - I didn't understand your "rough agreement" deletion at TCM, but I will reword and RS it and put it in with RS. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

People who died with a turtle on their head might include many... Stephen Hawking described a lecture of Bertrand Russell, who was explaining replacement of the Ptolemaic system with a heliocentric system, when a little old lady in back yelled out, "you are wrong. The world is flat and rests on the back of a giant turtle." Russell asked back, "then what does the turtle rest on?" The woman responded, "another turtle". Russell asked, "then what that turtle rest on?". The woman replied, "Its turtles all the way down." I found this picture demonstrating the phenomenon - [[Image:Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories cover.png|rt|50px]] HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I got the Dr. Seuss from the wiki article by that name. I never understood the use of images rules. Is there a simple explanation for using images from other Wiki articles? HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry - it is a common issue and easily fixed (and it is a fun book); there is actually a bot dedicated to scanning for non-fair use images outside of article space. If you click on any image, the description page should include the license under which it is used. The vast majority of images in use on Wikipedia are licensed CC-BY-SA or some compatible license, the same as all our text contributions. These can be used for pretty much anything as long as the original creators are attributed. Probably the most common exceptions are book and album covers. These images are subject to copyright, but it is believed that using a low-resolution image to identify the media in the article specifically dedicated to that work provides a valid basis for fair use. If you click on Image:Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories cover.png, there is a detailed fair use rationale justifying its use on the page about the book, Yertle the Turtle and Other Stories, but nowhere else. User:2over0#Copyrights has a few links that I refer to regularly, and the full story unfolds at WP:C.

Short version: click on the image to open the description page. Read the licensing section to make sure it is compatible with your intended purpose. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thnx 4 the time. See you on other talk pages. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) The link is here, in this wonderful deletion discussion. I miss that article, even though Aeschylus was the only (and apocryphal) entry. There are still some funny things on Wikipedia though, if you look around. :) Antandrus (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And what ever happened to Category:Vice Presidents of the United States who have shot people in peacetime? It should include at least Aaron Burr and Dick Cheney. MastCell ^Talk 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

@Antandrus - you have my thanks. Ah, the heady days of VfD.

@MastCell - it has always been there.

I may be dating myself here, but does anybody else remember all of those Hostess pastries advertisements in 1980s comics where supervillains are defeated by their love for preservatives? I somehow missed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles branding, but having learned of it I am filled with the desire to run a Shadowrun adventure based around recovering lost artifacts before an ancient evil devours the world. Because the compensatory joy of DMing is the ability to mess with one's players. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the category is rather controversial, though. And with only Aaron Burr, it's at best 50% complete. Or incomplete, depending on your worldview. MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of new here, so I don't know what that lock thing is, but when I click on it, I get a message that I am logged off Wiki, and that content being delivered is not complete. I added the category back in, after the category of attempted assaniation surviros. Aaron Burr seems to have no problem staying in the category. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The lock icon after the link indicates that it directs to the secure server (note the https). You can log into it from the usual login page. It is, for various reasons, slightly slower than the common server; your connection is probably timing out. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups

User:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups

Thanks for removing the talkpage article from the cats, can you please ask the user to noindex the uncited article as it is in the search engine results, or let me know if it is correct to refuse to noindex such uncited user pages, as your an administrator and you didn't replace the noindex then I will assume it is ok but please explain or link me to the reason why it is ok to create such uncited articles in your userspace and refuse to noindex them, thanks. Wikipedia:User pages says in the lede - Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies. How is it ok in your opinion to refuse to nondex an uncited attack page? Off2riorob (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not comfortable acting further as an administrator in this case; I feel fairly strongly that that page will never be appropriate for mainspace, but I am not convinced that the community at large would agree with me. I cannot be confident that any action I take beyond the most blatantly uncontroversial and obviously well-supported by policy may not be biased by this opinion. I tried to indicate that nothing should be construed by my inaction on any front, but I suppose I could have been more explicit.

The closest I can find to a relevant policy is the advice at Wikipedia:User pages#On others' user pages. I am of the opinion that all userspace drafts should be {{noindex}} and {{userspace draft}} by default; perhaps it is time to have that discussion again.

I assume, though I have not checked, that there is more to this than the immediate history. I believe that the best course at this point would be actively to seek additional opinions, and meanwhile disengage from Roscelese. Regardless of the correctness of your stance, it may be that the user is presently unwilling to take advice from you. A word from a user whom both of you trust and respect might be best, but AN/I might also be an option. Please let me know if you take the latter course. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I also strongly feel the page will never be acceptable in the mainspace - that is my original issue with it. Off2riorob (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD would also be an option, and I would support your stance there. Care to do the honours?

Also, might I convince you to post completed edits that do not require repeated tweaking, so I get fewer orange bars? Thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the orange bars (jimbo says it doesn't bother him), another user without my request has noindexed the page so if it stays that way I am happy with that for the time being, less drama that a mfd and I don't mind allowing the user some time to improve the article although as you, I don't see the southern Poverty law websites hate group list as ever becoming a notable encyclopedic topic. If the user removes it again from noindex then I will escalate the report as you suggest, thanks for your comments. Off2riorob (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as a counterpoint, as a matter of notability (which is certainly not the only component of encyclopedicness), I beleive the SLPC list is likely to pass the WP:GNG via a basic search for appropriate sources, e.g., [2], [3]. I also support leaving noindex in place, cats disabled, until this is moved into mainspace. --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 21:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(I'd intended to, and will, address this elsewhere, but will leave this for you as well. My apologies for the misplacement, have a great weekend!) --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 21:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry - I agree that there is definitely an argument to be made for making that an article, I just do not think that it should be. Adding an attributed statement by SPLC to a group's article is, of course, an entirely different matter. ttfn, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 21:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions about content disputes

Hello, your name was given to me as skilled editor in content disputes. I am currently involved in a long-running content dispute. I was wondering if you would answer some questions about implementing Wikipedia policy.

In my dispute, I have added well-sourced content to an article, and it is immediately removed each time that I add it, with the reply that I have used the sources incorrectly. I could easily quote the sources directly and precisely, but that content will be removed as it is claimed to be WP:UNDUE to add the views of a single scholar or multiple scholars. To me, this represents a bit of a dilemma: stick exactly to the source and its WP:UNDUE, but summarize the source material and it's a failed verification, and either way, it is removed completely from the article. Any suggestions? Thanks. — goethean ॐ 16:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to whoever made the recommendation; I hope to live up to their expectations and to yours. It is a bit difficult to know what advice to give without the specifics of the situation, but as you omitted them I will assume that you want advice uncolored by the particular situation. I respect that.

The problem with policy is that it often becomes unenforceable in the interpretation. In practice, there is sometimes very little difference between the statements This is undue weight and I do not like it. Merely stating one's opinion that a particular edit violates a policy or guideline does not really do much to further discussion. If your sourced additions are being reverted for giving undue weight to a particular point or point of view, first it is always a good idea to make sure that your point really is notable and important to the topic of the article. My favorite turn of phrase here is that we should let the sources write the article - pick the 30 or so best sources blindly, then read and summarize them, emphasizing where they emphasize and omitting where they omit. You say that the point by multiple scholars is being rebutted by undue weight - this to me suggests that there is a very large body of scholarship on this topic, making weight a very tricky proposition. For instance, it would be perfectly possible to write an apparently very well sourced article on general relativity that makes it out to be a failed idea due to come crumbling down any day now. If this is a smaller topic where it would be reasonable to present a detailed exegesis on each source or scholar, WP:UNDUE may not be a valid argument.

Once you are satisfied that your point is one that genuinely should be included in a comprehensive article, try to understand your collaborator's arguments against it. It is important to really try, here, as it establishes common ground for working out a compromise. Explain your point as clearly and with as much detail as possible; since this is a long-running dispute I hope this has already occurred, but it may be worthwhile to restate your points and request the same of the other editor. This can also provide a clear starting point for a Request for comment; when starting an RfC, it is important that all sides feel that their position is accurately presented, and that the people who were unable to reach compromise refrain from overwhelming the outside input.

Undue weight → Failed verification → Weasel words → Close paraphrasing and variations is a depressingly common arc of discussion. It may indicate that the discussion is not being held in good faith (where both sides seek to compromise on the best possible article) or that the system is in danger of being gamed. This is not always the case, of course, and it would be quite rude (not to mention counterproductive) to accuse someone of discussing in bad faith, but it is my experience that it is a more productive mode of discussion to stick with UNDUE. This may be a case of moving the goalposts, which may indicate tendentious or disruptive editing. Also, be wary of the use of exhaustion as a debate tactic - if you feel that your fellow editor is taking advantage of the fact that they simply have more time to argue on the internet, or that they are attempting to leverage a small investment of their time into a large expenditure of your time and effort, seek outside input; if you find that your points are overwhelming the discussion, go edit something else for a month, there is no deadline, and you can return refreshed.

I personally am not a fan, but there is an {{NPOV}} template that is supposed to provide a warning to our readers and to encourage more productive talkpage discussion. The template requires active discussion of major points, and does not carry force of policy. There is also a version for an individual section, {{POV-section}}, and the ever-popular {{dubious}} tag.

Since my name came up, there is a fairly good chance that there is a fringe theory involved in this somewhere. You might try seeking input from additional editors at the Fringe theories noticeboard. The powers that be have generally taken a very dim view of editors or groups of editors hovering over their pet topic to ensure that it is presented in the most favorable possible light, pruning and minimalizing any mention of controversy or criticism (see, e.g. the Scientology ArbCom case). Of course, any unsubstantiated accusation of bias or conflict of interest should be avoided.

Short version: actively seek compromise with your fellow collaborators; rude or dismissive language will hurt your case, while compromise proposals incorporating other editors' language will help it. Seek additional input at the Third opinion, Reliable sources, Neutral point of view, or Fringe theories noticeboards, through a request for comment, or at an appropriate WikiProject. Be aware that the edit warring policy covers a great deal more than just 3RR. Escalate to the Administrators' noticeboard or to Arbitration enforcement only after extensive and exhausting good faith efforts at collaboration and only as a last resort.

Please let me know if you would like a more concrete opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I would definitely appreciate a more concrete opinion. I have used the {{disputed}} tag numerous times, but it is simply removed. On compromise: I feel that I have compromised, as I am seeking to add a few sentences about Ramakrishna's sexuality to the main biographical section of the article. The article currently does cover views about his sexuality briefly, but the material is in a special "Sexuality and psychoanalysis" subsection, which is in a special "Views and studies" section. We are not allowed, it seems, to discuss Ramakrishna's sexuality at all in the main biography section, no matter how well-referenced the material is. My personal view is that only orthodox views have been allowed in the biography section. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most American scholars of Bengali religion depart from these orthodox views.Discussion 1Discussion 2. I have an archive on my talk page of the numerous times that the material has been removed over a period of years. Some of those diffs contain quotations from the referenced sources. I omitted the quotations during this attempt, because editors are more likely to undo the addition of a large block of text, even if the text is mostly in the footnotes. Thank you for your time. — goethean ॐ 12:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm, that is a bit of a poser. Policy is very clear that we do not let an organization write and guard their own preferred version of an article, but we also need to make sure we give an accurate portrayal of the movement (inasmuch as it needs to be covered there in addition to the movement article). Let me get back to you in a few days after I get up to speed? As a first pass, it definitely looks a bit off not to integrate the Views and studies section. I am also not sure that we should be mentioning psychoanalysis at all, except perhaps in a historical context. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for your continued interest. There was a book written in 1993, Kali's Child, which used psychoanalysis, along with other interpretive frameworks. To interpret Ramakrishna's mystical visions, some of which have some strong erotic elements (something you'd never guess by reading the Wikipedia article!). The followers of Ramakrishna tend to dismiss any interpretations which dwell on Ramakrishna's (quite interesting) erotic visions as sexualized 'psychoanalysis', and thereby dismiss those interpretations. They tend to paint Ramakrishna as a Christ-like, sexless saint. — goethean ॐ 23:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work

Hi 2/0, Very professional job on the Yoga as Ex article. I must admit that it was getting to be rather like a shaggy sheepdog. You gave it good haircut! It reads much better. I also think you have been quite fair, re: scientific research—neither unduly accepting nor jaded. One thing I’m not sure about, and I mention it on the discussion page. All in all, a real service performed. You deserve a star, or should I say barnstar? (I’m a bit new to W, and am not very up on the lingo). Early morning person (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :). I was a little worried at doing such a massive rewrite all at once, but once I started I found that there was so much to do ... (will check discussion in a bit, I am just passing through at the moment). - 2/0 (cont.) 23:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to say thanks for your happy note on my talk page last week. I am totally delighted with the "base pun".  :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yamaha DX1 article is copyright because I wrote the original source

You have warned me about a copy written material on a site I contributed to writting back in November 2001 on a Yamaha DX1 synthesizer[4] and the images[5] is also my DX1. I posted this because I own 2 DX1's and I help produce the article on Vintage synthesizer, you'll notice my name is on the article "Resources & Credits" for images and sources. Yes that is me. You are blaming me for copying material I wrote as I explained this in the discussions page but you failed to read information where it came from. I will submit back on this as my written material and images. Do you own a DX-1 by any chance? It might help as the information is not all entirely on the internet in case you wanted to know.

So with that said I am protecting my written material and photographs. Before blamming me about copy written articles which you said, read the material before making such accusations.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

MMR Vaccine Controvery edits

Regarding the changes seen on this "alterations page" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine_controversy&diff=411604581&oldid=411555197 :

The only edit I made (a "minor" edit at that) was to alter the spelling of one word, as noted:

16:53, 2 February 2011 Wordreader (talk | contribs) m (70,823 bytes) (corrected "immunised" - if this is a British spelling, please revert (I didn't find it in the Merrim-Webster Dictionary)) (undo)

I didn't touch an single thing in that article other than that, as I stated, though I've made a few posts to the "Dicussion" page of that article some days ago. Those large changes you see were not do by me. If I HAD made any other changes, certainly on the scale you seem to think I did, I certainly would have mentioned it!

• Even though I used to be an RN, I have only a glancing knowledge of immunization research, just what I see on Frontline and 'Net news articles. I do, however, have first hand knowledge of the effects of some diseases on unimmuized children. Example: Pertussis + small infant = a horrifying, possibly life-threatening situation & very blue baby. (Impoverished immigrant family - the infant probaly got pertussis ("whooping cough") from an unimmunized teen/adult in her family.)
• I have the hardest time navigating around Wikipedia's labyrinthine help section in order to find info on how-tos - and even after spending an hour reading one WP page after another, I frequently can't find the info I'm looking for. It's like peeling through the layers of an infinte onion. I do NOT find navigating here to be very intuitive. So I don't do anything that requires WP smarts. Example: I got permission from the copyright question page to upload an image to the article on Cholera days ago, but haven't yet figured out how.
• Even if I could find needed how-to instructions, I'm not intellectually gifted enough to make more than spelling and grammatical changes to established, complicated articles. I'm also very reluctant to step on the original author's toes. Example: Reading posts above under "Tyop", I've never once in my life felt called upon to mention a Bertrand Russell anecdote in a conversation. I have no such anecdote in my ouevre; you all have much bigger ouevres than I do!
• The WP markup language may as well be Greek as far as I'm concerned. Can't find instructions on that, either. I posted a couple of "citation needed" tags to an article on Washington's headquarters (while he was still a general in command of Revolutionary War troops in Newburgh, NY) - it took me about 2 hours how to figure THAT out.
• The edits you pointed out are indeed extensive and very incisive in places. If my mouse button got stuck in highlight mode, it wouldn't have made those precise, incisive edits, but would have wiped out a block of text. The deletions wouldn't have respected full sentences and periods that way.

That's it. Wordreader (talk) 07:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The OP raised this at the new editors' help desk, and I pointed out that the edit had started not from the version current when the edit was made on 2 Feb, but from the version from 01:06 on 11 Jan, hence had accidentally reverted 46 edits from the intervening 3 weeks. See this diff. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now - I could not make head nor tails of how that diff could have arisen out of changing only the one word. Many thanks for tracking it down. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my utter dumb-bunniness. I have no idea how I managed to do that and am heartily embarrassed. I had no idea that editing a previous version of an article was even possible: talk about creating damage and revisionist history. WP is too complex to allow non-experts to get close to. I wish there was a new-member development program (if there is, I haven't been able to find it by searching), but in an absence of one, I'll cease attempting to edit anything and stick to reading only. Then WP will be safe from me. Wordreader (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Enh, no need to be hard on yourself. It literally took more time to read your reply than it did to edit the article. That is the beauty of having every edit available just a click away under the History tab - anything can be fixed in a jiffy. Besides, from what I have seen nursing school is no picnic - this here is just text on a website.

You already found the helpful folks at the helpdesk, but you might be interested in The Missing Manual or the Cheatsheet. ttfn, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful page links. I find the WP community editing side to be extremely bloated and completely unintuitive when trying to search for how-to answers: there may be many hits requiring lots of wading through and I'm still left without a clear answer. I just can't figure out how to zero in on precise information. Nonetheless, I feel thoroughly chastised concerning this whole episode. Doh! Wordreader (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

User:BillyGambela

Hello. You blocked BillyGambela (talk · contribs) for 24 hours yesterday for edit-warring at African American. Today after his block expired, he went right back to the article and made the same edits that got him in trouble yesterday. I asked him to discuss the changes at Talk:African American but maybe he needs to hear it from somebody else. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that's not the only article where his citations don't back his edits. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Another block would be justifiable here, but the user is pretty new so I tried a warning pointing to Talk:African American#Mitochondrial DNA instead. It is difficult to know online, but I suspect that English may not be his first language. I will check back in periodically, but feel free to ping me again if it keeps up. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

He's at 3RR now and clearly not interested in discussing this on the talk page. However, he's emailed me, asking me if I'm a racist, and giving a long detailed screed about his ancestry and Haplogroups. All OR of course. He's edit-warring, I'm not sure if I just report him again (even though he is only at 3RR, given that straight off his block he edit wars he seems to need another block to stop him from edit warring) or? If I weren't involved I'd block him for this. Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't detect any serious problems with English in his email, by the way. I've warned him for 3RR and reverted him again. We'll see if he heeds my request to take it to the talk page or reverts a 4th time. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

5 reverts, no on-site communication, plenty of explicit warning and guidance towards discussion ... I just blocked again. Oh well. 55 hours from now is about midnight Sunday morning my time - nobody will be stepping on my toes if they need to intervene while I am asleep (or any other time, really). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

SD

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.

Talkback

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Zachlipton's talk page.
Message added 06:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI

I left more for discussion here if you're interested in commenting:

User_talk:Zachlipton#.22Evidence-based_alternative_medicine.22_an_oxymoron.3F

Brangifer (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that we need to be careful to be precise in our usage of terminology, but I think I am going to sit out of that family of discussions for a while. By next Saturday or so it may have developed a bit better, and I may feel more comfortable buzzing through the IM article with updated sources and removal of the lingering copyvio. I have actually put myself in a bit of a bind, here, by proposing the merger before finding the article the article was originally closely modeled on. Much as I despise process-wonkery, gutting the article now would interfere with generating a legitimate bureaucratic process-driven result. Promotional probably-COI non-commercial copyvio that does not appear to interfere with anyone's ability to profit from their ideas is low-priority. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dandy Sakano article

I recently did quite a bit of work on the Dandy Sakano article, in an attempt to try to utilize proper sourcing for the material, per WP:RS. However, an editor named OriginalZ has added some text that utilizes what appears to be the homepage of a commercial website as its reference. From what I can see, the use of this reference is not consistent with WP:RS. I've already reverted the addition of this text twice, so would appreciate any help or advice you can offer. Vitaminman (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That outfit made my day, thank you :). My Japanese proficiency is sadly somewhere between "deficient" and "nonexistent", but the site in question appears to be being used as a primary source - Sakano has appeared in this commercial cited to the commercial itself. The best solution would probably be to replace it with something saying Sakano has continued to appear in comedic commercials without using his signature Gets! gimmick. or whatever the sources actually support. I imagine it will be pretty thin, but look for a new talkpage section in a few hours. That user is also quite new, so please remember to be especially patient. I believe that Cla68 speaks Japanese; they primarily focus on military history, but the article before you got to it had some BLP concerns, which they consider important. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

My Japanese is only at the beginner level, so I usually seek Japanese language help at WikiProject Japan. In this case, it's fairly obvious that the other editor is linking directly to a commercial site showing the comedian participating in a marketing campaign, so, it's a self-published source. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to change the source to something more independent, but there really isn't all that much information about it which doesn't come from an self-published source (and absolutely no information in English, but I suppose that's to be expected). Sakano very much still uses his "Gets!" line in the commercials (one of the taglines is that you can "Gets!" anything you want at the store), but for some reason they don't use them on the display at the homepage (there are youtube videos which show them, but I'm unsure whether or not it's proper to use youtube as a source). I just think it's relevant for the article as anyone living in the Kanazawa area constantly sees these commercials and he does a lot of promotion for the store, so it's obviously something he's currently involved and active with. I'll admit that I'm not really experienced in editing wiki articles, so any advice that people can give me to keep the reference in would be appreciated. They also make reference to the commercials in the Japanese Wikipedia page for Sakano, but it seems like sourcing another wiki entry is discouraged.OriginalZ (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@Cla68: that looks right to me, thank you for taking a look.

@OriginalZ: I believe that the problem with the original citation is that it is difficult to distinguish between a primary link demonstrating his recent activities and a link placed primarily to drive readers to that site. WP:CITESPAM discusses a similar issue. You definitely have all the hallmarks of someone contributing in good faith to the encyclopedic sum of human knowledge, but we prefer to avoid links to commercial sites. Finding another source is exactly the best thing to do here - thank you; this gives evidence that this particular episode is important to the Sakano biography (note: I only gave the new source a cursory scan in babelfish, cannot view the flash at the moment, and have no idea what the images say). YouTube, you are correct, should for the most part be avoided as a source. If the copyright status of various videos featuring Sakano can be verified, I think there would be no problem linking at least a limited subset of them as representative of his oeuvre. References to other wikis should just about always be avoided - they are edited by schmoes like you and me, and the content when a reader clicks on the link may differ significantly from the content when the link was placed.

I am glad that everything seems to be working out, but I think that any further issues are likely to be more involved than I am equipped to deal with. Talk:Dandy Sakano needs some love anyway. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

BillyGambela (talk · contribs)

First (and only) edits since his last block were the same stuff he's been blocked twice for. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Quiet now for more than a day now, but I will check back intermittently. Possibly the arguments have sunk in. Ping me again or AN3 if he continues? Please and thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Still quiet, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygenism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Polygenism. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Please see Talk:Polygenism for some thoughts on this issue. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR#3RR exemptions: Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Zachlipton's talk page.
Message added 19:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Leper Stone

Hi there. I reverted your recent edit, because it was not at all clear what was "fringe theory", and what was being alleged as copyvio. Could you possibly remove the two in separate edits, so that the two issues can be dealt with separately? Regards, —WFC— 20:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It was linking to a copyright infringing site; the fringe speculation was all the loxodrome stuff. I just redid my edit in separate steps - please let me know if it is not clear now. Your concern regarding transparency is legitimate, and your note here is both polite and appropriate; I could live without the insinuations in your edit summary, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that- I do have a habit of saying things without realising the full implication, and am doing my best to work on it both on-wiki and IRL. Thanks for the follow-up edits. Regards, —WFC— 20:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry, good luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've followed up at T:TDYK, and will contact the nominator to see if a DYK can be salvaged. —WFC— 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced substantial, non-copyvio sources like "The Sunday Telegraph" for the basic info that should still support the DYK. Paul Bedson (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

And now we have an article which is supposedly about the Leper Stone but is actually using the stone as a hook to publicise a fringe theory, with over half the article dedicated to the fringe theory. If you ignore the lead sentence, a short sentence just identifying the stone, the non-fringe material is 60 words, the fringe material which is actually about something else is 113 words. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Copyvio

Hi, just wondered which of the links breached copyvio in your latest box that you put on my page. Was it the Modern Antiquarian? I'd seen Megalithic Portal linked by others, so followed suit. Sorry if that's copyrighted, I didn't realise and can't get hold of the book until it's reprint. Would be great if you can tell me what I'm doing wrong specifically as I don't want to make future mistakes. Thanks! Paul Bedson (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

salut, undeleted page

http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Solomon_Hutcherson

this page was deleted for no reason, he is a fighter, and is still fighting has a charismatic personality, and i think he was deleted by a man who dislikes him (*subjective reason)

This is his page up to date http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Solomon-Hutcherson-5342

Thx man ^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruia (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted through the streamlined WP:PROD system, so any good faith request for it to be restored will be honored; there is no need to speculate on the nominator's motives. You may find the restored page at Solomon Hutcherson. The article is currently unreferenced - reliable sources discussing Hutcherson, such as articles in newspapers, magazines, or trade publications, will need to be added to prevent the page from being deleted again. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Christian History

Per the offer please Semi-protect Template:Christian History, due to the IP vandalism. Thank you. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There have been no edits since I blocked that range, so I would like first to see if that plus the discussion will have the desired effect without locking out legitimate IP editors. If you would like a second opinion, please post to Requests for page protection. If there is more edit warring from that range, from a new range, or from anyone else, I will of course reconsider. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes

Would pending changes be warranted on the page, as to enforce the consensus decision? CTJF83 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, pending changes is supposed to be used very sparingly for now. I am really not clear on what the hold-up is, but a strong minority seem to dislike it in its present form. You are welcome to get a second opinion at WP:RFPP, though. The page is currently semi-protected through the end of the AfD, and I am loathe to fully protect an article during a deletion discussion as it would interfere with improvements that might change the outcome; it looks likely to be kept, though. If the edit warring against the consensus close of the RfC continues, semi-protection can be extended or upped to full or various blocks can be applied. None of these are really ideal, though. I will check in on the article for the next week or two, but please ping me or the appropriate noticeboard if you see something. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully with the disruptive troll blocked, nothing will be of issue...I hope. Thanks, CTJF83 20:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of comments don't give me faith the warring will stop. CTJF83 12:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

History of Palestine

Hi 2over0, thanks for your involvement in this. I have not been involved in this type of dispute before so have a quick question if you don't mind. I would like to start the required WP:Move discussion re whether the renaming of "History of Palestine" to "History of the Southern Levant" is appropriate. Based on other I/P debates I have seen, I strongly suspect there will be "no consensus", because there are so many who feel strongly on both sides, so the article name will likely remain as per the original "History of Palestine".

However, given the move-protected page locks in the renamed title "History of the Southern Levant", the only way I can see to start the discussion is to ask to rename the articles the other way round. If I do that, a "no consensus" outcome will imply no consensus to move the name back to "History of Palestine". This would be the opposite result of the above, solely because of the locked name of the article at the point at which the move discussion was started.

Please could you advise me how I can avoid getting stuck in such a situation? It seems to me that the appropriate move discussion should start with the original article name. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I moved on to other tabs before I investigated whether it would be appropriate to move the article again. Sorry about that - I will reply again here in a few minutes. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Peeling through the convoluted move history of that article, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to move the article at this time; sorry. There is no unambiguous "pre edit war" title, as this article has been subject to more and less reasonable naming disputes for years, now. The best advice I can give at this point is to read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and make your points at the talkpage, then request input from WikiProjects Palestine and Israel. You might also consider making an appeal to the Administrators' noticeboard when the WP:RM period is nearly up, noting your concerns and requesting an especially thoughtful close.

If you would like the opinion of another administrator regarding whether it would be appropriate to move the article during the discussion, you may wish to outline your concerns now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Please let me know if you post there. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Before I follow the routes you kindly suggest, can I try to convince you re the unambiguous "pre edit war title"? As I read the history of the article, it's name has only changed in three periods:

1) on 25 Dec 2008 when Drsmoo tried a couple of different options and ended up with Southern Levant;

2) on 25 Feb 2011 when I moved it back with an attempt at a middle ground by adding "(region)"

3) on 10/11 Mar 2011 during this edit war with Drsmoo

Other than that it has been wholly stable since it was first created at History of Palestine in 2001. Since everyone knows that I/P articles are controversial, the first move in Dec 2008 should have been discussed. And so that must be the most appropriate starting place. Yours hopefully, Oncenawhile (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The move in December 2008 should have been discussed, as should the moves here, here, here, here, and indeed here. Most of those were moves to titles that were highly inappropriate or otherwise obviously not going to stick, but it definitely indicates that the naming issue is contentious and deserves an in depth discussion. The closest I can find is the single comment here. Your move in February can be viewed as a request for discussion in the bold-revert-discuss cycle, but the lack of complaint regarding the article name for better than two years gives the Levant title weight in considering the "default" state, even considering the relatively low traffic at that article. It would be reasonable to conclude that the lack of discussion before moving an article stable for better than six years indicates that Palestine should be the default state, but I think that the intervening time and edits argue against this. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the technical position is ambiguous. That is a shame, because the right outcome couldn't be clearer - as it stands the 11 million Palestinian people are the only major nationality whose national historical narrative does not have an article on wikipedia. Unsurprisingly other people have tried to recreate a History of Palestine article over the last couple of years - see here and here. There just hasn't been a proper discussion. I'll see if i can start one. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Itamar massacre and ARBPIA notice

Hello 2/0! Thank you for adding ARBPIA notice to Itamar and Itamar attack articles. However, since Itamar attack was moved to Itamar massacre, the warning is no longer displayed. Could you please add the same notice to the new article location? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. No comment on either page name. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but the article was moved once more. It's Itamar killings now. Interesting what's next. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. If I am not around, you can also put {{editprotected}} on the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I guess that was the right way to do it from the beginning :) Again, thank you. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

External link namespace tool

Hi. I think I recall that you were interested in a tool to filter external links (from Special:LinkSearch) by namespace. For instance, it would be nice to be able to find links only in articlespace, since those are usually the ones that are governed by content policies. Anyhow, I had an older JavaScript tool to do this, but I recently re-wrote it using jQuery to make it a bit more streamlined and less buggy. If you're still interested, the new script is at User:MastCell/el-search.js. If you want to use it, just go to your vector.js file and add the line:

importScript('User:MastCell/el-search.js');

Then, once you reload and/or bypass your browser cache, you should be able to go to Special:LinkSearch and see a drop-down to filter search results by namespace. If you end up using it, let me know of any problem or bugs - I haven't tested it extensively on various browsers, but it should be fairly portable since I offloaded most of the work to jQuery. MastCell ^Talk 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. It be about time to walk through my suspicious links file, I believe. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Simonross99

Re your deletions of my additions. It seems to me that links to other review sites e.g. lobbywatch, powerbase, sourcewatch do add some new material. Are you saying that they're never appropriate; if not, in what circumstances are they ok vs. the guidelines?

Thanks,

Simonross99 (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

Adding links to sites that provide a unique resource not available in the article is a good idea, but Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided#12 (shortcut:WP:ELNO) indicates that other wikis are to be avoided. They tend to be of highly variable quality depending on the article, can change without warning, and are generally not written by experts in the field. There is a very limited exception, but these sites do not appear to qualify; the only similar site that I can think of off the top of my head that might be appropriate would be the Encyclopedia of Life. It can be useful to look at special purpose wikis when you are expanding an article here, but it is a good idea to keep in mind that they have different standards for sourcing, neutral point of view, and original research. In other words, use them as one component of your search, but do not rely on them to be comprehensive or to adhere to appropriate standards. We have a centralized board for discussing the appropriateness of external links at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. These sorts of sites have probably been discussed in the archives, or you can create a new section to get the opinions of more editors. Hope this helps, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking Alexandria's Roots

In the article of the band Asking Alexandria, I tried to change the roots from Dubai, United Arab Emirates to York, North Yorkshire, It gets rolled back when I have a reference but is on wikipedia's blacklist. Please help me out in this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crowned jester (talk • contribs) 02:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You would probably get better results asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, as they will be familiar with searching for good sources for this sort of material. Links that are on the blacklist are generally not appropriate sources, but you can use the link you have to try searching for a better reliable source. Pretty much all I can do is point you towards the rules on edit warring (talk it out rather than insisting on your preferred version; this applies to everybody and every edit), sorry. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Polyspermy

Hi,

• Would you like to explain what you mean by "the single primary source does not support the main thrust of the paragraph"? It does support! Look at the #9 footnote in this diff !!! I presented (ibid.) the direct link from the Talmud itself!
• Additionally, what do you mean by "the section...would be only weakly on topic even if a source could be located". The Talmud clearly talks about Polyspermy (Poly + spermy, i.e. multy-sperm), so why is it "weakly on topic"? Further, the section title (in the article) is "Mythology", so this title clearly states that the section does not deal with the biological aspects of polyspermy, but rather with the mythological aspects of polyspermy, so what's wrong with that?
• Additionally, you say the section is "polemical"; I don't think it is, but if you think it is, you can fix this problem by shortening the section rather than by totally removing it.

Eliko (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

good cleanup

Thank you for culling the herd in the "in fiction" section of Strangelet. Dark Formal (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

James O'Keefe page

How does the page protection thing work? I'm not familiar with this. Is it completely impossible to make any edits whatsoever until April 14? That would seem to be rather problematic given the heinous bias of the article. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Full protection prevents anyone from editing the page for the next week, and is outlined at WP:FULL. Basically, a great many of the edits over the last few days have been reverts of much the same material without first establishing consensus at Talk:James O'Keefe. If such a consensus is established, you can put {{editprotected}} in the relevant discussion section to attract the attention of an uninvolved admin. If you think that the article does not need to be protected at this time, you can make a request at WP:RFPP (or outline your case here - I like to think that I am amenable to reason). The software will automatically allow editing again in one week. Hopefully this will provide some breathing room while the involved editors work out a compromise at the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, and thanks for the prompt response. It was probably reasonable to protect the page given that this is a very recent controversy. What amazes me though is just how shockingly slanted it is. There are editors on the page who are all of a sudden defending to the death the notion that Glenn Beck and his blog are now reliable sources when those same editors have in the past fiercely opposed the notion when Glenn Beck or his blog (or any such blog) oppose their point of view. On top of that, there are people throwing in random opinions - like that of Michael Gerson - as though they somehow belong in a Wikipedia page...DoctorFuManchu (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Helium association with hydrocarbons

If you read the book you will see. In part, of course, ²He is a daughter from uranium, but not ³He that is primordial helium and ³He is present in hydrocarbons accumulations, indeed, of course, is a strong evidence as pointed by Dr. Thomas Gold. Geologist (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that ³He is an alpha ...

Anyway, as Orangemarlin just said - please make your case at Talk:Abiogenic petroleum origin, establish consensus, and avoid edit warring. At the very least, your proposed edit needs to be reworded to avoid leaving the reader with the impression that this research is widely accepted in the petrogeological community. A secondary reliable source would go a long way to establishing due weight. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi, it's been a while since we last chatted. I hope you are doing well though. :) I just wanted to know how to get filemover access? Can you grant me this right or do I have to go through some kind of special process? I'd appreciate your thoughts about this, thanks and take care of yourself, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Done and done - try not to move the main page. The relevant policy is at that link, so you should be good to go. Pretty much the only image work I have done has been uploading a few charts to Commons and deleting copyrighted pictures of Miley Cirus, but if I might be able to help with anything just let me know. In the meantime, I will be enjoying a few pleasant hours on my front porch with a nice cool glass of iced tea until it becomes unbearably hot around 2. Danged axial tilt, always ruining my fun. And I believe the correct phrasing is: "you take care of yourself now, you hear?". :) - 2/0 (cont.) 14:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing this for me. I'm not sure I'll need it but I have done a few myself but I don't see any in the near future for the need for this function but I figured it's best to have it and not need it than not to have and get slowed down because I need it. :) It's too hot here to sit outside. It's been nice in the early morning though. You take care and keep in touch. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi

You banned me, I was just wondering if you had any clue what I was banned for/diffs of what I did wrong, cause I certainly do not know, and obviously would be unable to improve without such knowledge. Thanks, Passionless -Talk 19:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There were quite a few diffs cited at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86#Mbz1. I urge you to re-read them with an eye to understanding how an observer not familiar with your particular thoughts at time of posting might form an impression that you have focused more on ideological argumentation and point-scoring than on building an encyclopedia. Please focus on collaboratively building articles in other topic areas for the next few months at least; you may find that editing Wikipedia is more rewarding without soapboxing, trying to game the system, or treating it like a battleground. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I realize there were lots of diffs mixed into the long rants, but I am asking again and again, which diffs did you actually take seriously? Which diffs since my last block would allow for an admin to block another editor from editting? Show me them! Passionless -Talk 21:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund

You protected an article that was the subject of an editwar yesterday, where Off2RioRob was editwarring against several other editors to remove information. When he reached 3 reverts he stopped and started a discussion on the talkpage. I am not sure exactly why you thought the article needed protection? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw what looked like an edit war in temporary hiatus due to sleep schedules and an RfC that had yet to attract any outside opinion. I would be happy to be proven wrong in this case, so I have asked the other editors at the talkpage whether they agree that protection is unnecessary at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, 2over0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine article

Perhaps I am guilty of not sufficiently checking through the most recent edits to the article before I made my one. If so, then I apologize. Vitaminman (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All good, sorry for jumping the gun like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can OrangeMarlin be warned about his aggressive behavior? Based upon his latest talk entries, he's in clear contravention of WP:CIV. Vitaminman (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very much not an admin at that article, but I will check in on the discussion and see if I can lend a hand. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tgandz

User:Tgandz is continuing to use ethnicity's in his comments about others: "Reversing lies inserted by Arab propagandists." [6]

"the references cited by the Arabs on this page are" [7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I thought there might be hope there. Please ping me again if they continue. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent arbitration decision enforcement re: Tgandz. DieWeisseRose (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

2over0, you forgot to log the block here:[8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Drat, thank you for reminding me. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks!

thanks so much for deleting my page, dickhead. you should find something better to do with your time than destroy the work of others! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.138.162 (talk • contribs) 19:24 2011-04-19

Which page? Most of the pages I delete are copyright violations, in which case you can see if the information at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials helps. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tgandz's recent edits of List of indigenous peoples

Thanks for your recent intervention with Tgandz. FYI, I just reverted Tgandz's last three deletions on the List of indigenous peoples. I did not provide an edit summary as I believe, in context, they were acts of vandalism. I also left a content removal warning on Tgandz's user talk page. DieWeisseRose (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Speaking of which: [9]. Drmies (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked, now. Absolutely no chance that anyone will ever unblock after those edit summaries. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Hi 2over0, Today an unrelated arbitration case was closed, and an user was topic banned with clarification:"broadly but reasonably construed". I liked this language "reasonably construed". So according to the above, may I please ask for your permission to write an article about this book? It is not directly related to the conflict,but of course there would be some indirect mentions about Israel's situation in the article. If I am allowed to write this article, I will write it in my user space, and will ask you to take a look at it before it is moved to the main space. Thank you for considering my request.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "reasonably construed" is that common sense is not so common - that line of reasoning leads to editors "toeing the line" of a topic ban. Precedent at AE suggests that a clean break is preferred; getting dragged into the same old conflicts again is no fun for anyone. I have not been following the Noleander case, but my guess is that the reasoning behind including "reasonably construed" in that particular ban is that there are many people who are Jewish but have never commented on Israel or related issues and their religion or ethnicity does not form a significant part of their notability. The first sentence of the Publishers Weekly book review starts "Hampered by an Arab nation boycott that makes regional trade impossible"; reading the table of contents, it looks like Part IV deals with the conflicts. This suggests to me that this article would be too close to the topic ban, and it would be better to work offline and just upload a finished version in a few months. Any email client will let you store a draft so you do not lose your work, and you can use the Preview function here to work on formatting.

I realize that that is a deeply unsatisfying solution. I believe that there is some precedent for working on drafts in userspace as you suggest, but there is also precedent for editors using their userspace to continue fighting without technically editing the topic area, so it can be a bit dicey. I am not familiar with the book in question, though it looks like a similar premise to the Four Asian Tigers in the 1980s, Ireland in the 1990s, or India more recently. If there is a good article along those lines that only tangentially touches on the Arab-Israeli conflicts, I like your idea - this is an encyclopedia, and articles are what we want.

I am about to go offline for the evening, and I would like to consider this a bit more and perhaps get a little outside input. Please be patient with me until tomorrow. In the meantime, feel free to direct any of the other admins commenting at the ban discussion to this thread, and my helpful talkpage stalkers should feel free to chime in. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond my question!

I'd like to make some clarification please why I asked about this article. The thing is that before I was topic banned, I asked user:Ironholds to help me with the sourcing for this article, and he was kind enough to do a great and a big job in finding sources and emailing them to me. Now I feel kind of guilty towards him because he's done his work, but I have not done mine.

If I am allowed to write the article, I will avoid writing anything directly related to the conflict. After all I could start the article, and someone else could continue my work. Of course, if any info about the conflict is added to the article by someone else, I will not edit it anymore.

Having said this I would not like to put you in any jeopardy for allowing me to do something that is not allowed to other topic-banned editors. I cannot stress enough how much I am grateful to you already for your closing statement on AE request. I understand you could not have closed that AE against the consensus, but what you said in your closing statement was fair and also brave.

I assure you that whatever decision you come up with about my request will be absolutely satisfactory for me. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you patience, and thank you for helping me explore the issues involved here. I read through the Conclusion (except a few missing pages) at the above link, and it looks like a perfectly adequate summary of the book can be made without skirting any ARBPIA issues. It was morbidly entertaining to see the American peer reviewed grant system cited as an engine of innovation, though; to paraphrase Leó Szilárd in The Voice of the Dolphins, the surest way to retard scientific progress is to ensure that the best and brightest researchers spend all their time applying for grants instead of working, and attack only the problems that show promise of a solution on a five year time scale without investing in riskier propositions or developing more fundamental explanatory models.

I would like to see your draft before you post it to mainspace, though, and hope that you will show the same ability to read larger consequences as you demonstrate above (no taking the piss, eh?). If anyone else offers objection, please stop work and refer them here so we can work something out together or get more opinions at AE. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I added information about the conditions of my topic ban, and about the article I am going to work on to my talk page. I hope it is sufficient.

Of course, if I am allowed to finish working on the article I will present it for your review before it is moved to the main space.

Writing this article is going to be more like tightrope walking, just a little bent in any direction, and I am down. Of course I'd stop working on this article at once, if anybody expresses any concern about violation of my topic ban.

Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's one more thing that I have to ask you about. Here's one more or less typical positive review on the book. As you see it talks about IDF, and its role in Israeli's economic growth. If I am to write this article, I should write about this factor because it is important. As promised I will not say a single word about the conflict, and there are many countries that have no conflicts, but have military, but still most people associated Israeli military with the conflict, and some could believe I am violating my topic ban by this association. May I please ask you to read the review I linked to above, and, if after reading it, you'd change your mind about allowing me to work on the article, I'd understand it. I'll wait for your response before continuing working on the article, and may I please ask you to take your time to respond? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Posting that to your user page was a very sensible approach, thank you. I am going to read a bit more as you recommend, but it may be about 12–18 hours before I get back to you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe there was some talk in the US a few years after the September tech boom started about encouraging a culture of taking a few years service experience before college. I wonder what sort of parameters are necessary (duration? immersion? inspiring mentor? independence?) to encourage initiative and controlled risk-taking instead of the all too prevalent mindset that problems do not exist until they are posed. Ah, well.

Just writing about the IDF itself should be fine, though obviously a fair bit of what they do would be directly related to ARBPIA; similarly, a fair bit of civilian life in Israel would be covered by the topic ban. To try to draw a general principle by analogy: if someone were banned from articles treating gay rights issues, I would not say that that ban would extend to writing about New Orleans and the Army Corps of Engineers. Similarly, it looks like it is possible here to write a reasonably complete article without mentioning, touching on, or alluding to the conflict. Thank you for understanding the necessaries should a more complete version come to exist. One final point, and I hope you will not take this the wrong way since I have not seen the article you propose to write: an unrelenting paean to the glorious exceptionalism of Israel, a treatise on its right to exist, or similar use of the book article to argue the ARBPIA conflict by proxy and omission would not be something that could be moved into mainspace under this ban.

Good luck, and I look forward to reading your work, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid the name of the book (Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle) by itself could be taken as a mention about Israel's exceptionalism, it is what this book is about. Anyway...

Thank you for your trust. I assure you I will do my best not to let you down. If anybody complains about the article, I will stop working on it immediately, no questions asked. If at any time you feel, I broken my promise about mentioning the conflict that is, may I please ask you to block me as you would block any other editor who violates a topic ban? To me writing this article in my current situation is going to be a new experience, maybe even a new adventure, and I love adventures, so I'll go for it on my own risk. In any case whatever happens I'd like that you and everybody who reads this thread know that I alone accept a full responsibilities for my actions. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(intend)Hi 2/0, The article is ready for your review. Of course my English should be fixed, but this could be done later, when, and, if it is moved to the main space. I usually ask somebody to copy edit my articles. 2/0, whatever your decision is you do not own me any explanations. It was my choice to work on this article on my own risk, and I am very grateful to you for allowing me to do it in my user's space. If you believe the article is a violation of my topic ban, may I please ask you to delete the page? Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you for your patience and understanding here. As you say, it could use a bit of grammar copyediting ("lot's" used for "lots" and "feature" used for "future" were the only ones that jumped out at me enough to break the flow of reading), but any time you want to move the article into mainspace will be great. Good luck and happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I fixed errors in grammar you pointed out, moved the article to the main space, and as promised notified Gatoclass about it. Happy editing to you too.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual Erasure

Let me get this straight. Evidence of bisexual erasure on Wikipedia has to be sourced? I mean, what better demonstration of the phenomenon could there be than its manifestation right here on this web site? The user can go and look at the entries for Kulp or Romero or check the history of the article and SEE BISEXUAL ERASURE FOR THEMSELVES! I presume you are not bisexual because then you would be as sick of this crap as I am. Dutchman Schultz (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned our exchange

Hi 2/0, I'd like to let you know that I mentioned our recent exchange about my new article here, and here. I do not believe I've done anything wrong by nominating the article for DYK, I wrote this article, and nominated it for DYK not to "reward" myself as Gatoclass put it here, but for improvement of Wikipedia. I have 77 DYKs, and another one will not make a big difference for me. BTW it was not the first time I asked user:Gatoclass to take a look at my articles. I did it before the ban too.

As you see I told user:Gatoclass that IMO DYK is not the right place to talk about the ban.It is my understanding that, if an article is my ban violation, it should be deleted,if it is not, there's no reason to decline DYK for it.

Having said this I will obey to whatever you'd tell me to do, and I am very sorry for all the troubles I put you into. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've expressed my views about this nom at both my talk page and at the DYK suggestions page. However, I have already stated my intention to request a ruling on this at AE (which will now wait, per Mbz's request, for the end of Passover). You are of course welcome 2over to express a view at the AE case when I file it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

2/0, as I said in this thread, I would obey to whatever you'd tell me to do with no questions asked. If you agree with Gato, please delete the article, block me, change my ban settings, whatever...I will not complain. I only disagree that DYK should be declined because of my ban, but if you'll tell me to withdraw that DYK, I will, and not because I am afraid of AE, and being sanctioned even more than I already am, but only because I would not like to create more troubles for you.

I'd also like to point out that there was no info I did not include to the article because of my ban. If there were no ban, the article would have looked absolutely the same as it is now. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Liquid crystal laser for DYK

It popped up in my watch list, and I thought the article has to give a range of possible emission wavelength (with a comment continuous/discrete nature), for a given laser and a variety of lasers, maybe even a spectrum of a certain laser. Materialscientist (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I completely omitted discussion of Q-switching, mode-locking, the actual equations, and directional dependence in the index of refraction - those could certainly all go in. It could probably also stand clarification that not all LCLs use the same doping like dye-lasers, but the discussion is basically the same whether the lasing medium and the liquid crystal are just a mixture, the crystal is tagged with a rare earth, or it is undoped and uses itself for both. There is a bunch of hand waving involved in saying that it all goes to the singularity in the density of states, but for the most part the actual emission spectrum can be described as "like any other laser, but with this extra bit added on".

I tried to make sure that I got at least the major highlights from the top couple research groups without focusing too much on any one, but examples would not be a bad idea. Some of the papers included intensity vs. frequency data showing native fluorescence, the reflection notch, and the emission curve (overlapping spikes for real data, a nice sharp Gaussian for a toy diagram) showing lots of power just outside the photonic bandgap and a sharp drop off inside. If you can find one that is compatible with our license, that would really add to the article.

For the DYK hook, I wanted something that might interest a broad spectrum of readers, which basically means something from the Applications section. The sensing applications look like they might run into the same difficulties as carbon nanotube sensors (great sensitivity, low specificity), and the biomedical applications mostly apply to any small, cheap, high output laser. Getting different colors by exciting different parts of the same small device is more a way of saving manufacturing complexity than it is exciting physics, but it is at least pretty neat. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My comment was of a very basic nature: you're writing on laser. You've got to describe its basic properties: (i) possible wavelengths (ii) CW or/and pulsed (mode-locking is another issue) (iii) possible power densities, etc. (divergence, coherence length, single-line or multiline spectrum, etc.). Some of this is optional, but it doesn't look good when a DYK hook talks about wavelength and the article says nothing about its actual value. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, yes mode-locking is definitely different from continuous wave / pulsed. I intended that sentence as a loose aggregation of different ways the article might be improved - sorry for not making that clear.

The way I see it, it is difficult to state generalities that are both accurate and distinguish the topic from some other laser or some other photonic crystal. Worse, there is line-broadening from the microstructure if you do not get a single-domain device - any statement of that nature would need to be highly specific to some specific paper and would not be generalizable to the level of a broad overview article. Similarly, some of the research is aimed at temperature stability (either with a crystal structure relatively insensitive to temperature or just dumping it directly), so a comment on duty cycle or maximum sustained power would not be generalizable. If I actually wanted one for the lab, the engineering details would be crucial, but I think the less rigorous approach works better here. It is basically analogous to the conceptual vs. computational argument of using band theory in the first place - sure a full quantum simulation of a particular device would be more accurate, but something on a human complexity scale is more useful.

That said, I would by no means be insulted if you were to decline my DYK as too lacking to be highlighted there. If you do so, please drop a note on the talkpage outlining what you think the article needs and I will add it to my to-do file. The main reason I bother to submit articles there is to get at least one extra pair of eyes on them in case I say something stupid or omit something obvious. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

First, and foremost, it is a useful article, but try to see it with my eyes. I've never worked with LC lasers, but know something about lasers. I start reading the article and do not understand what it actually describes.

• Ok, it is a laser, so what is the active element: define materials, what wavelength does it emit; CW, pulsed or both (whatever the pumping source emits?), typical intensity?
• "electrical pumping system"? Electroluminescence in the liquid crystal?
• The article says LCL provides the continuous wide spectrum tunability of dye lasers. Tunability how? External (grating) or internal (acting on the active medium)? What kind of resonator does it have?
• "Self-organization at length scales corresponding to visible light" - dubious - add actual size.
• History section: "predicted theoretically in cholesteric"? "achieved experimentally" in what?
• The title of section "Theory" seems misleading to me because it seems to be on mechanism/operation with no actual theory.
• "Nonlinear response" is way too general, especially when followed by a specific value (so many types of nonlinearities).
• "Pure wavelength" - you mean monochromatic wavelength? (it is in the hook, but nowhere explained in the article).
• I can't imagine a display screen with a laser-pumped laser - seems too complex. Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see someone already moved this to Talk:Liquid crystal - thanks. I am on reduced editing time until sometime in June, but I will keep an eye out and write more when I can. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Liquid crystal laser

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#ברוקולי

Your name is mentioned in the admin discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The result of this case suggests that submitting new articles at DYK that are related to a conflict should be skeptically viewed. It seems that people at WT:DYK saw one of the new articles as Israeli boosterism. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not "people" at WT:DYK, but only two users User :Ohiostandard and user:Betsythedevine who are trying to turn DYK process in battelground and push their own POV by declining valid hooks. As you see from here

at least three uninvolved and one involved editors supported the nomination, and only involved User :Ohiostandard and user:Betsythedevine declined it. The same situation is here. Once again two the same users are trying to impose their own rules, but nobody agrees with them. --Broccolo (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

<--It is simply DYK policy that "articles and hooks which promote one side of an ongoing conflict should be avoided." The only POV I am pushing is that articles and hooks should be NPOV in order to abide by DYK policy or else .... not be showcased on our front page via DYK. Hamas school bus attack was removed from the DYK queue as a result of this concern. Jihadi tourism was flagged for closer scrutiny as a result of this concern. The article about Start-Up Nation was also flagged for scrutiny, and has been greatly improved as a result of that scrutiny. So I don't think it's accurate to say nobody agrees with following DYK policy but two editors trying to push their own POV. betsythedevine (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yoga as Ex article

Hi 2over0. A new editor has made some additions to this article. A lot of it looks good, but I also have some concerns, which I have expessed on the talk page. I have also made some edits. I'm a relatively new editor and would be interested in your opinion. But I realize you are likely busy. Thanks for whatever you can do, whenever you can do it. Early morning person (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For you

Open-Minded Barnstar I am awarding you this one-of-a-kind Open-Minded Barnstar for...well, for being open-minded :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you a pedant?

You are quite happy to perpetrate, "it is a fact that space in expanding." Orphadeus (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Hi 2over0, Thanks for allowing me to ask for clarifications at AE. I understood you meant discussion page, don't you? Anyway Here it is. Please do not think I gave you the barnstar because I want you to change your decision. Not at all. I understand your reservations very well. I simply believe that this article is going to be a different story because user:Gatoclass is involved from the beginning, because my own involvement would be limited to my own user space only, and because I doubt that anybody will introduce elements covered by my topic ban into this article.Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rican people

It seems you are the admin responsible for issuing a protection on this article. However, it appears the protection is set to expire on the same day it was put up: in effect a 1-day protection. Clearly, this does not sound very effective. I am not sure if this was an error or indeed intentional and I am missing something. Could you clarify? Thx, Mercy11 (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my bad - I was not paying attention when I copy/pasted the expiry date from the server notice to the template. The protection is set for one month, I just wrote the wrong date on the article. Fixed now, thank you for noticing. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A request

If it isn't too much trouble, could you fix the South Korean flag template in the Koreans article? The link seems to have broke during one of the edits. Thank you. KaraKamilia (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it, thank you. It is probably worth checking to find where it broke and whether anything else needs to be similarly fixed. Requesting here is fine, but you might get a faster response by placing {{editprotected}} on the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Content Dispute on Koreans

You have recently locked a dispute on the page Koreans to favor one side. I am not trying to spam. The other side can be seen as consistently deleting information without proper reason. I offered multiple sources to my disclaimer. I created a Talk Page so people can discuss it. Yet no one is using it or gives me proper reason for why the disclaimer should not be there. They just simply delete it over and over again ignoring my pleas to ask them to give a reason against my valid data. If they gave me a proper reason I would gladly stop posting the disclaimer. But they can't and haven't. And it just seems to me that this points to bias in the article. A Google search having 60% alternative theories obviously points to a debate. And even that is an understatement. Please take the time to read that Talk Page before locking a dispute favoring one side. I would request you read the argument first found on the Talk Page first.

Thank-you and am hoping for a fast reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirusagi32 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for citing "spam" initially as my reason for protecting the page; that was an error, and I have since fixed it to "edit warring. According to the Protection policy, it is usually inappropriate to edit an article before locking it. I take no side in this dispute except to hope that discussion at Talk:Koreans can resolve the issue without more edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay thank-you. I understand. I am new to Wikipedia...so I have a question. If there is no conclusion met on the talk page by the end of the week, is there anyway a moderator can read the discussions and decide? The problem is that a majority of the people are against my edit refuse to even respond or look at the debate. They simply continue to delete almost automatically without explaining themselves. Currently, only me and KaraKamilia are debating the subject. And even if we reach an agreement, others will likely continue the ongoing dispute. Is there a fix to this? Can we have a moderator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.45.30 (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hi 2over0, sorry to bother you again, but because nobody ever responded my question at AE talk page and because AGK in response to my question where should I ask for clarification advised me to file it directly at AE I now did it here.Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No bother at all, thank you for letting me know. I had not noticed that your first request was at the talk page, when I meant that I thought asking at the board itself would be the best place to get more opinions - sorry about that. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to be sorry about. You are one of the most fair-minded administrators I have ever met here. I am happy that you were the one who topic banned me because, if it was not for this topic ban, I would have never gotten to know you. Best wishes, and once again please do accept my apology for taking your limited now time with my articles and me. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute edit

In regards to this edit, there has been a bit of a debate as to whether or not to include the NCI and the Cleveland clinic. Based on the talk page discussion, I lean towards inclusion, simply because so many of the other cited sources mention them in conjunction with WPI, but that's really the only reason I have a preference. Either way, though, given that it undoes part of the edit immediately preceding it, and it has been a bit of a concern, it would be good if you could comment on the talk page so that there are no accusations of bias or what have you. Thanks! Oh and great job with all the copy-editing. It looks much better now. – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :). I am going to run through the links and references, then see if I can catch up on the latest talk drama. I just replaced the other instance of WPI+NCI+Cleveland with the lead author et al., as the same information is explained in the next sentence. Revert if that is problematic. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that they're mentioned as co-authors later in the same paragraph, I don't see it as particularly problematic, but it really depends on how much of a joint effort it was. My impression is that WPI was really spear-heading things, so probably the co-authors mention should be enough. Others may have different opinions, though...we'll see. :) – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Blech - looking through the last few hundred reverts edits reminds me why I like to ignore articles like this. The page view counter suggests that well into the double digit percentage of times the page is loaded, it is just one of us. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, anything CFS-related tends towards that, though it really depends on which editors are active at any given time. There was quite a while where there was relative peace, but as you've noticed, that's not so much the case now. If I didn't have the disease, I probably wouldn't stick around these pages myself. :-/ – RobinHood70 ^talk 07:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the protection you recently provided Joseph Smith, Jr.. I'd guess that 80% of the IP edits there are vandalism and most of the remainder GF unhelpful.--John Foxe (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you ban me?

I was banned from editting at Palestinian People. I think it was you that did it. I see you also banned another user who had popped up and was trying to add vast amounts of text about Nazis in a disruptive manner. Though I support your decision about the user adding the Nazi text, I think you should reconcider my ban. I am not a meatpuppet associated with any other user.

The edits under this IP address were always in line with guidelines, to the best of my knowledge. I would remove POV info, especially poorly sourced info. But some like to have poor sourcing to advance their viewpoint. I removed emotional and suggestive statements. I never added anything "pro-this" or "anti-that".

I was once involved in a dispute about mentioning the PLO as active in political violence. I never added the word terror, but felt that calling the PLO a diplomatic organ without a balancing comment was biased. I used sources to show that the PLO was involved in both diplomacy and political violence. I was open for further discussion, but I was banned.

I would express my viewpoint on the talk page when it seemed relevant, but my edits were always NPOV.

Perhaps you can remove the ban, and you will see that I will continue as a constructive editor.132.160.54.160 (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

May I please write one more article?

Hi 2/0, may I please ask for your permission to write one more article? user:Gatoclass asked me to consult him first, if I have doubts about a topic. Although I had no real doubts about the topic, I decided to ask Gato's opinion first, and eventually Gatoclass agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I still have to ask for your permission, so here I am again. I know you are busy in a real life, so I'll wait for your response for as long as it takes. I promise I will not bother you any more with my articles until I appeal the ban in two months or so. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

An innovative product that happens to be produced by an Israeli company is unlikely to be too close to the I/P conflict area, but could you post/email a few sources so I can make a more informed decision? A couple of my suppliers are based out of Israel, but so far as I know it would be coatracking to mention the conflict at their articles (should they exist, I have not actually checked). I should be able to review them today or tomorrow, but if I do not get back to you by then it is unlikely that I will have time before next weekend. Feel free to seek clarification at A/E if you would like a quicker response. 2over0 public (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi 2over0, I sent you the sources via email. May I please ask you to take your time? I would not like to push you. If your decision is positive, I would wait for your review of the article before it is moved to mainspace as it was the last time. If your decision is negative, I will accept it with no more questions asked. I am sorry I am taking so much of your time. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your patience while I deal with life offsite. I have reviewed those sources and performed a cursory due diligence source for other information. I see no reason why it would not in good faith be possible to write a reasonably complete article on this topic that does not touch on ARBPIA issues. Especially in light of recent events surrounding Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle (which I enjoyed reading, by the way - nice work), however, I do not think it would be appropriate to grant a second exception. I may also have underweighted the indirect effects in deciding to interpret the ban narrowly then. I am truly sorry for this, and hope that you will save whatever research and writing you have already committed, and upload your article in a few months. I would have no objection if you would like to request review of your proposal at AE, though I would ask that you let me know and link this section. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Future proofing link to AE discussion: [10]. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

I am not sure you're watching my talk page, so

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The article

Hi 2/0, the article is here. May I please ask you to review it, when you have a time, and state your verdict either on the article's talk page or on my talk page? As you stated in your closure I asked it to be reviewed by user:EdJohnston here, by User:HJ Mitchell here and by user:Gatoclass here. May I please ask you to let me know, if you believe I should ask for it being reviewed by a few more administrators? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:190.98.48.73

You recently blocked User:190.98.48.73 for 3rr/edit warring at American Idol (season 10) and Lauren Alaina. In the past day, User:190.98.9.224 has made the same edits numerous times on both pages. I reverted one set of these edits and give the user a 3rr warning for both articles. Eleven minutes after I undid the edits, User:190.98.11.181, came along to revert my actions on both articles. I would appreciate any help in dealing with this situation because I am not sure what I should do at this point. Aspects (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I would prefer not to semi-protect the articles, as most of the editing from other IPs is productive. I do not have data for this, but I suspect that many people just stop editing instead of registering an account, especially if they are only really interested in contributing to the one TV show. Still, that may be the better option if the range gets too much bigger.

It looks like they have access to at least two adjacent /19 blocks with not much else coming in from that range (a little vandalism, a few productive edits, some older IPs from the same person), so I rangeblocked the /18. Please come back if whoever it is circumvents this. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 UK Open Darts

Hi 2over0 just to let you know that I have taken your advice and started a RFC on the issue of the use of the Ulster Banner. It is my first so I hope I have done it correctly! I have also taken on board your comments regarding BLP and have not mentioned it as part of my case. Bjmullan (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you - a clear statement of the question followed by a reasoned outline of your points. I removed it from rfc-policy, as I think that that tag is for requesting comment about actual policies (should no consensus AfDs of BLPs default to delete, and that sort of thing). It is not an area where I am involved much, so just revert it if I am wrong. Good luck and happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No taker in the sports category so I have added back the policy tag as well as posting to the Northern Ireland flags issue talkpage. Others that were involved in this dispute have chosen not to take part in the discussion but will more than likely revert once the page protection is over. They talk of consensus without showing any proof that consensus for anything other than the MOS exists. Bjmullan (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least I got to learn that the term sectarianism can apply to political movements as well as religions. Nobody has edited the talkpage since me, and nobody has edited the article since the protection expired. On the one hand it is great that people seem not to be fighting over this particular issue at the moment, but as someone trying to act as a peacemaker here it is somewhat frustrating. It looks like the whole topic area is under 1RR anyway; hmm. A lot of the community is likely sick of hearing about these issues, but I would advise holding out for the RfC to end. Raising the issue at AN/I is also a possibility if the situation flares up again, though be warned that that page is known colloquially as the "drama board". I will keep half an eye on the area, but please feel free to raise any issues here or some other venue. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at this again. Following 8 days of RFC the consensus is obvious, that the flags should be retained, yet User:Bjmullan continues to revert the changes. WizOfOz (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The normal period for a RFC is 30 days NOT 8. And you are supposed to take part in the discussion rather than just revert. Bjmullan (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I added some comments yesterday. The fact remains there's a clear consensus to use these flags. Since you raised the RFC there have been four editors supporting their retention and just yourself against it. I think that eight days is plenty long enough to elicit opinions on this matter. WizOfOz (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Can do, but it will be a few hours to a day before I get a chance to read it. I might see if I can find a way to get more eyes on this, please do not do anything rash in the meantime. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hi 2/0. Could you please tell me, if this redirect means I will no longer be able to use this sandbox in my user space? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it just means that I did not suppress the redirect when I moved the article. There is absolutely no problem in any way with continuing to edit at that page - all the attribution is at the article now. I also noticed just now that some of the talkpage should be moved back to your userspace, as it refers to previous drafts; I am busy at the moment, but I can take care of that in a few hours. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries,you could do it, whenever you have a time, but probably it will be better to delete tha talk page history altogether rather than to move it, if you do not mind of course. I use these pages to write new articles, and there is no reason to keep an old history in my user space. In a meantime I've started working on a new article in my other user space. No worries, this time there's nothing that could be considered as a violation of my ban :-) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Glorious 25th

It's Night Watch! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of ban appeal

Hi. In case you are unaware, GoRight (talk · contribs) has made an appeal to BASC which has been forwarded to the Community for discussion. I am notifying you as you participated in the ban proposal (which was enacted and is now being appealed); you would have some awareness of the context which led to the measure being imposed. Your input would be appreciated at the discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#GoRight ban appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Re My edit summary

I laughed when I saw it too. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 04:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Thanks for the note about edit warring and related matters at the darts article. I must point out, however, that in any edit war there are at least two parties involved, but in this case I note just one party has been warned. WizOfOz (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just another thought. The tournament that is the subject of the article kicks off on 2 June so I expect a lot of darts editors will want access to it around that date. Maybe take it off protection just before then? I won't revert anything on it if you do. WizOfOz (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You make a good argument, and I have unprotected the article for now. The two open RfCs should resolve the immediate issue one way or another (keeping in mind that global consensus trumps local). May your favorite team win. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for the reminder; I would have looked at the policy page if it had mattered, but since I knew that the person should be blocked, I didn't feel like checking. I'll remember that for the future. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Technocracy merge

Hey, I noticed you were in the deletion discussion for some Mage stuff (including the Technocracy), so I wondered if you'd be interested in a merge discussion about the Technocracy. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well said

I must say, you phrased this very nicely. Consider this a text-only barnstar for diplomacy.LeadSongDog come howl! 14:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :). A little birdie (hi, MastCell!) recently told me that we as a community should do more to act like a community and support productive contributors, so double thanks for that. I am by no means ready to write off the other editors in that discussion (heck, I have agreed with two of EN's article edits in as many days), but that discussion is generating a somewhat ridiculous volume of verbiage. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Pure Technologies Ltd.

I believe you deleted my Page for "Pure Technologies Ltd." -- Just wondering why, and is there a guideline for getting companies published on Wiki ? I notice that companies such as GE and Siemens have their own pages, we are publicly traded just as they are. Please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neitzen (talk • contribs) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The text I copied to your page from the article talkpage explains it pretty well. In essence, the article was substantively the same as material previously published under a non-compatible license. This may not have been copyright infringement in the usual sense if you helped write the original material or the copyright holder supports reuse by this website, but it is still a violation of the terms of Wikipedia's license. All Wikipedia articles are licensed as WP:CC-BY-SA, a Creative Commons license that allows for redistribution by any third party for pretty much any purpose, including commercial use, without recompense or prior consultation. Please see also Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you control the material at that site, the simplest way to release it under a compatible license is simply to put a notice of copyright on the relevant pages. Please be aware, though, that any such release will apply to use and reuse by anyone and everyone, not just Wikipedia; moreover, the article here will be edited and will in time come to no longer reflect the original text.

The article you posted was unduly promotional, reading more like advertising copy than an encyclopedia article. There is some helpful advice at Wikipedia:Your first article that can help with the stylistic peculiarities of writing for an encyclopedia. Primarily, articles here need to focus on summarizing how topics have been treated in independent reliable sources, such as newspapers, trade publications, and books from respected publishing houses. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 14:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Article: International Space Station

Thank you 2over0 for your excellent editing of my addition to the ISS page. It was a big help, and sorely needed (my grammar is lackluster). Also, your re-wording is much better than my original. THANK YOU ! I hope you will return !Penyulap _talk 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban question

Hi 2/0, have you missed my topic ban questions yet :-) No worries, this is not about a new article. I'd like to ask you, if I may respond to this post at my talk page, and if I may not respond to this post, may I respond the other post in the thread below this one? Whatever you decide is fine with me. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that chatting about somewhat related issues in your personal past would be a problem. Waxing too polemic or using that thread to advocate for or allude to specific or general article edits might be, though. All I can do is shake my head sadly at Man's inhumanity to man (we really need a less sexist but still poetic way of expressing that sentiment). I am not sure about which other thread you are inquiring; the PotD thread and the two DYK threads currently on your talkpage seem completely unrelated to any topic ban issues.

On the bright side, Nazi talking dogs is fascinating, and I am glad that it seems on track to go to DYK. It reminds me of how disappointed I am that http://www.damninteresting.com/ never came back from hiatus. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to respond to the messages, and thank you for commenting on my article! I was asking only about this specific thread at my talk page. I was not sure that after the editor mentioned Israel and IDF I could touch it at all. "Sex life of banana" reminded me the article I wrote some time ago. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe report

Hi 2over0. It looks like somebody (other than you) must have unclosed the 3RR report. In the meanwhile, I've added a comment there. Feel free to restore your original close, however you had it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Some IP undid your close. I put it back the way it was, and left a comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Before I saw his thread with Tedder, I was about 50:50 on protecting the article for a month or blocking up to three or four people who seem more interested in scoring points off each other than in fairly representing the sources. Do you think it would help to get the relevant parties in a huddle and ask that none of them edit the article until they all agree? Joseph Smith, Jr. is a pretty well-watched article - maybe other people would edit more if it were not always being reverted by the same few editors. Although John Foxe's recent comments to AN3 and his talkpage do not fill me with confidence. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe is not a vandal, he has access to some good information, but he is starting to look like a POV warrior. Admins can sometimes get away with telling people to open an RfC before continuing to revert. Another possibility is to try for an editing restriction, but ANI is not very willing to grant those. Since JF's latest opponent was just indef blocked, there are at least some admins whose patience has been exhausted. I suggest we are past the point where protection would help, unless you want to place long-term full protection and ask for editprotect to be used for any changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject, I'd like to first apologize if my response to your actions on the noticeboard were over the top and a little too short tempered. However, from my view the great disparity in the treatment and actions against Routerone and John Foxe is an injustice and unfairness and I don't understand why it remains. I was wondering if you would reconsider the "moot" closing given that (1) John Foxe hasn't anywhere (at least I don't see it) in this thread agreed to stop reverting disputed material and that (2) in his subsequent responses on the noticeboard ([11],[12]) he doesn't even come close admitting wrongdoing, taking responsibility for his mistakes, nor agreeing to change his behavior. Rather in those comments he seems to justify his edit warring and 3RR-breaking with arguments that completely disregard AGF (ie, LDS editors in general are incapable of producing practical articles for the encyclopedia) and NOTTHEM. I don't see in those responses any indication that he intends to stop edit warring in the future. If those responses where given as reasons in a request for unblock, it would be immediately shot down.

If you don't reconsider, would you then consider lifting or reducing the duration (say to one week or one month) of the block on User:Routerone? I wouldn't say that Routerone wasn't edit warring, no more than John Foxe was, and both seemed to stop the behavior following Tedder's warnings. If you won't consider even that, then can I ask why not? Why is this, John Foxe being warned and Routerone being indefinitely blocked, the correct, if not fair, outcome? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I should probably add this wonderfully blatant example of John Foxe's total disregard for AGF/NPA. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Talk:Tired light.
Message added 16:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 16:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edits to Sphilbrick/Guide_to_copyright_investigations . I'm very pleased you think the copyright case studies will be helpful. Don't hesitate to edit, or add a case study. I'm not the expert in this area, and want to get some examples form experts, but thought I would get the ball rolling. Unfortunately, I'm on a business trip for the next ten days, so won't make much progress, but as is often said, there's no deadline.--SPhilbrickT 13:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Solopiel continued edit warring

Solopiel, has ignored your warning on his talk page, and has made the same non-consensus edit on Iraq War as the previous dozen plus times. (Hohum ^@) 00:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to have the time to do due diligence to this dispute in a reasonable timeframe - sorry. If you make a new post at WP:AN3 linking the old report and my warning, that should provide sufficient information for a new administrator to review the situation. Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I am sorry that I am not going to be able to review the situation soon enough to provide a relevant answer. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Trevor Marshall

Hi, 2over0. I noticed that you restored the "alternative medicine" tag to my bio. I wondered what form of alternative medicine you might think is relevant to my work? As far as I can see, our publications and presentations are as mainstream as you can get these days. Our latest publication was in a Nature Publishing Group Journal, so I wondered what the standard is these days for getting hit with that 'alternative' stigma? The issue of weight given to the Crislip cite I just addressed in my post on the talk page, it is a blog, and surely cannot be weighed as equally important to the opinions of the peer-reviewers of our many papers, can it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevmar (talk • contribs) 16:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As a content matter, this would be best discussed at Talk:Trevor Marshall. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required

Do you have any reliable sources that show there's life on earth? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course. I shall go add this source to the article directly to correct my egregious oversight.

More seriously, your what-what-what sentence over at Acupuncture is an improvement, but I am not quite sure that it really makes sense either. I started to edit it earlier, but all I could come up with was y'see, there are these two sets of ideas that people came up with; one of them has been rigorously tested and adapted until it conforms well with measured reality; the mystical life energy stuff? yeah, that is not the one. ... but there are a few minor stylistic issues with that formulation. In-universe sourcing should be okay for that statement, but maybe if I can dig up an independent source discussing the matter that might help. Or point it out here and hope that somebody else does the work, yeah, I like that idea. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, AIG is one of the best reliable sources ever. It shows how wise you are. Now, let me go see what you mean in Acupuncture. That article is a mess from top to bottom.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Alcubierre drive

Your edit summary here is not very explanatory. Care to elaborate? SpinningSpark 20:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It was just the same old disputed research that has naught all to do with the actual topic of the article. Nothing ever came of it, especially nothing to do with warping space (other than to the degree that everything with mass does, of course). It has probably been discussed on the talkpage at some point. Would you like me to start a discussion there? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

No need. SpinningSpark 21:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dark Matter

Actually, yes, I did read which way the diff was going. I won't press the matter, but DM should be capitalised. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, looking at the wrong side of a diff is a mistake that I have made before. No big deal either way, I guess. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

NFCC.js

Let me know what you think about it, and if you have any feature requests. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Works great so far - no noticeable lag in loading articles, a simple intuitive interface, and accurate in every case that I have checked. Keep up the good work, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Quantitative easing page

Hi The following diff pretty clearly shows the kinds of games that have been going on at this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantitative_easing&diff=prev&oldid=423138648

The edit offered was very reliable linked to the Bank of England. It was perfectly reasonable and helpful. It was removed with the silly revert comment by darx9url. (darx9url however seems in some manner to be part of the wiki hierarchy? Similarly LK seemed to be linked to Keither Wolfowitz who was so unpleasant to me and refused to listen to anything i said.)

Editors then got involved in trying to get the BOE wording or something like it back on the page and time and time again editors removed it. Often edits were removed with abusive revert comments.

Wiki is never going to be a useful source of information while this sort of thing goes on.

This is not an unusual event. It happens time and time again on the wiki financial pages Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Good work

Hi!

The talk page at Quantitative easing was spiraling out of control. I think that your cautions and one block were well-justified and well-written, and should suffice to restore productive editing.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I sure hope so. Reading through the associated talkpages was a painful slog, and Vexorg was not acting in a vacuum. Still, de minimis and all that, so I can hope that everyone will calm down a bit now. Good luck and happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your resolution at QE. It was starting to give me stomach troubles. I'll follow your advice and stay away for the next month. LK (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what you are getting at here. My reliably sourced text about electronic money production is now on the page, after several reverts from editors who were unwilling to read the existing citations. Several other editors attempted similar edits and were knocked back with zero efforts made to make a compromise, while abusive comments were made about 'fringe' and 'this is not the utube bear channel'. I made several attempts to produce a compromise using the existing important citations from Bank of England and Ben Bernanke. User LK is out of control. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Hi Andrew! Please discuss substantive economic issues on the article's talk-page, and avoid comments about LK, as he should avoid comments about you. Do you agree with the voluntary withdrawal, as LK has?

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am really puzzled why so many people went to so much effort to get well cited reliable information from being presented on the QE page. LawrenceKhoos abusive comment to Rexorg that money printing was fringe was very peculiar in the context of bernankes printing press speech and other central bank comments. Other editors also peculiarly had huge difficulty with the QE description by the BOE. I am totally at a loss to understand why wiki editing has to be such enormously hard work where editors who attempt to provide balance like me get singled out by a gang of people who as often as not are pretty clueless about real world practices and instead seem to be relying on text books for their expertise in trashing other editors work. Wiki will never be a quality encyclopedia if people prefer opinions over quality citations from actual central bank practitioners and operational documents. According to people like Lawrence, the BOe is outside of the mainstream of economic thought. It is just odd.

And it is pretty outragious that people can trash me personally by saying things like 'this is not the bears Utube description of QE' on a revert of a BOE description of QE, where evidently these people who do not get warnings and are pretty clueless - and probably young and naive and enjoying the power deletion gives them.

Fundamentally if you dont agree with this you will have to prevent me being on wiki. Obviously i think procedures are pretty useless if people like LK can go around like they do being so consistantly nasty to other editors who are doing their best to create a useful source of informationAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Both you and LK were admonished. LK has agreed to leave the QE article, per 2/0's advice, and he seems not to have made any more comments about you; in fact, he has made useful contributions to other articles, setting me straight, for example. On the other hand, you have not taken a rest from your long and hard work toward a well-deserved WikiBreak, which I suspect shall soon be yours.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Threatening me again is going to achieve nothing good for wiki. My point has really nothing to do with LK. My point is that editors like LK are preventing reliable sources from appearing on Wiki and doing so in an abusive manner.

The fact that so many people prevent central banking citations appearing on wiki is not really anything at all to do with me. Other people like me who come to wiki will get the same treatment. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Please stop violating AGF and NPA policies. My concern has been strictly with your behavior, particularly your NPA violations. I have never edited anything about central banks, and I have linked central bank only once in my life! Please end the drama and do some productive editing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Cutting Wikibreak short

Dear 2over0,
I was on one-month wikibreak but I'm going to cut it short, and thought I should explain to you why. I don't see my staying away as being helpful to Wikipedia. Pandaemonioum still rages at Quantitative easing. This was in part due to the instigation[13] of banned user Karmaisking socking as EuroRIP, who I would likely have identified if I had been around. Andrewedwardjudd has not taken your advice to take a wikibreak, and is instead arguing with (and abusing[14]) other participants as much as ever.
I have however, taken your advice to heart and will try to be more circumspect in my future interactions. I would ask that you keep an eye on the other editors involved, as I believe that their participation has been, and likely will be, disruptive in the future.
Regards, LK (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not editing at Quantitative easing. I'm just not on wikibreak anymore. LK (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

mail

Hello, 2over0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lerner Google Talk at Nuclear fusion

Hi, I see you reverted my edit in the Nuclear Fusion article. I don't understand why remove Lerner's talk but not Bussard's talk, for example. He is not talking about plasma cosmology in that talk so I don't see why you should post a link to plasma cosmology article either. Caroliano (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that because Lerner still advocates ideas that most astrophysicists regard as vastly mistaken, we should not link to his ideas on plasma phenomena (see the Focus Fusion website, where the connection between his ideas on astrophysical plasma and plasma in a fusion chamber are made explicit). Wikipedia is inherently conservative, reporting various developments but not actually taking part in the discourse. Lerner is not wholly dismissed by the wider community, but while there is this level of debate we should stick to less questionable sources.

I watched Lerner's talk but not Bussard's; if you think the latter should be removed, use an informative edit summary and commit the edit. Google Tech Talks can make fine external links, but their suitability depends heavily on the reputation of the speaker for the material at hand. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Small scale Plasma Focus devices seems to be very studied and accepted devices. The polemic seems to arise only when scalling up this theory to galactic and intergalactic dimensions, as in plasma cosmology. Now I see that Lerner talks about it quickly in his google talk, but don't explain it is plasma cosmology or anything. It is just an side note when talking about his plasma theory. It is true that Lerner is depending on some "new physics" for archieving net power in his device (the magnetic field effect mainly), but so is Bussard (annealing and non-thermalization under the conditions he hopes to achieve) and in less scale every other fusion experiment, as they are traveling by unknown waters.

In the start of the talk, Bussard gives an general introduction to Nuclear Fusion, while Lerner only really introduces pB11 fusion. He explains well the advantages, disvantages and big challenges of pB11 as fusion fuel. After that, both talks about their devices and experiments for most of the talk. Both explains briefly some of the competing nuclear fusion methods, with Learner focusing on the ones seeking aneutronic fusion like his. Both also talk about the possible impact of cheap fusion power in the world economy. I don't advocate the removal of Bussards talk. But I find Lerner's explanations better and less boring. ^^' Caroliano (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yamaha DX1 page being violated by 2over0

You blocked me for nothing on the Yamaha DX1 page. You made a decision and you never read the consensus on the talk page Yamaha DX1. You do so without reading the consensus on the article but also I noticed your using 2 ip addresses under 2 user names, which is a violation on Wikipedia. I am forwarding a complaint on your user profile and for blocking without reading the consensus first. This is above the law.--Globalstatus (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated at your talkpage, I blocked you for edit warring, see [15]. Please read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy, as the discussions at Talk:Yamaha DX1 indicate a consensus against your edits; you may also be interested in the advice at the Dispute resolution policy page for attracting additional input when you find yourself unable to reach agreement at a talkpage. I am not sure what you mean regarding additional accounts; I have a policy-compliant alternate account, User:2over0_public, but the only edits I have made to Yamaha DX1 have been related to protecting the page following a report to the Edit warring noticeboard back in February. If you would like to request independent review of my assertion that I am not operating any other accounts, the proper forum is Sockpuppet investigations. If you would like to request independent review of my admin actions related to Yamaha DX1, open a thread at the Administrators' noticeboard. In either case, please let me know here if you do so. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi; I'm not sure if you still follow it, but Globalstatus is still arguing in the Yamaha DX1 talk page. Wolftengu (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguing no Wolftengu I don't think so, bringing in a discussion on a consenus on unfairness of rules violating the images on 500 x 400 and deleting them without consenus and other images. I have the right to bring it up for discussion.--Globalstatus (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

QE edit warring/personal attacks

After a brief respite following your well conceived warning, Andrewedwardjudd is back to edit warring and making personal attacks, despite multiple warnings. Lagrange613 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been checking in on that article every day or so, but it really looks like it needs a good solid dose of dispute resolution, not more administrative intervention. There is plenty of low-grade borderline edit warring and uncollaborative comments aimed more at baiting other editors or driving them off than at actually building consensus, but a Wikiquette thread or Request for comment would work better.

Unless someone breaks 3RR, makes an obvious (not borderline) personal attack, or completely stops discussing, this dispute appears likely to remain in the grey area around the edge of normal editing. About the only tool remaining in my toolbox is a lengthy full protection while the talkpage irons out a rewrite acceptable to most parties, preferably including one or more content requests for comment and active pursuit of additional input from the Economics WikiProject and elsewhere. Does anyone think that that route is worth pursuing? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar

I think its a shame you didn't give out 3RR blocks. Locking the article teaches no-one anything and doesn't allow anyone else to edit. How about you unlock it and tell them both to leave it alone for a week? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I mostly prefer locking to blocking everyone, but if the current state is interfering with development I will just change my messages to final warnings. Also, please let me know if the histmerge issue with that article is not really fixed - I just looked at the requests page but did not actually check. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not at all sure there ever were any histmerge issues there, perhaps there was some confusion.

But there is trouble brewing around that area, and tempers may be somewhat short. I was going to take this to WQA, but since you're here (so to speak): I redacted what I considered to be incivility from Al-A [16] (in fact, that is the second time I do it) and Al-A restores it [17] with the somewhat mistaken comment you're not an admin. But it does I think indicate that he isn't going to listen to reasoned discussion, only threats (to be brutal). You'll see I've tried to discuss it on his talk page, to no avail. And having checked, I now have confirmation from the insultee that he does care, so I'm disinclined to let it drop as water-under-the-bridge. So: any advice? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to warn for that, but saw that you had already asked Misconceptions2 for their opinion. Given the affirmative, I am going to redact it using my Magic Admin Powers™. With a mention that Magic Admin Powers do not exist, of course. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks to have been helpful. This isn't exactly the early stages of the dispute - it has been simmering for a while - but it might be the early stages of it getting nasty. Keeping things cool at this stage could help set the tone William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont mind if you ban us both for a week, so long as Al-A is also banned also. But i will avoid editing the article for a week. I hope that if Al-A does edit the article again he is banned, same for me.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That is great, thanks. Please do use the talkpage or some other way to reach some accommodation in the meantime. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to raise another concern, about him misusing twinkle. In the past the user has removed this Template:Campaignbox Campaigns of Muhammad from many pages that i added it to. i added that template to the articles of Muhammad's companions who fought in battles mentioned in that template. User removed it using twinkle, and reverted about 20 of my edits. See his edits here from 13 April 19:51 to 13 April 20:01 (i even added that template to sub headings in the respective articles, which are named after the battles in the template, like here, e.g if the article had a sub heading called Battle of Khaybar, i added the template in that section, as that battle is in the template). Other users have also raised concerns about him misuing twinkle, See here . I want to know if he is right to remove the template from the pages i added it to. And also whether he was right to remove it from the Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar article, as that article is related to the Battle of Tabuk, which is listed as an expedition (so i think that is enough to justify adding the template, even if the article, Demolition of Masjid al Dirar is not considered by Al-A as an expedition, since it is at the least, strongly related to an expedition). Who is right? Please give your opinion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have honestly no idea whether it is right to have the template on those articles, as this area of history is a pretty good ways from my area of expertise. Behaviorally, I would recommend centralized discussion on the use of the template as a better solution than having go at back-and-forth editing across a number of articles. Perhaps the Islam or the Military History WikiProject would have advice? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, 2over0, but I strongly believe that I'm being misjudged here and I do not like the way my behaviour was equated with that of Misconception2, a user who was blocked for weeks for the very same behaviour and attitude: systematic bias and misrepresentation of sources, edit warring and refusal to use the talk page (update: actually he has a history of getting blocked for edit-warring in Islamic articles, he was also blocked indefinitely which was uplifted last February).

• You wrote on my wall that the TP should be used. If you look at the talk page of the related article, you will see that I've used the TP very often as opposed to Misconceptions2 who hardly ever replied to any of the issues I and other editors raised. In fact I'm the one who created the talk page raising serious issues over misrepresenting sources, WP:OR and pushing a POV, to which he responded by (1) repeatedly removing POV and OR tags I added (here, here, here), claiming that it was resolved when it wasn't and (2) accusing me of misleading readers and being an apologist (which btw is a common accusation towards anyone Misconceptions2 disagrees with as seen here), so that should explain my overreaction on the TP.

I suggest you just read the lede section of the Misconceptions2's version and compare it against the lede section of the corrected version that Misconceptions2 has repeatedly rejected and honestly tell me what do you think.

• As to the claim that I misused Twinkle when I removed the template from several articles. This is easily disproved by the fact that I did state my reasons on the TP of the template (again, the thing you've recommended on my TP), but he didn't seem to bother at all, so I see absolutely no justifited reason for raising this now.

• Is the event of Masjid al-Dirar an expedition or not ?

The Seerah literature uses the term ghazwah for any battle involving Muhammad, and the term sariyyah for expeditions which he ordered but was not take part of. The template lists the articles under the headers ghazwah and sariyyah, so I wrote on the talk page regarding Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar:

"None of the cited sources refers to the event (two men burning a mosque with a lighted palm branch) as a campaign (whether it is a ghazwah or a sariyyah). For now, this is an OR by Misconceptions2 and I've removed it from the template until suitable references are provided".

He never provided any reference (to be fair, he did provide a single reference, but he misrepresented it) and still insists my rejection is the problem, not his OR.

• and finally regarding William. Now you're probably already wondering why would an editor with zero contributions to the disputed article would have that much concern, and why his account of the dispute did not mention the more important stuff: multiple removal of POV tags and lack of TP usage by Misconceptions2 ?

The answer is simple. He is seeking revenge for my reversal of his undiscussed deletion of the article on Avicennism, and the refusal of WQA admins to look into a request he raised against me, and my refusal to give him the apology he asked for on my TP after his WQA was ignored.

I also find it really ironic and perhaps hypocritical of someone to talk about incivility when that person accuses me of deception here.

So I strongly urge you to consider reviewing your warning and take the appropriate action given the above context which I hope I made clear. Thank you for your time. Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot wrong with what Al-A has said above. I won't pick over it all. But He is seeking revenge is odd (and not just because it confuses deletion with redirection). Why would I want revenge, when the article is redirected? [18]? As for the WQA: I think Al-A's failure to respond there, and his response to the recent problems, is troubling William M. Connolley (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper?

Looking here.

I'm guessing 24.7.26.52 & 98.210.160.235 are socks. NickCT (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Dang it, I just checked up on my recent blocks and autoblocks not two hours ago. They had to go and wait until I am fixing dinner to start up again. Semi-protected, go ahead and finish WP:RBI. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

When will those socks learn? Article reverted. Best, NickCT (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

From Darwin to Hitler

Hi 2over0,

I'm curious to know your reason behind reverting back the subject of the book to 'Intelligent Design' and genre to 'Religion'?

Thanks,

Jakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakersNI (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This kind of discussion should occur at the article talkpage, where everyone following the article will see it. Click on the Discussion tab at the top of any page, or enter Talk:From Darwin to Hitler in the search bar. Looking at the article again, I was confused - the book is from the Intelligent Design movement, but is not about it, so that subject= parameter would be incorrect. Welcome to editing Wikipedia, see you at the article talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sock block

Could you take a second to review this. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazon00

All of this user's contribs seem to be reverted but they are never warned. As they are an SPA, is there a way of converting them to becoming a good editor?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like very much to become a good editor, so maybe you can explain why my recent post was reverted as it referenced a recent peer-reviewed and published study in Nutrition Journal that contradicts the claim that "When the entire scientific literature to date and putative health claims of açaí are assessed, experts concluded in 2011 that the fruit is more a phenomenon of Internet marketing than of scientific substance.[31][32]" The study I referenced is: Effects of Açai (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) berry preparation on metabolic parameters in a healthy overweight population: A pilot study, Nutrition Journal 10:45, 12 May 2011, doi=10.1186/1475-2891-10-45, http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/45. I believe this is a legitimate source of information, do you not? Amazon00 (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You should read wp:MEDRS. We rely on high quality secondary sources to support medical assertions. Peer reviewed publications of systematic reviews are excellent examples. Primary publications such as you cited are only used in the most guarded fashion, if at all, and never to contradict better sources. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tips - will do some more reading. Amazon00 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Block

Why I am blocked for 3 months for making 15 reverts over several days while nothing happens to the person reporting me and who, as I pointed out in the discussion, made 20 reverts and also displayed incivility many times? Miradre (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Miradre made 10 edits at Guns, Germs, and Steel in March plus 7 edits in July, and 78 edits at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel over 7–11 July. The material added in March was removed; Miradre's July edits added the same material and more. The material was under a new heading "Race and intelligence" with "Main article: Race and intelligence". The new text inserted the R&I view that genetic factors make some "races" superior to others—that is, the article was being used as a coatrack to expand the R&I view within Wikipedia. While there is no policy prohibiting enthusiastic promotion of a view, the Arbitration case was held for a reason, and its sanctions were established for a reason. It is essential that such sanctions be enforced to avoid disruption resulting when SPA editors unduly promote their R&I views. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

2/0, since the justification for the temp ban was under AE remedies, perhaps you might post a summary of the discussion from the 3RR board on the AE board for the AE admin regulars to see and be aware of, in addition to logging the sanction under the R&I case remedies. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Edjohnston already commented at AN3 and Miradre's editing has also been previously discussed at length, both at AE and during a request for clarification, no further summary is required beyond the logging (which links to the diff on Miradre's user talk page which in turn links to the AN3 discussion). The same applied when the topic ban of Captain Occam was extended to Ferahgo the Assassin. She was informed of the ban by NuclearWarfare. Like Miradre she wikilawyered about the possibility of a ban. The attempt to target other users (in this case Aprock) is also one of the common features of confirmed meatpuppets in this topic area. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

@Miradre: I agree that you were not editing in a vacuum, and the atmosphere surrounding editing of R&I articles is far from ideal. On reviewing the extensive discussions surrounding the relevant articles, I found much that was objectionable; I urge everyone wishing to edit controversial topics to read and heed the advice at WP:DR. Also, you are only banned from pages relating to one topic; blocking refers to complete removal of editing privileges.

@Cla68: I believe that I did log the sanction at WP:ARBR&I. Did I miss something?

@Mathsci: Thank you for trying to help, but your above comment is not really conducive to re-establishing a normal collaborative editing environment in the topic area. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that if Wikipedia should have credibility regarding equal treatment in this area, then the same rules should apply equally. Should not Aprock at least receive a notification when he is doing more of the behavior that gets me a 3 month topic ban? Miradre (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, would you consider a shorter topic ban? I promise to restrict myself to at most 1 revert per day for all material that are under the sanctions.Miradre (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

During this recent incident, precipitated by Miradre's tendentious and time-wasting edits, there has been attempted outing and possible meatpuppetry. Both these matters are beyond the control of normal editors. Mathsci (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This [19] is not normal either. Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Banu Nadir

Sigh...me and al-Andalusi have been involved in another edit war in the Invasion of Banu Nadir article. Do what you may, i am sure an admin will ban me and him sooner or later when they find out. Sorry for letting you down like this again, i was quite angered by a speedy deletion tag he kept adding back--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Warwick page

I know that you are aware of the situation on the Kevin Warwick page. Mdd previously called you in to the situation. You locked the page for 1 month and suggested a consensus be reached - as a result, even though the consensus discussion was seemingly biased in one direction, some sort of compromise solution was reached which appeared to be reasonable. Unfortunately a few days after the page unlock occurred, so the same 'offending' paragraph was inserted from an IP address - a bot removed it - it was inserted again from another IP address. And there it sits - a statement that is factually inaccurate and not verifiable - it was in fact instigated by The Register. The person(s) inserting the paragraph merely uses different IP addresses - they are not a Wikipedia regular editor. They also did not apparently take part in the consensus discussion and (it would appear) have no desire to take note of the problem with what they insert. Your advice would be welcome. - Bradka (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

In your comment on my talk page you indicated that 'removal of poorly sourced material about living persons' was something that could be dealt with. It is my belief that the first line of the paragraph that is being repeatedly inserted exactly fits this category. Bradka (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent Changes?

I just wanted to ask, how do you patrol a recent change? I've read about patrolling, and I've done it on other wiki sites, b1ut I don't seem to know how to patrol here. Help please! Thanks. Pinkstrawberry02 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have actually not tried it myself except briefly just after we rolled out the system. The page describing recent changes in general is at wp:RCP. If you ask at help:DESK or put {{helpme}} on your userpage followed by your question, someone more knowledgeable should be able to render an answer quickly. Good luck and happy editing, 2over0 public (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Planck's_law

There is an edit war starting at Talk:Planck's_law. One disruptive user has taken over the page. (It is clear from the history.) Now User:Polyamorph is making one-sided threats. Example 1 Example 2

This looks like another Climate Change type problem on a physics page clearly related to climate change. I don't know what the next step is. Since these 2 users are the problem, and since we are not allowed to discuss it (them), I have no idea how to proceed. Can you suggest what to do?

Q Science (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that this is WP:ARBCC related, based on the immediate content and on the participants, though a deeper investigation might show that I err. Blackbody radiation certainly comes up in climate change discussions, but I think it is usually via Stefan-Boltzmann. Please open a report at WP:AE if you think that would help; the Speed of Light case of about two years back might be relevant. I have opinions on several of the involved editors (and a preferred notation, though cosistency is more important), so I do not think I should be involved administratively here.

My first thought on seeing what appears to be mostly a personality clash stemming from a disagreement over notation (sheesh) would be to make an appeal to WP:PHYS, but I see Headbomb has already done so.

I do not have time just now to wade through the discussion, but options include:

• manual archiving (the talkpage is pretty long at the moment, and little would be lost by removing non-productive discussions);
• WP:AN/I. The discussion will make little sense to most contributors, but a wise outsider might be able to step in with a quiet hey, tone down the personal stuff and accept that nobody has any authority here, only sources;
• start an RFC, preferably after soliciting concise statements of disagreement from all parties.

Last I checked, the basic physics is not going to change rapidly here, so requesting page protection while an RFC runs would be fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tired light

You may recall protecting Tired light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a while ago; the edit protection on the page has since expired, but the move protection remains at indefinite semi-protection against moves... which I think doesn't do much, since I believe accounts must be autoconfirmed to move pages, anyway. A note at requests for page protection (permalink) speculates that you might have intended to set move protection to sysops-only, but I figured you would know for sure. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you let me hide behind old age? I think that non-autoconfirmed users could still move pages back when I registered (though I am pretty sure that it has been this way as long as I have had the extra buttons, so that may be not much defense). Thank you for taking care of that.

If I recall correctly, there is an address-hopping edit warring sockpuppet or three who periodically show up at that article. MO seems to include arguing for a week or two, followed by long disappearances. I do not see any need for move=sysop. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How to obtain consensus under questionable conditions

I responded to your second warning on my talk page, asking that you reconsider given the circumstances.[20] I am still convinced that I am being tag-teamed. When someone says that they won't consider agreeing to support the insertion of any statements unless I excerpt pull quotes for them, how is that possibly not evidence of tag-teaming? When you look at the totality of my edits, I hope you will see that I am discussing them all and exercising good judgement. If not, I hope you will please offer some suggestions for how I can try to obtain consensus under these conditions. In any case, please tell me how to make a formal accusation of tag-teaming, because I am sure that you have accused the wrong person. Dualus (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked again for those opposed to state their specific objections just as I did yesterday. I have very carefully addressed all of the previous objections raised about sourcing and original research, including on those notice boards. So far the only reasons on the article talk page have been general complaints about undue weight and the fact that others are opposed to insertion of the material without any specific reasons why there are objections. How can I even attempt to obtain consensus when others refuse to state their specific objections? How long should I wait before assuming that the so-called consensus is actually a tag team opposed to insertion for reasons they won't admit? Dualus (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Per my notice at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#What reasons are there to not include this material? I intend to replace the disputed material unless there are substantive objections raised and I can't fully address them. I am asking you to decide what kind of time frame you think is appropriate. Nobody has made any specific objections beyond vague accusations of undue weight, and the consensus is more like 3-2 at the moment, with the majority unable to state specific problems. An hour or a year, I'll abide by your decision. Dualus (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

People are using your warning to justify removing the POV tag I placed on the article.[21][22] I would like to know your thoughts on that. Dualus (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello 2over0/Archive 8! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other then to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

October 2011

Making serious accusations against an editor without serious evidence is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS. Stop now. Consider this a warning.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Archive link: [23]. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

please, take a look ...

at these edits by user:PassaMethod here [24], [25]... i think an administrative action is required as he is just continuing the edit warring of user filippusson...and the most funny thing is that he actually reported me for reverting his vandalism, lol! [26]-- mustihussain  18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid describing good faith disagreements as vandalism. Nevertheless, there was certainly edit warring going on there. Magog is a pretty sensible admin and seems to be on top of it. It might be worthwhile to start a request for comment at the relevant wikiproject if you have not done so already. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 04:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Block of Greg L

Your block of Greg is the most baffling and unjustified I've ever witnessed [27]. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You're apparently currently unavailable. Accordingly, I started a section at the administrator's notice board [28]. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Now that I am unblocked, I can inquire how my block came about. There is conjecture at the ANI over my block that your account might have been hacked and the block was the work of someone masquerading as you. Did you do that block? If you did, no hard feelings; I ask only because I am now curious if someone hacked your account. Greg L (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Block discussion

Hi , could you please input your reasons for the block at the discussion at AN and would you state if and who is was that asked you to have a look prior to your making the block, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you are active again following your block of Greg_L. Could you please explain the circumstances and rationale that led you to blocking him? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬  04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Caught abusing your admin buttons to suppress ideas you do not agree with again, eh 2over2? Keep at it, GFHandel - trust me, it could not happen to a nicer person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.98.107.38 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have disappeared / need your assistance

Hello 2over0. A couple of years ago, I and several users were having a problem with a chronically abusive user who had a long standing history of sockpuppetry, edit warring, trolling, IP hopping, vandalism, biased editing, tag removing, and a more than flagrant disregard for wiki policy. You specifically made a promise that you would periodically keep an eye on this user. For several years now, the user has managed to slip by moderators with the same sneaky behavior, like bullying policy to new & various users, then breaking the same policies, and then filing complaints on said users. I know how real life and priorities get, however, I unfortunately am inclined to bring this matter and the user back to your attention. You might remember him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/129.252.69.40

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GarnetAndBlack

[29] [30] [31] [32]

The users ViperNerd, GarnetAndBlack, 129.252.69.40, & 129.252.210.37 are the same users, which is quite evident. The user seems to be targeting users particularly on Clemson University & specific athletic related pages. Last year, an editor called Zscout370 put a 6 month block on the IP 129.252.69.40 which was helpful to other users briefly, but didn't seem to be enough to stop the activity. And the average slaps on the wrist don't seem to be working on this individual for several years now. I am starting to think that more permanent blocking may be in order. Would you mind taking a look at this again, since this problem was never dealt with effectively in the past (or perhaps direct us to Moderators who could be of some assistance). Thanks for your time. Truthseekers88 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your File:Measles_incidence_and_vaccination_England_%26_Wales_1991-2007.png could use an update

Thanks for creating http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Measles_incidence_and_vaccination_England_%26_Wales_1991-2007.png . If you have the will, I see that there are a few more years of data available by following the links included, so the graph can be extended a few years. I think an updated version would be valuable, so I'm writing here to encourage you. Thanks again for your contributions!--Elvey (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

list of cubans

Dear editor The article named List of Cubans has an inappropriate title as it does not list all Cubans.I attempted to amend that but ended up just making a mess as there is now a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Well_Known/Famous_Cubans, which only contains a redirect link and I also modified the link on the of Cuba: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba, I would be eternally grateful if you help me fix the mess I made and if you could change the title name of he article "List of Cubans" to "list of notable Cubans" or ssomething of the sort. The complain for this was seen here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cuba, under the title: List of Cubans. Thank you Info love — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoLove (talk • contribs) 06:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear 2over0,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Donna Eden

You may be interested to know that there's a new AFD discussion on this topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden (2nd nomination). I'm mentioning this to you because I note that you took part in previous discussions about the notability/verifiability of this article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. Glancing at your contributions, you do not seem to have mentioned the discussion to very many people. I have not cross-checked the current commentors with the past participants, but please take a moment to read WP:CANVASS if you are not already familiar with the guideline. Happy editing, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. WP:CANVASS was read. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Block discussion

Hi , could you please input your reasons for the block at the discussion at AN and would you state if and who is was that asked you to have a look prior to your making the block, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you are active again following your block of Greg_L. Could you please explain the circumstances and rationale that led you to blocking him? Thanks in advance. GFHandel ♬  04:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome back after a long absence. Now that you are back, you would have had a chance to notice this request on your talk page, so could I now ask that you explain the circumstances and rationale that led you to blocking Greg_L? Thanks. GFHandel ♬  21:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence. That user was spewing vitriol across a number of conversations in a manner consistent with a desire to and with the likely effect of driving driving off other contributors. As this is disruptive editing and corrosive to the long term health of the community, I issued the indicated block. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Err, community failed to support you on that one ANI archive. Obviously aeons in the past, in Wikipedia time, but you seem to have misunderstood what you were seeing at the time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Worry not, I have read that thread and intend to abide by its explicit and implicit conclusions. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see you back around these parts, even if it's only to drop in for a few edits. Hope everything is going well. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi MC, glad to see that you are still kicking - I always appreciate your clear reasoning and sensible, non-political, encyclopedia-oriented approach. I have basically had to ditch all my hobbies while I get my business off the ground (running D&D has even been combined with date night, fer crying out loud). I am still around, but only around a little bit (example A: I updated my measles files with two new years of data, but have not yet had a chance to prettify and upload the new images). ttfn, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)