User talk:Homunq

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome!!

Hello, Homunq, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions about Wikipedia, don't hesitate to drop a note at my talk page. Regards from Slovenia, -Missmarple 22:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Anti-plurality voting
Condorcet loser criterion
Handsworth Grammar School
Minimax Condorcet


Bullet voting
Epiglottal trill
Smith set
Voiceless retroflex lateral fricative
Voiced labiodental plosive
Positional voting system
Temperature coefficient
Labiodental flap
Voiceless palatal lateral fricative
Retroflex trill
Foot voting
Michif language
Epiglottal flap
Bev Harris
Bilabial flap
Cleanup
Politics of Mexico
Polo
Parenting in improving
Merge
Plurality
Close-mid central unrounded vowel
Urine
Add Sources
Fricative consonant
Comandante Ramona
List of U.S. states' largest cities
Wikify
Arab Singaporean
Comparative government
Mexican Revolution
Expand
Uncle Buck
Voter suppression
Elections in India

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Homunq[edit]

Thanks for your insightful suggestions on how to improve the coverance of Mayan languages, which ahs been neglected for too long.Maunus 08:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Translation of the Week: Trillo[edit]

The current Spanish Translation of the Week is located at Threshing-board/Translation. This week's project is to translate es:Trillo into English. You previously expressed interest in working on this translation. If you are still interested, please consider joining the translation taking place at Threshing-board/Translation. Fagles 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to templates[edit]

Hi, you can use {{tl|Ʒ}} syntax to link to templates, like this: {{Ʒ}}. You can also use {{subst:tl|Ʒ}} in which case it will be expanded like this: {{Ʒ}}. --Kjoonlee 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

{{tl}} probably stands for "template link." --Kjoonlee 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Condorcet criteria[edit]

Thanks for the explanation on why approval/range voting is classified as failing the condorcet and condorcet loser criteria. I had run through a number of different scenarios and could not come up with a situation in which a range/approval winner was a cordocet loser, but I was making the (apparently) false assumption that the determination would be coming from the same voting system. Apparently I had to allow the theoretical voters to place votes using both systems to expose the issue. Thank you for the example. Deathbane27 01:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Naked Woman Debate[edit]

Naked Woman Debate[edit]

A simple solution to the naked woman debate. Please tell me what you think, as you seem ultra keen on this issue. Regards, --ToyotaPanasonic 15:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yucatec/Yucatek[edit]

Hi. There has been some discussion both on this page and the Mesoamerican project pages. If you think a page should be moved, please discuss on the talk pages first. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 17:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

River Awbeg[edit]

Thank you for fixing the typo in the River Awbeg article. I don't know how I could have been so sloppy. Happy Holidays. -HouseOfScandal 11:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Threshing-board peer review[edit]

You may be interested to know that I've requested a peer review for threshing-board. Perhaps we will get some useful advice.-Fagles 19:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mesoamerica[edit]

I did changes in the Tzol'kin, and geography, made a cacao article in it, and add several other things, please give your feedback, (I also made my user pageAuthenticmaya 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)AuthenticmayaAuthenticmaya 01:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I now that is Kakchikel but the link goes red, that's why I spell it the old way, I would appreciate your help in editing my editions, I don't know a lot and the Guide is quite confusing, when I link Maya sxript, and emblem glyph for example, it says that there is not an article, when in fact there are such articles {I wrote Emblem Glyph in the Maya script page???? Authenticmaya 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)AutnenticmayaAuthenticmaya 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Vivo en Santa Catarina Pinula

some bugs to watch[edit]

bugzilla:6455 and bugzilla:7865 --Homunq 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)mayasautenticos 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Authenticmayamayasautenticos 01:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help protect vandalized woman article and photos[edit]

Women are increasingly taking an active role in many societies. I thought that you might be interested that User:TRFA is stripping out a section on women's advances and is stripping out a list of women premiers and other political leaders such as Tansu Ciller, Condoleezza Rice and Nancy Pelosi from the woman article. Dogru144 14:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IPA Template[edit]

Hi,

For whatever reason, discussion of your template seems to have been stalled. I've made a version similar to the one I proposed on the {{IPA hover}} page; it's at {{IPAGuide}}. Would you mind taking a look at it to let me know what you think? And how can I get the text underline on the link to go away?--Gheuf 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. You are right, the box is too big. It is hard to read. Your idea about 'cobbling together' sounds good, but I don't understand what exactly a subtemplate is. Also, I couldn't understand if you wanted the "unexplained symbols that need no explanation" to be included in the box or not. Their omission would save space, but their inclusion would ensure punctilious completeness.--Gheuf 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mayan languages FA nomination[edit]

Hi there Homunq. Not too sure whether you're around at the moment, but if you are then you might be interested to know that the Mayan languages article which you've substantially contributed to has been put forward for Featured Article candidacy. See the nomination Featured article candidates/Mayan languages|here, also in-progress review comments at Talk:Mayan languages/Comments.

If you've the time you may wish to help out in addressing the concerns which the FA reviewers have been raising. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 07:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No[edit]

not you man - your work is top-notch (excellant, i might say as well!) - actually, I think pretty much everyone who contributes to the project is pretty top-notch. I meant AuthMaya, who contributes some really cool stuff that just needs a little revision. But I haven't seen him around here in a while. Peace -- Oaxaca dan 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mayan languages[edit]

Oh no, not at all. Don't worry about it. Cheers, Gzkn 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic overview of Mayan languages[edit]

I'm looking at this page, and I see it has, for all practical purpose, no content that is not already in Mayan languages. Would you oppose if I deleted it since it doesn't seem to have any meaningful links (those that exists should be removed anyway)? Circeus 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Mayan Language copyedit[edit]

Hi! I'm a member of the League of Copyeditors. Just wanted to let you know that our standard procedure is to copyedit after all other issues have been resolved. Your article may receive a copyedit before then, but League members may wait until they hear from you that the citation issues are fixed. Please keep us posted on this article's progress so we know when to copyedit. Thanks! Galena11 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New languages map[edit]

Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve#Languages_of_Guatemala? I think some of the labels need confirmation.Circeus 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations at Mayan languages[edit]

Hi Homunq. There are a few places that need citations at the end of the history section in the parts dealing with mayan identity etc. I haven't written that part and don't know of any sources that mention those subjects (although I do not doubt they exist). I seem to remember you wrote those parts, maybe you could provide the proper citations for the claims? I copy the specific paragraphs below:

Nonetheless, the Maya area is now dominated by Spanish. Some Mayan languages are considered endangered, although others remain quite viable with speakers across all age groups and native language use in all domains of society.[citation needed]
As Maya archaeology advanced during the 20th century and nationalist and ethnic-pride-based ideologies spread, the Mayan-speaking peoples began to develop a shared ethnic identity as Maya, the heirs of the great Maya civilization. [citation needed]
The word "Maya" was likely derived from the postclassical Yucatán city of Mayapan; its more restricted meaning in pre-colonial and colonial times points to an origin in a particular region of the Yucatán Peninsula. The broader meaning of "Maya" now current, while defined by linguistic relationships, is also used to refer to ethnic or cultural traits. Most Mayans identify themselves first and foremost with a particular ethnic group, e.g. as "Yucatec" or "K'iche'"; however, they also recognize a shared Mayan kinship.[citation needed]
Language has been fundamental in defining the boundaries of that kinship.[citation needed]


In Guatemala, matters such as developing standardized orthographies for the Mayan languages are governed by the Academia de Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG; Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages), which was established and funded as part of Guatemala's 1996 peace accords. It is gaining growing recognition as the regulatory authority on Mayan languages both among Mayan scholars and the Maya peoples themselves.[citation needed]

It is not the veracity of the claims that is doubted, but it would be useful for the general reader to have references to literature where one might read more about ethnic idenity and language among the mayas. Also some of the phrasings can come off as a little bold sounding to a critical reader. I think it would be a shame to have to cut parts of it because we cannot provide sources. Thanks in advance:·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it anymore. We have taken care of it - User:Ling.Nut provided som very good quotes.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

popups[edit]

dev version moved to production, now quickhelp can get moving again.

So...[edit]

The ongoing "naked woman" debate seems to have toned down since my post there. Curious, no? Everyone is ready to criticise, but when asked to "step up to the plate", there is a deafening silence (and no, I don't mean you - just a general observation). It's rather curious - I expected a firestorm! Esseh 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Petroleum and Iraq[edit]

Hi! I saw that you have been helping out in the Iraq War page on the issue of whether and how oil played a role in the U.S. going to war. I don't know if you know a lot about this topic, but I think the discussion of that issue in the Rationale for the Iraq War#Petroleum article could use a lot of improvement. Any interest in helping me out with that topic? Thanks! --Mackabean 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Black Like Me (1987)[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Black Like Me (1987), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.144.174.202 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea of the IPA template[edit]

The discussion on Template talk:Ʒ seems to have wound down - what became of it? — Sebastian 20:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it wound down. There was some debate about the best design, and the design I favored (including actual links to the specific phoneme articles) had a problem with the Popups javascript thingy (which I don't use). The Popups author was quick about resolving this in their dev branch, but by the time the fix had percolated into production, I had cut back on my wikipedation too much to resume a project like this.
In other words: Feel free to take this idea and do whatever you want with it. You can see how the discussion ended up - there were no fundamental objections to the idea that I saw. I'll be watching occasionally but I won't have much energy for participation. Good luck. --Homunq 20:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll think about it. in a discussion on template talk:IPA, I realized what a mess the current pronunciation descriptions are, but I didn't encounter much encouragement there to do something about it. — Sebastian 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Problem is of course that IPA has many uses, depending on how much you want to blur/emphasize subtle dialect distinctions; and that, on the blurrier side (which is IMO the more useful) there's no clear standard. My advice is: be bold and blurry. If you create these templates, I guarantee that there will be more normal people loving them than phonetics geeks picking nits. The phonetics geeks will be forced to fulfill their natural and proper role: finding soluctions, not finding problems. :) --Homunq 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, those are good points. — Sebastian 21:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Winpdb[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Winpdb, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.winpdb.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Shoessss. That bot sure is annoying - I can understand templating my article once, but the second time when I had already made an argument in the Talk page is just over the top. Homunq (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
LOL – Sorry to say Don’t blame the Bot – Blame me. I was the one that put the speedy on, than saw your {Hangon}. Thanks for the contributions. Shoessss |  Chat  16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I realized that just after, and commented on your page. As I said there, I think you should lighten up on the hair trigger, check the talk page first at least. Cheers, Homunq (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Homunq - I am still unsure as to how I can get a message to you via your talk page... so hopefully you will read this anyway. Yes, I'll go ahead and post a "Weasel Beer" page, whilst following the guidelines, and hopefully will get it right. I will post it under my other login which is Elle1971. Thanks again for the feedback. Elle xx Canarynightlife (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on Benevolent dictator (software development), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Benevolent dictator (software development) is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Benevolent dictator (software development) saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why remove the Benevolent dictator page content?[edit]

Could you please comment on Talk:Benevolent_dictator why you removed the page content? -- Peter Th - 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:IPA hover/?[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:IPA hover/? requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:IPA hover/master table[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:IPA hover/master table requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin[edit]

You'll note this source says she did not know: "New state Public Safety Commissioner Chuck Kopp never told Gov. Sarah Palin that he received a letter of reprimand from a sexual harassment complaint." At the very least, we seem to be following three separate sources with conflicting information, so please read the sources before making claims about them.  :) Feel free to respond here.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

She says she knew about the claims, not the letter. That is what my text, which you removed, said. Your edit comment was either overhasty or disingenuous. Homunq (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More Palin[edit]

Hi, I've responded at the article talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Even More Palin[edit]

Sorry to jump on your proposed edit yesterday. I just assumed that if one of the Gang O'Three was for something, I was against it. Their POV is so clear that such a system is 99.9% effective in clinical trials...

I didn't realize that in fact, you had "tricked" them. My apologizes. ;) zredsox (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow.. you guys are intentionally ganging up on people. That's a pretty hardcore POV violation issue. Reds, you need top go read Al Gore for an example of a good BLP. It's a clean article with NO CONTROVERSY. And it's a certified Good Article. The editors you are so bent on countering are not working for a Pro-Palin page but for an anti-anti-palin page. There's a huge difference mate. You need to study BLP and Al Gore to see what I'm saying. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC) +


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war[edit]

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin[edit]

Homunq, if you revert or make other edits at the Sara Palin article, would you please give an edit summary, so that others have some idea of what your reasons are? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. Please be careful about deleting other people's talk page comments (especially mine!).[1]Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
My bad. Restored. Homunq (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This is directed to you. Would you please remove the disputed material? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's done. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP[edit]

Please read the whole talkpage carefully as not to violate BLP. Reinserting deleted material without consensus is an outright BLP violation as described in Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content. There was consensus on talk that the Wasilla-Anchorage link is not appropriate. Even if there had not been now it only can be reinserted if there is consensus to reinsert. Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit [2] was a WP:BLP violation, reinserting deleted material about an Anchorage-Wasilla connection for which there was no consensus as shown in [3], thus violating WP:BLP section Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content, this is your level 1 BLP warning. Hobartimus (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The section in question, "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.
If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first..."

The key words there are "without significant change". I saw four differences in content: "Don Young's way", the Anchorage-Wasilla connection, the POV-pushing "costs twice as much", and similarly POV final paragraph on presidential reprecussions. Of those four, I re-added compromise edits for 1 and 2, and left out 3 and 4.

Also, I believe that in context, the "restoring deleted content" refers to "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons". The material in question has sources, the contention is about NPOV, UNDUE, and potentially OR; and it is by no means a flagrant violation of any of these.

Let the record state that I do not personally support the content I restored. I restored it only to encourage Hobartimus to use the talk page to develop consensus, rather than claiming a consensus which did not exist. Homunq (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was only regarding "the Anchorage-Wasilla connection" for which there was discussion on talk. "In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." is the direct qoute from BLP then you write "the contention is about NPOV, UNDUE, and potentially OR". So in your view it's OK to NPOV, UNDUE and OR violations remain in the article until they are discussed? You claim that "policy-compliant" in the text only refers to what? Is NPOV not policy? What you listed were not policy? Also BLP enforcement is not edit warring, BLP enforcement is an exception to 3RR. Hobartimus (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it's my view that when there are good-faith arguments about whether something is a violation of those policies or not, then 3RR does apply, and BLP is not an excuse for edit warring even at sub-3RR levels. ("Good faith" in this case is not the assumed kind, it is the demonstrated kind. Greekparadise has demonstrated good faith - an attention to sources and other wikipedia policies, and a search for consensus. This does not mean that they are right. I hope that you can work this out with them.) Homunq (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know you are the first one to claim that per BLP, articles should be allowed to have full blown NPOV UNDUE and OR violations during the time of discussions and these can be inserted without consensus. Did I read your position correctly? As I read BLP it says that if there is a dispute those must show consensus who seek to inlcude anything. I've seen that others including admins share my interpretation [4] even right there on talk:Sarah Palin. It would be intresting to see which part of the text gave you the idea that the subsection refers to "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons". In other words what did you base that statement on? Hobartimus (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It's like the distinction between AfD and speedy deletion. A clear or bad-faith violation of BLP can be speedily deleted. Certainly anything involving WP:V is clear, and there are also clear cases for NPOV, UNDUE, and OR. However, if there is an ongoing, good-faith discussion on the talk pages, and if the alleged violations are clearly borderline at worst (nobody is suggesting otherwise), then edit-warring (as opposed to compromise edits) does not help build consensus. Homunq (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus: I will not edit-war on your talk page, but I feel that the two discussions are in fact separate. Whether your actions were appropriate goes on your talk page, whether my actions were appropriate goes on my talk page. Your removing of my criticism, while I do understand your reasoning, could be seen as whitewashing your talk page. I said you did not need my permission to delete, and that is of course true, but I did not mean to encourage you to do so, and in fact would ask you to reconsider. Homunq (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. You are the first one to suggest that BLP does not apply to these cases and controversial material violating NPOV, UNDUE, OR and all other policies can be freely placed into BLPs to freely defame and malign a living person for the duration of the discussions. BLP enforcement is not edit warring, it's BLP enforcement. Your interpretation of BLP is highly unusual and if this would be some more important matter than it currently is I would make sure to ask multiple admins regarding your theory that extra sentences that are not there should be imagined as if they were there. (your claim that the text should be read as if the following were there "This refers only to unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, good sourcing exempts you from all other policies such as NPOV, UNDUE, OR and others with regards to the text of this section") Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, we're actually both wrong. I was wrong to re-add, as Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content shows, and you were wrong to give me a "level 1 warning" and to say that "3RR does not apply" (and thus, of course, wrong to flirt with 3RR) because both Wikipedia:BLP#Blocking and Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material do clearly indicate that they refer specifically to WP:V violations. Homunq (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes that's my risk if an admin decides that there was no BLP, 3rr would apply I'm much aware of it. You already know the policy that you have full control of your talk page and thus you can delete anything that you like so I'm just gonna withdraw the warning by writing this here in text and you decide what to delete or not. Hobartimus (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking of quitting[edit]

And I want your honest opinion. It seems that everytime I try to change "original research" by Kelly, Hobartimus, Collect, and GBerry into something well-sourced by the Associated Press, the Wasilla Mayor, the Anchorage Daily News, the Congressional Quarterly, the Boston Globe, the Washington Times, and several local Alaska newspapers (I have about 30 sources but these are the only ones I've named so far), I'm dismissed as being "silly." Wiki-democracy appears to allow their personal research to trump published sources.

Let's face it. Kelly, Hobartimus, and Collect are determined to whitewash anything that smacks of Palin criticism. I've worked for two weeks with a variety of editors -- including pro-Palin editors like Kaiser -- to come up with compromises. (I should show you the original Bridge article before all the meticulous compromises. I added most of the pro-Palin ones to be fair.) I have given long explanations of everything I do or want to do or want to revert to, and my comments are ignored or ridiculed.

I guess it's time for me to slap a POV-tag on and leave wikipedia for at least a week. Do you agree? I ask you in all seriousness. Because I feel like I've wasted two weeks of my life working in good faith and I saw it all thrown away in a single night of bad faith. And maybe in a week, other fair-minded people will work to change the article back to neutrality. I know many others who used to edit this article who have quit in frustration, and I wonder why I should keep trying to bang my head against this wall.

My other options are, now that I've explained myself fully and completely, to just revert. Or, to cut out all the pro-Palin material as "undue" just as they dismissed all the Palin criticism as undue." Or to separate the 10 issues into 10 different talk page sections so that folks actually read it, because I fear, apart from you, they're already ignoring it.

I would seriously value your frank opinion. If you want to put it on my talk page and then I'll erase it afterwards, I'm OK with that too.GreekParadise (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that the current compromise on the "bridges" thing is acceptable, though I know you disagree. I understand how infuriating it is to slave over consensus on something and then have it reverted, but the problem is that you are pulling in two directions at once - to the left and larger. You are far from wrong in either regard, but being out of the mainstream in two unrelated ways really limits your allies. So I'd give you two options: either stick around and fight smaller battles, or, if you don't think you can do that, sure, back off however much you need to. A sentence here, a sentence there - don't obsess on one section, it's a lot easier to improve a section one slo-o-ow step at a time. For instance, on the bridges - start with the title, I think that's winnable because it's what SHE calls it these days. I'd prefer to keep you around - debate is healthy, and I see some tag-team attitudes (personally, I disagree with you sometimes, just as I did with zredsox back in the old days a week or two ago). But whatever you need to do. Homunq (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I respect your opinion. Unfortunately, by doing it one sentence at a time I got called out by Kelly for 3RR, even though I never changed the same thing twice, I was just reverting one section at a time (beginning with the title). Then I admit when the mention of Palin supporting the bridge was deleted entirely from the bridge section, I blew my top. It's really the only section of the article I read. I can't hope to concentrate on anything else, so that's the only section I've focused on in two weeks. I do find it strange that everyone insists on all these mentions of the bridge outside the bridge section. I really don't care whether they're elsewhere or not and have never taken a position on them. But it does seem the one place her position on the bridge should be mentioned is in the bridge section itself. Thank you for your help. I do appreciate it. I will now avoid any edits for 24 hours.GreekParadise (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talk of Sarah Palin[edit]

I'd like you to specifically address the claim by GP that Palins support for the bridge was "completely excised" from the article. It seems odd to me that nobody reacted to this patently false statement, also in light of the actual article as it stands I'd expect that you'd withdraw your original comment of "pathetic" which I did consider a personal attack. Hobartimus (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn and struckout. Homunq (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. Hobartimus (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"funny quotes"[edit]

That is a fully quoted statement, and the date is relevant. You are editing a cited quote out of context now. Please fix it. Duuude007 (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that good? I'm not sure what you want here. Homunq (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Now Palin's quote is gone :/ Ive hit my 3RR, thats why I didn't do it myself. Btw, per WP:MOSQUOTE, there is nothing wrong with quotes in captions. If its a full sentence, it just needs a written source on the end.

Here's how I would put it:

On September 20, 2006, Sarah Palin visited Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was "essential for the town's prosperity".

It is edited to the point where it is no longer the quote, so no copyvio. And it says everything it needs to, without having to add more to the paragraphs (which we're trying to avoid for obvious reasons) Duuude007 (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The cited source does not quote her directly: "In September, 2006, Palin showed up in Ketchikan on her gubernatorial campaign and said the bridge was essential for the town's prosperity." There is no Palin quote there. Thus, I don't think we could properly say in the caption or anywhere else in the article that she "said the bridge was 'essential for the town's prosperity'". We can get this done without quotes.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, have I suddenly turned into Sarah Palin? I think this goes on her talk page, not mine. Homunq (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Nah, we had just been discussing the editing as well. I am OK with the above option I listed, without quotes. Duuude007 (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

See you there, Sarah.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"As if nothing happened"[edit]

"who thinks this is now solved by him changing the inflammatory section header from the previous "Article" to "bridge section" as if nothing happened."
refers to the person who changed the section header from Article to Bridge section, and that person is GreekParadise, not Homunq. He did it in this edit [5], previously he outright claimed that I was trying to "excise all mentions" of Palin's initial support for the Bridge to nowhere. Hobartimus (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That's a strikeout. It's a way of saying "I was wrong", it is not pretending that nothing happened. (for the third and final time, good night. Closing computer now.) Homunq (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You think POV bothers me, far from it. What I don't like is being falsely accused and attacked for "excising all mentions" which did happen, I was accused and attacked for such with all those mentions in the article and nobody bothered to check or call GreekParadise on it. Every initial response to GreekParadise is " It should be included." "Indeed. It can be re-added surely." "hat sentence is more important than approximately 95% of the other stuff in the article.". That was the one thing I didn't like and that how easily it succeeded. Hobartimus (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
GP was wrong to write that in the title. GP has now admitted as much, with that edit. (I tried to say so early on but gave up after the Nth edit conflict) Good night. Homunq (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Colberg[edit]

I'm okay with the way it is now. "On September 19, the Governor's husband and several state employees refused to honor the subpoenas, the validity of which is disputed by Palin's Attorney General." Done?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Please don't change "Palin's" to "Alaska's"... I will accept this compromise, but a part of me is straining to include French's mention of her prior commitment to cooperate. Homunq (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. BTW, a lot of people are straining to include a lot of stuff.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just found a more NPOV place to include that commitment using just two words. I agree, this section is in a delicate balance, and I think we can both respect each other's attempts to keep that balance. Cheers. Homunq (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Image workshop → Sarah Palin again (Image:Palin_nowhere.jpg)[edit]

Hi Homunq, I edited the image, how is it now ? you can compare them here (old) and (new), I am still working on it, you can find orginal version HERE.   ■ MMXXtalk  19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That is much better on the flesh tones. However, the whites (both on the T-shirt and in the background) are still too blue. Thanks for your work. Homunq (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the text on T-shirt is originally blue, compare with the t-shirt label.   ■ MMXXtalk  20:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit[edit]

Here[6]. That was bothering me, too, but I hadn't had time to think about how to reword it, glad you addressed it. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your recent comment[edit]

Your recent comment makes unsupported statements. Support your assertions with diffs or withdraw them as a personal attack, your choice. Saying "engage in personal attacks" without any supporting evidence/diffs/quotes is a personal attack on your part. I'm pointing out clearly with qoute where I think you made the personal attack, now I'm waiting for you to provide the quote or strike out your comment. Hobartimus (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not make personal attacks, and I absolutely never make them intentionally, if someone points to something objectionable I usually just remove if it bothers them even if it was absolutely not a personal attack. But I also expect others to not make personal attacks on me, I expect you to point to the objectionable sentence or withdraw your attack. Doing neither as you did is unacceptable to me and I will raise the matter at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts if that remains the case. Hobartimus (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now you are threatening me. Please understand that even if I were to attack you personally, which I have not done, it would not excuse your actions or invalidate my complaints about them. Let me explain again what I see as problematic with your actions.
First, there were your edits. Both the bridge section and the email hack section were discussed extensively on the talk page, during which period they experienced heavy editing. A consensus was reached, as demonstrated by the fact that both editing and discussion died down. You cannot but have been aware of this, as you were active on the talk page at the time. Then, some time later, you came along and made edits to the sections, in a way which would clearly reawake some of the specific objections which had been voiced on the talk page. You made no comment on the talk page as to why you believed that your edits might be more acceptable than previous attempts which had caused the objections.
Then, when somebody pointed this out in the talk page, you made repeated references to the bias of that person. This served to move the discussion away from your actions.
I have deliberately avoided posting diffs or quotes. You have 3 choices: you can say that my charges are false, that they are immaterial, or you can admit you were wrong. If you believe that they are immaterial, please do not waste both of our time by arguing that they are also false. In other words: if you want me to post diffs, please first state that if I can demonstrate that my characterization above is accurate, you will then admit that you were wrong and, as I requested, change your behavior or leave the page. Homunq (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You have no "charges" as far as I can see. The "charge" (to use your word) is that you violated WP:NPA with your original comments, that I cited and quoted for you to withdraw. That's the specific "charge". I see that you now completely rephrased your original comment above "you made repeated references to the bias of that person." as compared to the original objectionable comment. I take it as a sign that you realize that at least something was wrong with your original comment. I think we can focus on that point instead of getting into absurd arguments like "consensus was reached at the bridge section", contrary to what anyone can see from the huge discussion on the bridge section still ongoing. I am only interested in that you cease and not conduct personal attacks in the future towards me. If that is achieved I could care less if you openly advocate the deletion of WP:CCC and want to replace it with a version in which articles shouldn't be edited because alleged past consensus in the archives. I have no further desire to argue other policies with you let's focus on the question of adherence to WP:NPA. Hobartimus (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Making repeated references to the personal bias of an editor, rather than to any bias that they demonstrate in specific article-space edits, constitutes a personal attack. You did this. Thus, you made a personal attack. Moreover, in doing so, you distracted attention from a discussion of whether or not your own edits were appropriate. This is disruptive behavior. There is nothing wrong with my initial comment.
Please do not put words in my mouth, either. As I have said repeatedly, I understand that CCC, but your wholesale edits to the article without comment in the talk page are not the way to change it. Please stop it, or leave.
This is the last time I will respond to you if you continue to focus on my actions, rather than defending your own. Homunq (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The focus is your actions clearly for some time now, as I said my goal is to ensure that attacks from you do not happen in the future. This is not the first time either that you act negatively toward me without any reason, remember the "all material excised from the article thread" and your comments there? I could search for the diffs as I remember it wasn't pretty. You may claim that an editor being openly biased against the subject of a WP:BLP article is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with the discussion on the talk page of a Biography of a Living Person. You may claim it, it is your right to do so, but I suspect most people would laugh at that suggestion. What you may not claim that I made personal attacks without any supporting evidence, false claims such as that constitute a personal attack. I think our discussion here is over, and I exhausted the step of DR that says if you have a problem talk to the person and ask him to stop. You may choose to stop or continue. In case I have a problem with a future edit of yours in this regard, like repeating the very thing I asked you to withdraw multiple times, I will not be posting here on your talk page about it any more. Hobartimus (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You also have a big wikibreak sign on both your user and talk page, is that relevant or not really applicable? Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I should change that to say that my availability is intermittent. Homunq (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support[edit]

"....I repeat it: please change your behavior or leave." ((01:03, 6 October 2008)) Well said and necessary. A community needs to monitor its self. Just don't slide into Incivility. You lose your impact and the focus shifts.--Buster7 (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

what I really think[edit]

Instead of funny....I could have said---snide, a praying mantis, forlorn, sneaky, false, malicious, slanderous, disengenuous, foamy, furtive, a penguin, poor speller, encephalitic, cancerous, offensive, deceitful, intentionally incorrect, a cactus, or a one-trick pony. Instead I just said that he/she wasn't at all funny...at any time. Do you really think it is bad manners to point out that a fellow editor is lacking a sense of humor? I don't. But...I will take your advice and cross it out...Wednesday.. I think other editors will get a chuckle out of it. That's why I did it. I just needed a straight man and he/she didn't know any better. If you have noticed he/she has attacked me several times. I"m just trying to maintain an even keel. Thanks for your advice.--Buster7 (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Detective at work[edit]

rIGHT....I have been the one that has been arguing with c_____t about paid operatives. It started 3/4 weeks ago...It just seemed like an obvious statement of fact that Both parties would be present to make sure that they had their say in matters. AND IT WASN'T JUST VOLUNTEERS, BUT PAID STAFFERS. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT, I WAS MERELY MENTIONING IT..If I was running a campaign I would certainly want to know what was going into the Sara PALIN article. It just made sense. WELL>>>>>C_____t got all upset and said I was reprehensible for even thinking that. He/she made a big todo about it...in the hopes of shutting me up, I guess. She was the only Palin editor to have a problem with it. Ferrylodge was OK withit. No-one else got into a snit....just C_____t. Which made me suspicious. so......I started to sniff around and see if something fragrant would surface. You know the rest....see you at the Palin pages!--Buster7 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Have just shared info with admin LessheardvanU. Editor Factchecker at your service suggested I go to admin. Thought u should know.--Buster7 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO[edit]

Please post at talk, thanks.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hola[edit]

A fellow English speaking editor in Central America! I am in next door Honduras, where we are having some problems right now. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I came here to find out more about what's going on, but the article at the moment is telling me less than the fragmentary emails I'm getting.
This is totally my own opinion here, but to me it's obviously an unconstitutional coup. Even if Zelaya had broken the constitution by advocating relectability, the Supreme Court would have to have been in session to remove him from office. (Also, the whole no-reelection "nobody can ever propose changing this law" is goofy. "By law, this law is the law that this is the law that it will be illegal to deny the law that it's against the law to re-elect the president".) But since the army, congress, and supreme court have all supported the coup now, where most of the rest of the world has rejected it, I don't see how anybody can back down now. So I guess that the only thing I can imagine is an officially-recognized government-in-exile until the next elections, which sucks. Homunq (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I am personally much more in agreement that it is a coup on a personal level than before, especially after yesterday and given we still have a 6:30pm curfew here tonight that is being enforced. I still don't agree that the article should be called coup, though. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran coup[edit]

Yeah, I saw the referendum article and slapped on some tags. I think it should be merged into the main "political crisis" article. And it will be easier to keep one article in NPOV state than two, especially when the referendum one is in such awful shape to begin with. <eleland/talkedits> 15:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Things people say that I think violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE[edit]

Okay, you seem to really want to discuss this, so okay.

First, I'll break the quote down into its parts:
(1) "What's with you, Roberto."
(2) "I was elected by the people, not the congress."
(3) "How would you make me ineligible"
(4) "you're a lousy second-rate congressman who got your post because I gave you space in my party."

(1) The president said, "¿Qué tienes?" OMG! Do the New York Times and the Washington Post know about this? Surely every encyclopedia should include that he said, "¿Qué te pasa?"!
(2) That he, "was elected," is in the beginning of the section. Why is it encyclopedic to include that he asked this?
(3) Why is this worthy of inclusion? Did his temporary replacement even answer? Impeachment?
(4) and a low-down, no-good, ornery cus!

It's not that it's undignified. It's that it's unworthy of inclusion. So what if the president calls the new guy a lousy second-rate congressman? What is the significance of this? Did the new guy reply that Zelaya was a "pinche", third rate president who was lucky to get Micheletti in his party?

We're not supposed to go for "color" on Wikipedia. People can get the "tone" from the facts.

It was hard enough to focus people (on the talk page) on the fact that it was illegitimate to make an argument that it was or wasn't a coup, because such arguments were irrelevant. Wikipedians aren't supposed to make such decisions. That's WP:OR.

There's obviously a Most Interested Person dynamic going on in the article, and I'm not Most Interested. I was just trying to head things in good directions -- and yes, I believe that less is more, especially on the Internet.

When I suggested that it didn't matter that Chávez had said that he'd invade if the hondureños invaded his embassy -- because they didn't -- I was just reverted and my rationale ("unencyclopedic 'what if' recentism") was called illogical! That editor might not agree, but my edit summary was not illogical!

Ten years from now, will it matter that he said he'd invade? Nobody believed him anyway. Given that the hondureños haven't set foot on his embassy (even though they're allowed to go there), what is the significance of this? (Not, ¿Qué significa?, but ¿Qué importa?)

I just went through this Most Interested Person combat on another article, an attack coatrack of a living person that pissed off a certain demographic.

I don't know if I'm up for it again.

The editing on the article goes by so fast, I can barely keep up with it, much less discuss stuff like we're doing here.
-- Rico 00:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Otra votación en la página de discusión de Crisis política en Honduras de 2009 en WP:ES[edit]

Buenas. Han iniciado otra votación en la página de discusión para decidir de una vez por todas si se traslada o no el artículo a "Golpe de estado en Honduras de 2009". Te animo a que la apoyes. Un saludo.--OrlandoSM (ES) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.2.216.152 (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Honduran coup[edit]

Yeah, they're ordered chronologically, according to the article itself. Do we really need to source what's already in the article? ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why a Constitutional Convention in Honduras[edit]

If you haven't already read it, you might enjoy Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle's editorial from El Tiempo the day before the coup. I've included the link here: ¿Por qué y para qué necesitamos una nueva constitución?. Rsheptak (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I don't have a choice but to accept it do I?[edit]

Have a good day --Agcala (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mediation Request[edit]

Hi there. Someone has mentioned your name as in a dispute at this page and I have volunteered to mediate the case as part of the Mediation Cabal. Please read the "mediator notes" section of the case page for further instructions. Thank you, GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting System FAR[edit]

I have nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Feinoha Talk, My master 21:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

There is an RfC at Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#Is_the_content_in_the_following_edit_worthy_of_inclusion_in_the_International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup_article -- Rico 16:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We would appreciate your comment the above RfC:
Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#RfC:_Is_the_content_in_the_following_edit_worthy_of_inclusion_in_the_International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup_article
or at its sister RfC on the same talk page:
Talk:International_reaction_to_the_2009_Honduran_military_coup#RfC:_Which_is_the_better_condensed_version
Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion[edit]

Your edits to the "Legality" section in 2009 Honduran coup d'état are not going to last very long unless you add a citation from a WP:RS. Spanish citations are fine if you can't find anything in English. Homunq (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation and attribution added I couldnt find it at the time of posting- only had an intermediate source at the timeCathar11 (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Technically, unless it's unencyclopedic or not representing a significant viewpoint in proportion to its prominence, unsourced material -- that can be sourced -- should be challenged with a "Needs citation" tag, and then only deleted if a source hasn't been supplied after a reasonable amount of time has passed. -- Rico 19:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Rico, you're right of course. That's what I did, added a [citation needed] tag. But given the contention on that article, I thought that a warning was in order - I thought the material did not merit deletion. Homunq (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The new articles[edit]

Homunq, thank you for writing me.
I can't believe it'll be hard to include wikilinks to other articles.
If it's not obvious where they should be, hopefully it will become obvious during the editing of the articles.
In the meantime, they can be put in a "See also" section and then deleted once they have been put into the article above.
We should write the article with a view of trying to make it the best we can. I don't think we should go out of our way to write prose so that we can wikify the article and make the wikilinks more prominent than they would naturally be. -- Rico 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (please comment)[edit]

Hey Homunq, I would appreciate your comment here: Talk:Chronology_of_events_of_the_2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#Requested_move I hope that you can kind of understand the logic of what I was saying there, even if you don't agree with the move. Moogwrench (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC at 2009 Honduran coup d'état regarding mention of the constitutional crisis in the lede[edit]

I'd like your opinion, and that of other editors that have been interested in the Honduran articles, at Talk:2009_Honduran_coup_d'état#RfC:_Do_the_sources_support_the_mention_of_coup_as_part_of_the_constitutional_crisis_in_the_lede_of_this_article.3F. Thanks! Moogwrench (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Homunq[edit]

I know you are on wikibreak or something, cause you haven't edited much recently, but you might want to check out some of the edits User:Alb28 has been doing to the Honduras articles... just sayin'. Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ[edit]

I have nominated Article ([{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=history}} history]|[{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=protect}} protect]|[{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=delete}} delete]|[{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links]|[{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch]|logs|views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice to see you back...[edit]

Just wanted to welcome you back after your wikibreak... :)

Cordially, Moogwrench (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, take care of yourself, and good luck! Your fellow Central America-minded wiki-editor, Moogwrench (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re Citizendium[edit]

I would agree that CZ is not reliable. I am not sure if you have been "pushy"... but I would advise droping the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Advice... sometimes it is better to let the other guy "get the last word"... if Collectonian responds... just leave it be. Best - Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ʒ[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Ʒ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on articles about voting systems[edit]

Hello Homunq. I saw your recent posting a WP:AN3. I recommend that you take the initiative in opening a broader discussion. For example, one of the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, like a WP:Request for comment. Or you could use a project talk page to attract wider participation. If admins continue to see two-person revert wars breaking out, it is likely that both parties will be sanctioned, regardless of the prior history. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already asked for a third opinion, asked for informal mediation, and invited the other party to post on a mailing list to bring more attention to the issue. I have reason to believe that the other party did indeed canvas a third party, but just one, not in an open way as I invited him to. Although, if true, that would be against WP policy, since it would also happen to be one of the healthier things he's done, I'm not bringing it up here to complain; on the contrary, I'm bringing up my lack of complaint as additional evidence that I welcome a wider dialogue. Also, I stand behind the relevant record, in which I consistently sought dialogue and compromise, while the other party nakedly reverted. Anyway, it's done now, I'm not going to make any further edits, and I await the consequences. Homunq (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how posting on an external mailing list constitutes an effort at finding Wikipedia consensus. The recent exchanges of article reverts seem to involve mostly the two of you. If you can't persuade other WP editors to join the discussion, I'm not clear on how progress will occur. The mediation doesn't look very promising at the moment, but I notice that both RRichie and Tomruen have commented here and there. I guess you can probably get at least a four-person discussion going if you try. If you trawl through participants in articles on different voting systems, you might be able to gather some interested people. There is a page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics that might be relevant. If you are interested in getting other editors to participate, just invite them in a neutral manner. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't post on an external mailing list, because that would have been opening myself up to accusations of WP:CANVAS. I invited the other party to do so, because I think it would be helpful; there are a number of wikipedians I know of on the list who would be knowledgeable, interested, and varied in their points of view. Would it be OK if I posted an unbiased notice on their userpages, and sent individual email "heads up" notices to tell them to check their wikipedia accounts? The text of the email would be just: "I posted something on your wikipedia talk page, you might want to log in there and check it out.". Obviously, if I do it individually, I could easily consciously or unconsciously bias my selection of editors. I do promise not to do so concsiously, however. Homunq (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
How would you select the editors to be notified? EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the past 6-7 (non-bot, named) editors of Bucklin voting would do fine. Note that, despite the fact that I am taking the pro-article-subject position and thus would in a vacuum expect the majority of the page editors to support me, in actual fact, of the names I recognize there, I can count only 1 who is a Bucklin or Range advocate, and at least 2 who are Instant runoff voting advocates (probable Bucklin opponents), along with 2 who are Condorcet advocates (possibly neutral about Bucklin, but also possibly predisposed to consider Arrow's theorem in the same limited light that Schulze does). Homunq (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
ps. I'm not trying to prejudge what people will say; I have faith in people's open minds. I'm just saying that if I were trying to pick biased refs for my side, these are not the people I'd pick. Homunq (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If you're expecting the people who answer your call to participate in any kind of a voting situation, then I suggest not notifying them by email. A notice on a person's talk page should be sufficient. I hope you'll be available to find some people who are frequent editors of Wikipedia. If your selection method only brings in enthusiasts for different voting methods, then you may face the task of herding cats. That's why a post at a general-interest place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics could be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I seek consensus, not a vote. I hope that MarkusSchulze would recognize a general consensus even if it went against his original position. I am actually optimistic about the ability of different enthusiasts, without agreeing overall, to agree on the limited matters at issue here. These are basically limited to: the breadth of definition appropriate for "Bucklin voting", and the mathematically-verifiable characteristics of the system or systems included in that definition. Homunq (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I just alerted several editors, based on most recent non-minor edits to the page. Homunq (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see my comment after your RfC tag. I'm asking that you promptly withdraw the RfC. It can be filed later. It's better if people who know voting systems find consensus first, if possible. I've seen many cases where consensus is in reach, and is reversed by editors coming in who apply guidelines as if they were rigid rules, whereas the goal is always a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and means vary according to the circumstances of particular articles. RfC without having first gathered the "evidence" and "arguments," so to speak, can produce erratic results that are then difficult to fix. By the way, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Voting systems, but activity has been very low. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand your concern, but I stand by my decision. I'll add a note after the RFC to ask people to respect any consensus of the editors involved. Homunq (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The people who get involved are the editors if they get involved. We are all asked to respect consensus, so your comment might as well just say, "please follow guidelines." I'm telling you from experience that you should be careful before escalating, for you mostly will get just one chance. By taking it now it will be more difficult to ask for RfC later. It's hard enough to get people to participate. Here, it seems this whole thing blew up in about four days, not time enough for people who would routinely show up to show up. Not time enough for editors to negotiate consensus. You've been revert warring, apparently at more than one article. That's grounds for an immediate block. Being "right" is absolutely no defense, both you and Markus don't seem to understand that (it is a common misunderstanding with relatively inexperienced editors, and particularly with experts). I consider myself only a moderately experienced editor, and I have over 13,000 edits, many of them in highly controversial topics, often about process. There are editors with over 100,000. You have 2900. You've never been blocked, but I'd say that you dodged the bullet this time. It happens. Depends on what admin happens across the situation. You could still be blocked for your reverts at Bucklin voting. I'm advising that you revert yourself, immediately, before you are. Even though some of your positions are correct, I'm not going to support your position at this point unless you back down and start cooperating with others, including Mr. Schulze. I'll wait until the smoke clears. You guys start cooperating, I'll help, I can find sources for some of what is in controversy, I've done much research on Bucklin, and I've always had good relations with Markus, and, I thought, reasonably good relations with you.
Conflict among experts will result in non-experts taking over when the experts are blocked or driven away, and do you think that they are likely to get it right? Do you think that people not familiar with the field will understand how to balance the sources that exist? I care about the quality of the project, not winning some petty battle. --Abd (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
MarkusSchulze made over 14 article-space reverts, with under 5 different "after" versions, with only 6 distinct edit comments and 3 talk page comments that weren't just reproduced edit comments. I made approximately the same number of edits, with over 10 different compromises proposed in my "after" versions, and each one of them accompanied by one or sometimes two talk page comments AND a descriptive edit comment. This was not a symmetrical war; I was trying to find a compromise, and he was ignoring my efforts and reverting me. You are free to check those figures; they are for real.
What on earth am I supposed to self-revert? How on earth can I "back down and start cooperating" when I've been the one seeking consensus from the start of this process? I am not in this for some petty battle, I am in this to improve the relevant articles. And "please follow guidelines" is a perfectly good comment to make, especially when it's specific. (Here in Mexico, there are signs every few kilometers on the highways which say "don't mistreat the signs". I laugh at those, but not at the ones which say things like "don't pass on a curve" - sometimes a reminder is worthwhile, even if it only changes the number of people following the rules from 40% to 60%.)
ps. I may have under a quarter of the edits you do, but I have had my share of contentious articles. As you can see from the above, I was on Sarah Palin when she was nominated and the cluster around 2009 Honduran coup d'état for some time, and both were serious battlegrounds where I personally have a very clear POV, yet I feel that I played the role of a peacemaker and helped make both articles better not just from my POV but from a neutral POV. I'm may be an optimist about the results of an RFC, but I'm not a total neophyte. I expect the non-experts to help us quasi-experts be civil, us to find consensus, and them to respect it. Homunq (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid[edit]

I appreciate your recent edit and why you did it, but I've reverted you as I believe Rklawton's intention is to warn us about issues that may affect the article. They didn't seem - at least to me - to be inviting discussion. Do please revert me if it becomes clear that editors are discussing the incident, rather than the article.

Hope that's OK, TFOWRidle vapourings 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that this reversion is made in good faith, but I respectfully disagree. I can see no benefit to a post which speculates about future developments in press coverage, especially since IMO there are certain to be those who dissent and who will be tempted to respond in kind. If it turns out to be prescient, we can deal with it when it happens. I won't edit war on a talk page, but I would ask you to re-revert yourself. Homunq (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I only reverted you the once, prior to posting here. Since then the post has been re-hidden. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
oops, I did not intend to re-hide it, that was collateral damage from an edit conflict. Sorry.
But I will leave it, and I ask you to do so too. Just a request - you're free to re-show it, and I wouldn't consider that to be edit warring, as my second edit was just a mistake. Homunq (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm happy to leave as is - I don't think it does harm remaining hidden, either. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrow's impossibility theorem[edit]

Hi, Homunq! Thanks for editing the article for Arrow's theorem, and also for writing a new article on Majority Judgment. You say, "So, what Arrow's theorem really shows is that any majority-wins voting system is a non-trivial game". I do not know the word "majority-wins", but you probably mean any voting system under which majority wins. If so, we probably had better drop "majority-wins" (or replace it with "nondicatorial"), since the word is too restrictive. As you know, Unanimity is one of the conditions for Arrow's theorem, but neither majority nor monotonicity is. --Theorist2 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Majority Judgment[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Winpdb[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Winpdb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero independent reliable sources to establish notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Voting system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nash (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite


Hello Homunq. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.


You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

About Majority Judgment[edit]

Hi Homunq The Majority Judgment fails the Majority criterion (and hence the Concorcet criterion). This was well known even before Badinski and Laraki put a patent on this method. A discussion of that point, and examples were provided several years ago on the sites of Range Voting. I was typing a counterexample when you reverted my edit. The example is very simple: Two candidates, A and B, and 99 voters. 49 voters give grade 6 to A and grade 5 to B; 1 voter gives grade 3 to A and 4 to B; 49 voters give grade 2 to A and grade 1 to B. The median grades are 2 for A and 3 for B so that B is elected according to the so-called "Majority Judgement". But 98 voters prefer A to B. Please make the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncyclopedist (talkcontribs) 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Johncyclopedist: Please use a new heading for every new topic This time I did that for you. Also, since this comment is identical to that at Talk:voting system, it would be better to just give a hint to look there. --Arno Nymus (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
@Homunq: Please also see the recent changes at the Majority Judgment article. --Arno Nymus (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Which mathematical definition of later-no-harm are you referring to?[edit]

Thanks for helping to make the voting methods page more accurate. Q: Can you please clarify which mathematical definition of later-no-harm you are referring to for which approval is not applicable, and its source? Are you referring to Douglas Woodall's 1994 http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE3/P5.HTM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filingpro (talkcontribs) 20:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Majority Judgment: LNH failure example[edit]

In my work of adding examples for criteria failures, I added an example for LNH failure of Majority Judgment. Since you know the system better than me, I would like you to have a look at it: Later-no-harm_criterion#Majority_Judgment. Thx --Arno Nymus (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC on indentation essay[edit]

Hello, Hom. I wanted to let you know that, as part of my Dark AgendaTM, I've taken the unusual and perhaps unwarranted liberty of forging your signature to give you precedence in a "support" !vote in the RfC you agreed would be acceptable for this. See hidden text following your sig in that section. I meant it to be polite, but if it was too presumptuous, you should, of course, feel free to revert and ... um, !vote to "support"? Or rephrase, or whatever you like. I promise I won't forge your signature anywhere else, unless it involves cheques for large amounts, of course.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Damn! That's twice you've made me laugh out loud. You are one quick-witted fellow. This is going to look very strange to the casual reader who doesn't examine the details, though.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this was over-the-top; sorry if it rankled. I may have become a bit light-headed, trying to keep up with your fine sense of humour. I see that in trying to adjust the RfC formatting so RFCbot will notice it ( see this talk page section ) admin Chris Cunningham aka "Thumperward" has now added my sig to the original creation of the RfC, so the joke is pretty much deflated anyway. Feel free to delete my faux-accusatory comment, if you like, and rework what remains to your satisfaction, however you see fit, e.g. position my !vote above yours, forge my sig to say I'm a cat juggler, whatever you like.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I got it, but yeah, others might not have. I think Chris Cunningham had the right idea; no need to worry now it's fixed. Homunq (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC) ps. I noticed your indentation fix :) Homunq (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

An RFC you may have previously participated, [7], is seeking a Resolution. Thank you. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Undelete history for Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

I'd like to request a history-only undelete for Favorite betrayal criterion and I'm not sure I correctly understand the process for doing so. So please, someone. Homunq (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review is the place to request that—see WP:Deletion review#History-only undeletion for the specifics. DoriTalkContribs 01:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.[edit]

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Eustress talk 22:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Paul Ryan, WP:NPOVN". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 08:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were still in discussion, why did you make an edit which is clearly designed to extract a contentious reaction? Arzel (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Because I believe it accords with wikipedia policy. And no, it is not intended to provoke. The content in question has now been added by 5 different editors, and removed by only 2. Homunq (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Probation notification[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Paul Ryan, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Since you seem to be aware of the probation, this is merely a formality to insure your knowledge of the probation is logged.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware of the probation but didn't have that link to the terms. That's helpful; I've added it to talk. Homunq (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Homunq. You have new messages at Kerfuffler's talk page.
Message added 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kerfuffler  harass
stalk
 
15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Homunq. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr.
Message added 16:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

An explanation and apology await you at the RfC   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
16:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: RfC[edit]

What happened? I mean, obviously I can see that you didn't meet the deadline and got deleted per your own request. But was that intentional, and if so, why? Homunq (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it intentional to delete an RfC after 30 days in user space? Yes. I think you are trying to ask, why wasn't the RfC posted? As it turns out, discussion about this is ongoing on the project page, where the same concerns are being discussed. It's a long process, longer than 30 days. Viriditas (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from Paul Ryan[edit]

Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - TP 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not contesting this ban. I would simply like to point out to anyone looking over my talk page to get a sense of my history that the same user who banned me also said: "I think (homunq's) editing on the talk page has been cordial and polite. My only rationale for banning him from it was to be consistent, fair, and even." (more) Homunq (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Voting essay[edit]

I think you should take it out of userspace. Be WP:BOLD -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Liberty Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Liberty
You are hereby awarded this barnstar for being one of the core contributors to WP:RFC/AAMC. They said we couldn't do it, repeatedly and generally rudely, and yet here we are. Thanks for your dedicated work! —chaos5023 (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Further thoughts on MJ/CMJ[edit]

from our conversation in March, at [8]. --Baylink (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:IPA hover[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:IPA hover requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Lfdder (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_March_19#Favorite_betrayal_criterion, as you have commented in prior deletion discussions related to this article. Homunq () 02:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Participate in talk page[edit]

On page Fertilisation. Currently, it has been entirely ignored. WP:BURDEN lies on those who wishes to include the information, not for those who wish to remove it. Ging287 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I did. Homunq () 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Monckton[edit]

I cited his precise words as given in the sources -- I fear your labeling him a "denier" and "sceptic" is not actually a proper use per WP:NPOV though we can certainly include the opinions of those who disagree with him without calling him names, right? I left in your second paragraph, trusting that you placed them in order of perceived importance, but if you wish to substitute a different second paragraph, please do so, but avoiding "sledgehammer" terminology. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not really my fight, so I'm going to drop this issue here. I agree that the "denier"/"sceptic" language may not have been the most WP:NPOV but my larger point was that the section needed a topic sentence stating, in encyclopedic language (unlike my first attempt), that he has opposed the ideas of climate change repeatedly, publicly, and on several grounds, before it started to get into the details of individual claims. In general, I have no issue with your edits to the two paragraphs you left, but think that you should have left at least one more paragraph which discussed how public and relatively high-profile his stance has been (ie, mentioning a few tours, documentaries, etc.) Homunq () 15:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT, his profile is not very high - but it appears that some wish to point out all the "evil skeptics" even where they do not appear all that "skeptical" at all. He has not "repeatedly" opposed much at all -- except the IPCC dicta. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas[edit]

thanks, I wasn't aware that there was a that much of a distinction between the use of neutral pronouns. I've seen the use of 'they' grow over the years, but hadn't paid terribly close attention to the nitty-gritty - in most respects, it's struck me as merely away to dance around NPA by avoiding you/your. I appreciate the advice, and will stick with 'they'.Anastrophe (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation[edit]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Favorite_betrayal_criterion COI[edit]

Hi Homunq. I've read/researched on the Favorite_betrayal_criterion. Markus Schulze hasn't answered my question, but I'd like to try it on you too. Do you know, or have any connection to Mike Ossipoff, who I believe coined "Favorite Betrayal Criterion". Is there personal animosity between Shultz and Ossipoff, or is it simply that Shulze want to insist on a level of publishing reputabilty, and it happening to be the case that Shulze has reliably published and Ossipoff has not, in the narrow field of voting methods criteria? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The community of internet voting reform activists is a small one, and so I've had tangential interaction with both Ossipoff and Schulze off wikipedia. But I wouldn't really say I have any connection to either. I mean, I could easily name a dozen voting reform activists or scholars with whom I've exchanged private communication, off of the commonly-known mailing lists; and while it's not impossible that I've done so with Ossipoff (or for that matter, Schulze), I can't currently recall any such instances.
As for animosity: I have no reason to believe that there is any such animosity. Ossipoff's participation in online voting system discussions is minor, and Schulze's consists almost exclusively of promoting his method (for instance, a typical posting of his on the electorama mailing list might share the news that some large German organization recently used his method for an internal election.) I do however have the (circumstantial) impression that there's an animosity between Schulze and Warren Smith, Ossipoff's "co-author". Smith has a notably abrasive personality, which I believe to be part of the reason none (or little?) of his work has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, despite its academic merit.
If you have any questions for me, you can use wikipedia to email me, and I'd be happy to reveal my identity in private. The basic gist is: yes, I am a voting reform advocate, so I do have an "interest" in the content of the voting system article. However, I can document having changed my mind in response to new evidence and arguments. Moreover, I believe that there is a key asymmetry here: I am advocating including information (without an excessive focus on that info, and in the context of a table which already is one of the best sources on the internet for criteria compliances). Schulze is advocating the suppression of information. As long as the information passes the hurdle of WP:V (which I believe the FBC clearly does), I think it's best to err on the side of inclusion; and, if I had do, I'm sure I could find edits I've made where I was consistent in that view even for information I disagree with. Homunq () 13:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yugolsav Front[edit]

Thanks for closing. I will mention that in Balkans articles there will always be someone who strongly opposes a closure. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)