User talk:Coppertwig

Welcome to my talk page. Please take off your shoes at the entrance and have a seat. Tea will be served shortly. Please keep all comments here calm and polite.

Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.

np -- rc

Your efforts at maintaining neutrality

		The Original Barnstar
		For keeping a calm demeanor, a neutral outlook, and engaging all sides of the debate at Circumcision with impartiality and aplomb. Avi 17:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Letters

I'm glad you found the quotes interesting. You might also be interested in this and this. Jakew 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting reading. (about the importance of letters to the editor in scientific journals). Not all journals have short limits like that on the time in which you can send in comments on an article. --Coppertwig 22:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Your quote at jossi's page

I just love the quote by you at the top of jossi's user page: The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work. --Coppertwig 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's marvellous, isn't it? Concise, insightful and hilarious. It's also not mine, but the Zeroeth Law of Wikipedia from Raul's laws. After I quoted it in a New York Times interview in April *basks in glow of own vanity for a moment*, it's been occasionally attributed to me, but the true author is unknown. I've dropped jossi a note, but she doesn't seem to have caught it. Don't feel embarassed - you couldn't know - but do check out the list, if for some reason you weren't aware of it. --Kizor 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a New York Times article -- that's cool. If jossi's a "she", why does she have a picture of a man on her userpage? Anyway, it was clever of you to think of mentioning that quote at such an opportune time. Family members I told it to laughed as soon as I finished the first sentence. --Coppertwig 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah! I laugh on your English and its puny gender-specific pronouns.
Also, that's nice to hear. You're quite welcome. --Kizor 16:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL! --Coppertwig 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't resist

I couldn't resist mentioning that in this edit you also forgot to close your parentheses. Sorry! :-) Jakew 13:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha! No, I didn't! Note the double closing parentheses after "UTC" in the time stamp! :-) --Coppertwig 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Medical analysis of circumcision, was not constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --Hirohisat ^Talk 22:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry bout that --Hirohisat ^Talk 22:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I like getting that orange "you have messages" bar, and it's always nice to see that I'm not the only one who makes mistakes. --Coppertwig 00:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have made a mistake on that and I'm sorry I didn't rv what I rollbacked. I'll watch out on that. --Hirohisat ^Talk 03:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pitfight team Article

This will be difficult because ESPN doesn't cover MMA directly but through Sherdog.com. That is why I added the link for the ESPN page, to show that they were affiliated. Thank you and I will find something. Unak78 16:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have only sent notices to people involved in the discussion. What should I have done? It says that I can notify the MMA project. Does that mean individually or the group as a whole? Unak78 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• New sources are listed from CBS, ESPN, and SI.com, please consider them, Thank You for your advice. Unak78 16:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Links: Pitfight Team -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pitfight Team. --Coppertwig 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I should have named it "The Pit" but they're interchangeable. All three articles mention John Hackleman as Liddell's coach. Liddell is a member of the Pit. If you notice along the bottom of the article, there are links to other fight teams relevant to MMA that were made before this one. The only reason this one is up for deletion is because I posted the statbox before the article. It is hard to educate numerous editors unfamiliar with MMA or the Mixed Martial Arts project of the relevance of this team unless they take a crash course in MMA and really get involved with what we are doing. Those three articles should provide a sufficient link between John Hackleman, Chuck Liddell, and the Pit. MMA is a growing sport and the purpose of the article is to be informative. Many people, as I am learning quickly, don't realize that MMA is like NASCAR and thier team affiliations are very important. Please, if you have any more advice I will hear it, but right now I am backing up my article and trying to contact members of my project. Thank you. Unak78 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • I appreciate your advice. You saved me from potentially breaking rules. I'll try to work with this a bit longer and I hope that I will have enough time to work on this. Barring that I will work on what I can save. Thanks Unak78 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin C megadosage

Thanks for the interest. The research on intravenous Vitamin C looks promising. Let's hope.Thomas Paine1776 20:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe it will be the miracle cure?Thomas Paine1776 20:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "will be"? See for example the chapter on cancer in Linus Pauling's "How to Live Longer and Feel Better". Lives have already been saved. Of course, no one thing will stop all cancer. Still, there's a reason guinea pigs rather than some other animal have been frequently used as a model for a variety of human diseases.

Let's put it this way: there's an optimal amount of vitamin C for any given person. The optimal amount for people with cancer is apparently much higher than the optimal amount for other people, and of course taking less than the optimal amount produces worse health. --Coppertwig 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

French

Are you fluent in French? Thomas Paine1776 20:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindof. I'd say "advanced". I can certainly carry on conversations and often feel as if I'm just talking, though I grope for words more often in French than in my native English. I'm better at reading and writing French than at speaking it. I'm currently translating Safavid art from the French Wikipedia. (I use various dictionaries for the harder words.) --Coppertwig 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate french translations or approximations for the Detroit subarticles Architecture of metropolitan Detroit, Tourism in metropolitan Detroit, and Economy of metropolitan Detroit. On the French side, it looks like someone started tourism and architecture, but not economy. Or would appreciate if you could encourage others to help. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 20:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I decline, sorry. I'm already in the middle of doing a translation, and the subject matter of these articles doesn't appeal to me. Besides, I'm better at translating from French into English than the other way around. You might try listing your request at fr:Projet:Traduction. In spite of my claims in ability in French, computer programming and parserfunctions, unfortunately I don't understand their instructions about how to list an article for translation, though. Maybe I'll re-read it later and "get" it. (celui-ci means "this one", but does it mean the page you're reading or the page you want created?) I'm happy to help you try to get them listed, though you'll have to take the lead as the requestor. --Coppertwig 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(celui-ci can also mean "the latter".) --Coppertwig 20:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear biased

Because it takes two sides to revert war, and you sent a semi-official-sounding warning only to the party you apparently disagree with. I should note that the present wording was discussed on the talk page, and furthermore that it is never the intent of policy pages to be self-contradictory or contain falsehood. As this is an encyclopedia, facts trump opinions ten times out of nine. >Radiant< 13:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has their biases; the trick is to avoid letting them control one's actions at times when one is supposed to be impartial. I seriously considered sending a message to Philip Baird Shearer too but couldn't bring myself to criticize someone for not using the talk page when the user has posted a relevant message on the talk page around the time of the user's second-last revert and has urged the use of the talk page in the user's last revert, while the party with whom they should be carrying on a discussion is not using the talk page. It's hard to carry on a one-sided discussion. If you think User:Philip Baird Shearer needs a user talk page message you can send one yourself. There's no requirement that an individual criticizing one Wikipedian must criticize all Wikipedians. If repeated reverting is happening, that's a sign that further talk page discussion is required. Please take the opinions about the policy page that you've expressed in edit summary and here and repeat them on the policy talk page where they can be most conveniently replied to. --Coppertwig 13:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Background

Re your edit summary here, that quote was actually added to their statement this year. As I understand, it was agreed at the AUA conference (in May, I think) as a result of John Krieger's presentation re the HIV RCTs. Jakew 20:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. In any case, putting today's date as the access date is accurate, as the quote was present there today when I looked. --Coppertwig 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jakew 20:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, disambiguation was what I was suggesting

Thanks for reminding me of that word. As usual I'll mostly lay out and watch as others do the real work of wikipedia. Thanks for your efforts to that end! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zandrous (talk • contribs) 09:18, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Logicus contra Coppertwig on Bayesian probability

On 21 August you commented in 'Bayesian probability Talk':

It is not at all obvious that a bet on a universal hypothesis can never be won; some can be proven one way or the other, e.g. "All prime numbers are divisible by themselves" or "All prime numbers have exactly 7 divisors". There could conceivably be a way to prove that all ravens are black (by definition, perhaps, or by viewing all ravens on Earth.) --Coppertwig 22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I comment on your User Talk page because this is Wiki-original research.

First, my apologies if it was insufficiently clear to you that is is a bet on the TRUTH of a universal hypothesis that can never be won but only lost that is at issue here. But this would seem to be because although it was implicit, you lost sight of the fact that subjective Bayesianism defines ' probability' as 'degree of belief in the TRUTH of hypotheses', not as degree of belief in their FALSITY. So the possibility of negative decidability of universal hypotheses you suggest is logically irrelevant here. It is only their positive undecidability that poses the problem here. And in general, when trying to establish theorems about Bayesian probability, as an important heuristic rule in all mathematical theorem proving, remember first go back to the definitions of concepts and investigate their logical consequences. It is Jefferys' failure to do so that prevents him from understanding why his belief that all scientific theories are false is apparently fatal to Bayesian methodology and philosophy of science because on that belief one must assign prior probabilty zero to all hypotheses.

Secondly, on your mathematical examples, without challenging your apparent infallibilist philosophy of maths with fallibilist philosophy of maths (according to which the TRUTH of math theorems is never proven because at best they are only proven to be logical consequences of some axioms and/or definitions that are themselves never proven true [for which philosophy see 'Quasi-empiricism' in Philosophy of mathematics and especially Lakatos's 1978 'Infinite Regress and the Foundations of Mathematics'] ), they are irrelevant at least because the only relevant hypotheses here for Bayesian philosophy of science are empirical hypotheses about the material world of empirical science, not the hypotheses of maths. Thirdly, even if SOME empirical universal hypotheses could possibly be proven true as you suggest, nevertheless the problem remains unless ALL universal hypotheses are positively proven. Fourthly, with respect to your conceiving a way of proving some empirical universal hypothesis such as 'all ravens are black' is true, you apparently overlook it is SPATIO-TEMPORALLY universal hypotheses at issue here and thus your suggested proof-method overlooks the fallacies that (i) 'all ravens on Earth' puts an illegitimate SPATIAL bound on the hypothesis, thus ruling out such as ravens that might be bred on spaceships travelling to colonise distant planets possibly discovered by maverick Texan 'Bayesian' astronomer Bill Jefferys, for example, and also that (ii) the class of all ravens is also unbounded in TIME, and so you cannot possibly view all ravens on Earth, that is, all past and future ravens on Earth so long as ravens are not extinct on Earth, nor even all past ravens if they have not all been fully preserved feathers and all for viewing (note dinsosaur feathers are lost). Finally, is it not anyway false that all ravens are black at least by virtue of albino ravens ?

But the main point to be made on your comments is that you are practicing original research here, albeit patently only research at the level of a beginners' fallacious forays into the elements of A-level Logic. May I advise you to reflect on the dubious legitimacy of regaling the Talk page with your personal beginners' research opinions on solutions to recognised problems in the field when a main concern here, inter alia, is registering recognised fundamental problems in the Bayesian philosophy of probability in this article to dilute its current notably pro-Bayesian biassed uncritical viewpoint. Denying recognised problems are problems or endorsing or disputing proposed solutions in the literature is surely Wiki-original research. I personally have no objection to it. But it then opens up the possibility of articles containing endless personal opinions of Wikipedia editors on issues and Talk pages filled with maverick personal opinions, such as those of Bill Jefferys on his personal 'Bayesian' conception of probability on these pages, still struggling with whether subjective Bayesianism probability is degree of belief in the TRUTH of a proposition as normally conceived in the literature or not, or rather degree of belief in the likely USEFULNESS of a proposition for PREDICTING NOVEL FACTS as he and his maverick Texan colleagues are said to conceive it.

But for the rest of us, in Wiki rules articles are supposed to reflect the opinion of 'the literature', a criterion that requires a very considerable amount of scholarly research as opposed to immediate self-introspection into one's own opinions and those of one's colleagues. And from the current article we learn that "...well known proponents of Bayesian probability have included...many philosophers of the 20th century." Hence that suggests the Wiki article researcher will need some basic background and competence in philosophy - specifically in Logic and Epistemology and Scientific Method - to understand and represent the Bayesian probability literature. But such competence is hardly likely to be forthcoming from such apparently anti-philosophical Wikipedia editors as yourself and Jefferys, who writes:

"As a physical scientist (astronomer) and a Bayesian, I find most of the ramblings of philosophers of science way off the point. They do not, in general, reflect how I and my colleagues think. Bill Jefferys 12:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC) "

The traditional riposte of philosophers of science is of course that scientists' opinions about scientific practice are about as intelligent and useful as those of fish on hydrodynamics are to the hydrodynamicist. The historically classic example of this is of course Newton's expressed opinion that he had deduced his theory of universal gravitation from phenomena.

This brings me to your other mistaken comments of 23 August as follows:

"In response to Logicus: I consider this article to be primarily a mathematics article and also partially a philosophical one. I see no reason to give prominence to philosophical definitions here. Logicus says it's clear but has not made a convincing case. Probability is fundamental to the mathematics of statistics, and writing definitions is a common activity of mathematicians. --Coppertwig 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC) "

But see Talk of 30 August for their refutation: 'Logicus contra Coppertwig'

Finally, with reference to your comment of 22 August:

"Re this edit: [2] especially this bit: "whose expressions of his American pragmatist 'red-neck' attitudes ": please carefully re-read WP:NPA. I don't want to see this kind of remark about a Wikipedian editor. --Coppertwig 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC) "

In the first instance you notably omit the vital point of the full quotation, which was, with my italics emphasis:

"But qua philosophers, of course the learned Professor Jefferys has nothing but contempt for such people on the evidence of his personal railings against philosophers of 14 August and his joke that philosophers are not self-critical and regard their work as infallible, whose expressions of his American pragmatist 'red-neck' attitudes are surely a serious breach of Wikipedia etiquette. "

You should also consider Jefferys' other breaches of etiquette I did not cite here, such as his mistaken insults that Logicus is dogmatist that misrepresented Logicus's pointing out an "APPARENTLY fatal problem" as dogmatically asserting it definitely was a fatal problem;

"Obviously, many scientists would disagree with such A DOGMATIC ASSERTION" 18 Aug

"You might ask yourself whether the size and DOGMATIC ATTITUDE of your original edit is not ultimately the source of the objections that it occasioned, and whether anyone would have objected had your original edit been more modest..." 18 Aug

In the light of Jefferys comments and your own arrogant headmasterly instruction to Logicus posted on his User Talk page, you should perhaps reflect upon whether Logicus's comment you object to here was possibly bait set to catch a prejudiced rat, and whether or not it caught one. Note there is no advice from you to Jefferys on breaches of etiquette on his User Talk page. --Logicus 18:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the phrase "a prejudiced rat" is intended to refer to some specific Wikipedian. I ask you again to please review WP:NPA. Also please review Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Please do not put those sorts of remarks about any Wikipedian on my talk page. Please don't put them anywhere on Wikipedia. I ask you again not to put long messages on my talk page. I ask you again not to use capital letters for emphasis due to the emotional tone such usage tends to generate.

If you want to discuss article content, please discuss it in an appropriate manner at the article talk page, not here, Logicus. If you want to discuss math, philosophy etc., I'm sorry I'm not interested in discussing that with you at this time. I might at some future time after a period of time has passed after you've started complying with my reasonable requests. --Coppertwig 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me some things to think about in terms of how to improve my own behaviour.

If the reason for your earlier comment is as you suggest it might be, then it could be a violation of WP:POINT. --Coppertwig 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Labels

Thank you. I must admit that I jumped (or, perhaps, was gently pushed) in at the deep end: I haven't really edited templates before, and had to learn rather fast.

I use popups myself. Unfortunately, as far as I know, we don't have a specific page about Wikipedians who speak English, so that seems to have been the choice. If you have a better idea, please let me know and I'll change it.

Nice idea about language levels... Jakew 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I am trying to be helpful. It appears that the different definitions of "primary source" may be the root of a lot of the trouble.

I also suspect that there's so much about sources in NOR because that's a policy and the ones who are most adamant don't want choice-of-source discussion in a mere guideline. I would hope they think that works, but I have my doubts. I'd pretty much ignore all their source categorization stuff and play it as it develops.

Minasbeede 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty pointless to argue about how to use primary sources when there is no agreement about whether such common sources as newspaper articles and peer-reviewed scientific literature are in that category or not. We can't even understand what each other are saying on that policy talk page (Wikipedia talk:No original research).--Coppertwig 00:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My experience on the internet is that some people like it that way. Years ago I was a frequent participant in the group news.admin.net-abuse.email. There were people with set views there and there was no way to break through. Fortunately I learned that I was basically just like them and then was able to change. A little.

I did manage to get my main idea across, and adopted by some.

My alias comes from my anti-spam days. I post there rarely, and now do it as "hdgoldtoe." That's "Howdy Doody Goldtoe," a sock-puppet name. It's my little joke, but if they notice nobody mentions it.

Minasbeede 00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to NOR re: sources

I didn't look all the way back in the history but it looks like sources were being discussed as far back as June. --Minasbeede 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page

I'm thinking of moving the page Talk:Circumcision/Summary style to User:Coppertwig/Sandbox6. Can you think of any technical or procedural problems I might run into moving from Talk: to User: space? I'm the sole contributor to the page, and it's no longer needed now that I've pasted its content into Circumcision; I thought I would make it a sandbox and possibly use it for other purposes but the edit history would still be there on the off-chance I or someone else wanted it. Thanks. --Coppertwig 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be an issue. Thanks. -- Avi 17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

All users different than main article authors are entitled to remove speedy deletion tags. I was wrong, unfortunately I pushed the Enter button before I realized what I wrote. Forgive me and my mistake. :) --Angelo 01:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you very much for your kind reply. We're all learning how things work around here. --Coppertwig 01:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

20-20-20-20 club

Thanks for your message regarding this page that I created. Personally, I would prefer to see it deleted. I created it because someone kept adding some relatively irrelevent information to the 20-20-20 Club page. It was turning into an edit war (see the talk page for 20-20-20), and I thought that I would give them something to work on. Frankly, I can't defend its presence. I think it is a relatively minor mark in baseball that was starting the process of branching an article off of the subject. Unfortunately, it has not really violated the three revisions in 24 hours rule yet, so I haven't thought it proper to report the problem yet.TeganX7 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to recommend deletion of the article, and if you are the main author as well as the creator, you can write {{db-author}} in the article (without the nowiki tags) and it will probably be speedily deleted.

I don't have much time now, but it may be better to get some kind of help even if 3RR is not being violated. Constant edit wars are a problem even if they never go over 3RR. I'm not sure what to do about it exactly. It appears that there is some disagreement about what is "relevant" to that article or not. Maybe more people could be brought into the discussion. Without violating WP:CANVASS, though. Possibly a request for comment on article content or something. Or you could post a message at a relevant wikiproject maybe or something. Anyway, better to discuss on the talk page and try to reach consensus than repeatedly reverting. --Coppertwig 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution but especially Wikipedia:Consensus, and try to engage the other user in productive discussion on the talk page (instead of reverting). You're not supposed to just keep on edit-warring until the other person slips up and violates 3RR at which time you get to report them. What good would that do? Maybe they'd get a 24-hour block, after which you'd be back where you started. You need to somehow work together with whatever other editors are involved with the page and form a consensus. --Coppertwig 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also please see WP:OWN. --Coppertwig 23:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for hte advice on this. I did read the Dispute resolution page, and I'm just trying to stay away for awhile to let things cool down. I appreciate that you are busy. TeganX7 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, letting things cool down. By the way, I'm not an admin or anything; and I'm sorry that I may have given you too many policy pages to read all at once. --Coppertwig 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on your discussion with Italiavivi

I made this comment in your discussion with Italiavivi, but s/he deleted it, so I'm putting it here so you can see it:

I'm afraid Italiavivi is confabulating again. The only edits s/he could be talking about are this and this, both of which were added after the bottom of the archived discussion. That makes it different from this, this, this, this, and this, 5 attempts to make the same comment inside an archived section (that's 4 reverts, btw). Neither Swatjester nor anybody else did that; and that's why Italiavivi was threatened with a block for it and nobody else was. -- Zsero 02:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In other news, Italiavivi's reaction to my making this comment was to attempt to "ban" me from ever commenting on that page again. AFAIK no such right exists on WP; editors do not own their talk pages, and can't ban legitimate comment, however much they dislike the commenters. -- Zsero 03:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for copying that message here for me! Well, I think people can exert some control or influence over their talk page, or at least try to with perhaps sometimes a certain degree of success. I think people can try to keep out too many repetitive messages or messages that are too long or irrelevant etc.; but not things like that -- not just comments they disagree with. At least, that's my opinion. --Coppertwig 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see at the AN/I discussion that it's complicated. Perhaps that has to be left as a gray area. --Coppertwig 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And actually, I think you went too far by using the word "confabulating". --Coppertwig 12:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

promfeminist men RFc

Hi Coppertwig thanks for responding to the RFC at TalK:Pro-feminist men. I just responded to your comment in order to clarify a few points. Namely the book in question and my reference to what exactly is unsourced. Thanks for taking the time to comment on this--Cailil ^talk 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 07:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find time to look into this and respond within a few days. --Coppertwig 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg

Thanks for the heads up - I did not know. In any event, I have already put part of what I wrote up on the NOR talk page for anyone to comment on ... I wasn't really paying attention to who is and is not around. When the NOR page was protected I left message on maybe ten or twelve editors' pages - people who I knew had experience with major conflicts and edit wars, but who were also committed editors, and who I thought might have interesting views to share. I think Tim Vickers was the only one to get involved in the discussion. I was hoping for a larger group with more diverse experience but, as you know, people have different levels of interest and also are not always around. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Perhaps I went too far in trying to figure out the state of mind of the editor who wants to use the primary material (to show that the editor isn't pulling any trick, he's actually trying to comply with the policies.) All I really want is to use my example as an illustration (if it is that) of the type of editing that created the motivation to put the source-typing language in the NOR policy. I can accept for the sake of argument that citing the primary source that says John Doe was not hairy is original research - it's not important to me to argue that. All I want is to know if this is a good example to illustrate what the entire issue is about. If it is I'd hope it could be useful in the discussion - and I don't really care to argue whether or not it is or isn't original research. It perhaps could be used to argue that source typing doesn't go to the heart of the real issue.

If it's not a good example perhaps someone who favors source typing could provide an improved example. I just want a solid example. I don't know precisely where we are in the 24 (7 + 7 + 10) days of locking of the NOR policy article but this has gone on a long time, just counting recently. (The locking doesn't matter to me: I'd always seek consensus in talk and let someone else do the editing of the policy. If nobody will do the editing then the consensus actually must be pretty weak.) --Minasbeede 22:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If the primary source states that he is not hairy, I think that could be quoted. The problem comes in when the primary source states something else that could be interpreted as evidence that he is not hairy; for example, the if primary source says "Of course he had no need of razors or combs."

Perhaps it is not relevant what the state of mind of the editor is. --Coppertwig 22:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a good answer and I think a productive answer.

The state of mind of the editor isn't really relevant to the issue. I was going beyond what was needed to explain - needlessly - that the editor could believe he was following all the policies. Well, on reflection, I guess it may be significant that, seeing the NPOV policy, an editor could fairly straight-forwardly believe that evidence for a point of view different from that featured and favored in an article belonged in the article because of the NPOV policy. --Minasbeede 02:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor could believe that, but I think it would probably be a misinterpretation of the NPOV policy. At first I thought NPOV meant the views of Wikipedian editors had to be taken into account. Actually, it means the views expressed in the various reliable sources have to be taken into account. One could argue about whether or not various things in various sources are actually "expressing" certain views. Merely being evidence, which would have to be collected or interpreted in an OR-ish way, is not "expressing" a view. One could argue, I suppose, about whether someone making that remark about razors and combs is intending to express a view on the issue or not. --Coppertwig 20:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari

Hi Sam. This is a quick note about the editing of the Johann hari page, which I know you've taken an interest in.

As reading though the page's history will show, the user Felix-Felix has described Hari as "a self-publicising careerist, and an especially unpleasant one at that", accused him of being in favour of "the destruction of Untermenschen" (when in fact he is an Amnesty International award-winner), inserted fictitious claims he went to the most exclusive public school in Britain when in fact his father is a bus driver, and, most crucially, inserted poorly sourced claims that he "fabricated" a story he wrote about.

This is a pattern of falsehood and animus that really worries me. This user is now insisting on his right to reinsert the claims that hari farbricated a story, sourcing them to a magazine that wiki administrators have already said is not reliable. What can I do in this situation? - DavidR 81.129.156.202 12:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the above. Dave r has been smearing me with these accusations, one of which is false, the other taken out of context, and utterly irrelevant. He has also posted this defamatory message on multiple other user talk pages; [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. This is starting to feel a little like harassment, and not in a good way. FelixFelix ^talk 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

David R.: You seem to have placed this message on my page by mistake. Also, please read WP:CANVASS. --Coppertwig 22:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

eyewitness accounts and NOR

It depends on what you are citing...

• "I saw it happen, there were lots of smashed cars" <ref>account of Joe Witness</ref> cites to primary material in a primary source...
• "Joe Witness commented: 'I saw it happen, there were lots of smashed cars.'" <ref>"Traffic Accident Kills Hundreds", by Roger Reporter, The New York Times, Sept. 23, 1992, p.5</ref> cites to a secondary source, which seems to contain at least part of the primary material.

See the difference? Blueboar 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. Just now I looked back through previous versions of the policy and didn't find any that say it the way I thought it said it, so maybe I was imagining that. However, my reading of the policy is that an eyewitness report of a traffic accident, quoted in a newspaper article, is a primary source, and that a journalist's comments about that same accident, written in the same article, is a secondary source. What you recently said on the talk page seems to imply a different interpretation (what? That if one were to take the quote of the eyewitness account from the newspaper article one would be using a secondary source?) --Coppertwig 22:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that since you are citing the journalist, you are "using" the secondary source. By the way, I don't think either of my examples above relate to NOR (since neither of them contain a conclusion or anything). So both could be cited for the raw statement that Joe witness said he saw it happen and that there were lots of smashed cars. But the "account of Joe Witness" should not be used further than citing the raw statement... the NYT report by Roger Reporter might acceptable for something further (as he probably included some analysis and interpetation of the accident in his report... and that interpretation or analysis can be cited). Blueboar 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio's

• Twilight Zone/Twilight Tone
• Oswego Recreational Trail

Good one

I think.

Oops.

--Minasbeede 18:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

... therefore I am.  :-) --Coppertwig 13:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought, therefore I was. --Minasbeede 17:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

Hi. I got your note on my talk page. :) The article at Oswego Recreational Trail does seem to violate the copyright of the letter referenced, and your response to the author on the article's talk page seems perfectly appropriate. There is a tag that may be useful to you in those situations--{{subst:copypaste}} will expand to say "This appears to have been copied and pasted from a source, possibly in violation of a copyright. Please edit this article to remove any copyrighted text and to be an original source, following the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. Remove this template after editing." I'd probably place such a tag with a direction to the talk page in the edit summary, to specify where the problem is. As far as "Twilight Zone/Twilight Tone" is concerned, fair use allows quoting some lyrics for illustration, but that chunk seems a bit extensive. I'm going to take the liberty of addressing that one at the article. :) Please let me know at my page if you'd like to discuss it further. --Moonriddengirl 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad if I was able to help. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And cheers to you for putting notices on contributors' pages. :) Administrators are supposed to ensure that the article's creators are advised of policy before speedily deleting infringement. You make it easy. Keep up the good work! --Moonriddengirl 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Well, that depends on how strong your suspicions are. You can do some preliminary research by taking some sentences from the article and googling them; if they turn up identical copies (except from mirror sites) you´ve got yourself a copyvio. Some documents are plausibly copyvio from their writing style even if you can´t find the source. For these, PROD or the CP page may be appropriate. HTH! >Radiant< 12:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

NOR draft

When I suggested youmake edits to the draft, it was because I thought you were responding to the draft that is under discussion on the talk pages. I believe your comments were actually in the section for dicsussing the proposed draft. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Diabetes link

Re milk protein and diabetes: [10] --Coppertwig 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifying sources

Thanks for notice! Would you perhaps be able to answer the query (User talk:Jayjg#Verifying source (Yad Vashem))? Else, do you know where I could ask for confirmation for this source here on Wikipedia? Cheers! Tazmaniacs 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't definitively answer whether or not it's a reliable source for Wikipedia, but I can say that yes, it does appear to be from Yad Vashem. You can verify this as follows: Go to the Wikipedia page Yad Vashem, and under External Links follow the link to the Yad Vashem web site. Click "search the site", and enter "Eva Fleischner Memory of Goodness" and choose search method "all the words". Click "Search". It gives two results. Click on the first one, "Marcia Spies". Under "Research" at the lower right click on "Historian Eva Fleischner about the Memory of Goodness". You then get to the page you were asking about -- so yes, it does appear to be on their website.

As to whether it's a reliable source for Wikipedia, you might want to post a question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Coppertwig 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and trouble. If it is indeed genuinely from Yad Vashem, I'll take it is reliable enough for the issue at stake. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 00:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Pages I've marked for speedy-delete

Genevieve Bryant (Dangereux) -- Pashia -- Susedia -- Striped blister beetles (copyvio) -- Snowbunny -- Wave Systems (db-spam; page created twice; user deleted speedy-delete tag) -- Event spectacle -- Yolci (db-bio) -- Craig Norman Rossell (db-bio) -- Donview MS (db-blank) -- Globalpeaceexchange (copyvio) -- Techtalk (blank) -- Austin Taylor (db-nonsense) -- Kate Ballin (db-nonsense) Evan Cebula (db-bio) DJ A.D. (db-bio)(twice!) Bling H2O (db-advert)Johai Zblinski War (Vampire War) (db-nonsense) Alaa Hassouna (3rd King of Canada) Caroline and elena (3rd time or so) -- Christopher Nuttall -- Erick oduor -- Nathan D Miller -- Frees Hall(db-copyvio, but rescued by Moonriddengirl?) -- Smith Hall (db-copyvio) (Remember to notify the creator.)

OK now

Admiral Seymour Elementary School (copyvio, and was re-created; now has been rewritten and is OK) -- Superman x(empty) -- Hope for the Flowers -- Won't Let You Down (Texas Takeover Remix) (blank) --WCEF-FM(blanked) --

Etc.

Prod

NikeSB.org (Dec. 1 2007) Gt xpress (Dec 1 2007) -- Evil Yamato Man (Shadow Yamato X) (Dec. 2) -- Hemamotus Yamato (Shadow Yamato X) and Hemamotos Yamato (Shadow Yamato X) (Dec. 2) Growth accelerator (Dec. 2) The Cry and the Covenant (Dec. 2) Popular music artists from Atlanta (Dec. 2) The Land Leviathan (Dec. 2; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelius Quartet) The Steel Tsar (Dec. 2) A Nomad of the Time Streams (Dec. 2) Morlock Night (Dec. 2) Liolani Clan, and see also Kambari (Dec. 2) To Visit the Queen (Dec. 2) Les Sales Majestés (Dec. 2) Private hybrid incubator (Dec. 2) (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collegiate entrepreneur (Remember to notify the creator)

Misc.

Uniform electric field(merge, not speedy) -- Inner family archetypes (talk page re copyvio) -- Harriet Farley (copypaste) -- Ben chenery(talk page comment re context etc.) -- IPVS (suggested db-ad on talk) Princeton Media Group (notability tag; put speedy and took it off, oops) Myfinpro (I was going to db-bio, but someone db-spammed it first)

Copyvio

Richard Quiller Couch(but was really OK) -- Backbeat Beatles(db) -- Sunnyvale Public Library (I only warned the user, didn't tag it; need to follow up) -- Nikolay Solovtsov(db) -- James hergott -- Relief From Joint and Several Liability on Joint Returns (I only warned the user, didn't tag it; may be in public domain; need to follow up)

Merge proposals

Silvana (Last Exile) (I set up links for the merge proposed by someone else)

Advert

Telemedical ECGs -- Tenant acquisition

I contested speedy-deletion

Nanjing No.1 Middle School (is it a high school?)

For improvement

The Steel Tsar (see Talk:The Steel Tsar

Thanks

Thanks for your note. Regarding the discussion, I think it's best if I don't comment. -- Jakew (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

the noob

I see that you just made an edit to the noob, I was wondering if you would care to vote "keep" in the current AFD? Timmccloud (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

V

(Yes, it was accidental, especially as I agree with you on the point. I see you have restored it. I added an apology.)22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

May I email you? Jakew (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, no need to ask. Anyone can. (Unless you're trying to sell me something or other inappropriate use of email.) Just use the link at the left, "E-mail this user". --Coppertwig (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent post re NPA

[11] by User:GTBacchus at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

sculpture

List of basic sculpture topics -- should this be merged or something? --Coppertwig (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope for the Flowers

The page was deleted within four minutes of your notifying me! How the hell was I supposed to get any comments in before you deleted it? Jesus. The least you could have done was wait a minute for me to go find a source. The Audient Void (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and sorry if I was brusque. It's a significant 70s picture book, but, being so old, online sources aren't the best for it. I certainly know I've seen the book around a bunch, but I'm not even sure where I'd go looking for published sources. Hopefully the two I added about two million copies and the review cited by Amazon are enough. /sigh. The Audient Void (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Princeton Media Group

if you think this page should be deleted, i'll re-mark it fo you. cheers,Ryan shell (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Richard Quiller Couch

Hi, I see you tagged Richard Quiller Couch as a possible copy-vio. The text is from the DNB a publication which is now in the public domain, as I indicated in the article by use of the appropriate DNB template in the source section. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't see the note in the sources section. I did wonder whether the book was in the public domain but I guess I hadn't found an answer. (Was that the book that Google Books only showed a partial preview of? I figured, if it was in the public domain they would show the whole book. Maybe not -- or maybe I'm confused and thinking of another book I looked at in the past few minutes.) What now? I'm not sure whether I can take a copyvio template off once I've put it on -- we may have to wait for an admin to look at it. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm not sure either if you can take the notice off! Yes, it is on a partial preview on Google books. I think the reason the whole book isn't on Google books is probably that no-one has had the whole text scanned & uploaded yet. Do you want to ask for an admins advice at WP:AN? Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I may have sounded a bit grumpy in my message at the article's talk page - if so I apologise, copy-vio spotting is an important activity on Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologize again for the ugly template on the article you just created, but I think it's best to wait for an admin to handle it along with the other pages on the copyright vio page. I wouldn't take up their time at AN. You can if you think it's appropriate (I don't know if it is or isn't) -- or ask an admin you know. I won't revert if you remove the template, though I think it is probably improper to do so. I think the listing at the copyvio problems page should stay, though, for various reasons. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I didn't think you sounded grumpy at all -- at least no more than anyone would under the circumstances. Your message was simply factual. I appreciate the recognition of copyvio spotting activity. OK, I won't throw in the towel and quit over this incident :-) (not that I was about to) --Coppertwig (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know the copyvio tag has been removed, and I've been told by an admin that if the person putting the tag on agrees, and it's clear cut, then it would be ok for either of us to take it off. Thanks again for your help and co-operation, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry a friend of mine told me about wikipedia and that you can create your own articles and stuff, i didn't know about the sandbox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingalaa (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Hi, I will indeed join the discussion on the WP:ATT talk page, but it will take me a couple of days to but my views into some logical order and accurately summarize them. At the moment the page is protected, so its probably a better to take advantage of that. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. Looking forward to reading your comments. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

New pages

Checked 26 Nov 07:52 to 27 Nov 15:08 skipping: CB Ciudad de Huelva -- Slowdime Records -- Commissioner v. boylston market association (User talk:John254#Guidance needed on articles on legal cases) Fabulesque! -- Matthew Nixon -- Randy Royal -- Megan Sullivan -- Paris in Jail: The Music Video created 27 Nov 20:54 ... . --Coppertwig 13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Now up to 27 Nov 19:46.

5000 -- 6000 -- 7000 -- 8000 -- 9000 -- 10000

Your note

Just to let you know, in case you haven't watchlisted me, that I have replied to your note here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (2)

Thanks Coppertwig! I appreciate you taking the time to point out my mistakes. I didn't think about the disamb. page and clearly I didn't see the note about him not editing since August. Phyesalis 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. I really appreciate the input. When you suggested that I review the contested edits, had you read Talk:Female genital cutting#Blackworm's objections? I spent a lot of time going over the most recent spate of "contested edits" in detail. I gave before and after quotes and diffs, I went over the sources I used. If this isn't what you meant, would you mind suggesting how I could improve the way I frame this? And yes, you are correct about commenting on the editor, however, I feel as if the real problem was his behavior. Specifically, he failed to provide anything to back up his particular view of the situation. It hardly seems fair to cry "OR" without providing sources to support that contention, especially when I went through the trouble to provide multiple citations that contradict the POV of OR. This seemed to suggest that the problem was him being disruptive. For the time being it seems as if we have come to an uneasy truce (and that's a huge improvement). But again, your critique of my review of the issues would be most appreciated, not just for future interactions with Blackworm, but for other pages as well. Again, thanks for your time. Phyesalis 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I started to read the "Blackworm's objections" section but did not read the whole thing because there was very little interesting (i.e. article-content-oriented) information in what I did read. (I.e. it lists a number of objections by Blackworm, but doesn't say what it is he's objecting to.) If the good information is in there, you might possibly be able to help people find it by inserting article subsection headings in well-chosen spots. (As I haven't read it, I don't know whether this is feasible or not.) If you want comments on a user's behaviour, inviting people to an article talk page for that purpose is inappropriate. I assume what you really want is to resolve the content disputes. By the way, when someone says something is OR, the best way to counter that argument is to provide published sources for the information. The one saying OR doesn't have to provide any sources -- their claim is that there is no published source for the information. If the person doesn't have a valid argument, you can simply continue talking about article content and convince people that your arguments are more valid. There's no need to criticize the other user. If you want to bring other people in to support the edits supported more strongly by valid policy-based and source-based arguments, stick to relevant comments so as to keep their attention; there are lots of other things to do on Wikipedia, so reading through a debate with no clearly stated point doesn't tend to look appealing. By the way, when I propose edits I tend to use italics to quote current article content and proposed content -- that way it stands out and is easier to find in among all the complicated discussion. You might try that.

I just glanced at the "Blackworm's objections" section again. I read/skimmed several paragraphs and did not see any edits proposed by you (or by anyone else). Apparently perhaps both you and Blackworm agree that a phrase about hadith needs to be deleted but the dispute is about which person originally put it in there. Not interesting, sorry. But I would like to get involved in the discussion if I can find out in a convenient format what the proposed edits are. --Coppertwig 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't invite anyone to comment on Blackworm's behavior, I invited people in a neutral manner to comment on the dispute. Like I said, for the time being, it seems like we may have come to a workable arrangement. Phyesalis 04:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Trump: The Game

I would like to know what is wrong with "my" article Trump: The Game. It is a boardgame very deserving of recognition on wikipedia. It actually exists (no, I didn't just make it up for a hobby) and is manufactured by Parker Brothers. Deleting this article would be like deleting the Monopoly game page. I happen to own a set of the rules (indeed the whole game) and Wikipedia did not previously happen to have any article concerning this notable and fun game, so I decided to start one up.

Sincerely, Sutjo Sutjo-18005 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for contributing to Wikipedia, and I'm sorry if the article that you put time and effort into might eventually get deleted. There are something like one new Wikipedia page per minute (or maybe it's several per minute) being written by people all over the world, which is wonderful. Some of us go through the new pages and try to figure out which ones are appropriate to keep in Wikipedia. The notability guideline helps keep the number and type of articles within what is reasonable for Wikipedians to maintain up to a good standard. I put a {{notability}} tag on Trump: The Game, and on many other new pages. The game's rule book is presumably a reliable source for determining what the rules of the game are, but to establish that the game is a notable topic, it's necessary to have third-party sources, i.e. published sources independent of the game itself which talk about the game. If you look on the Monopoly (game) page, at the bottom you see a list of books and other published sources that talk about the Monopoly game. If you can find independent sources (magazine articles, etc.) that talk about the Trump game, then listing them on the page could demonstrate that the notability requirement has been met.

Wait, here's one: One Trumped-Up Board Game The Donald Launches New Game Based On Success, Greed NEW YORK, August 19, 2004 accessed 2007-12-08 If I have time later I might format this and add it to the page. Here's another one: Donald Trump game set for shops. BBC News Last Updated: Thursday, 19 August, 2004, 11:34 GMT 12:34 UK accessed 2007-12-08. And another one: USA Today Posted 8/19/2004 11:12 AM Trump board game out by Parker Brothers accessed 2007-12-08 So, I guess maybe I shouldn't have put the notability tag on. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: comment on talk

Hi, Coppertwig. Thanks for taking the time to get involved. I thought your comments on Reproductive rights were helpful and productive. Regarding your comment on my talk page, I'm not sure if you noticed, but I have now tried three times to discuss this on Blackworm's talk page. Unfortunately he keeps deleting it. I also recognize that the situation is inappropriate for the article talk page but, from my perspective, Blackworm's behavior has consistently shown a lack of good faith to my edits on Reproductive rights and Female genital cutting. I consider his behavior to be disruptive and don't really know what to do - he considers my attempts to discuss his behavior as "harassment". If you noticed, I stepped away from the article after my third attempt on his talk page. Personally, I find his objections over the UN material to be mendacious (as in he can't understand how a UN document from a UN conference relates to the UN? Come on.) at best. Perhaps you could offer some suggestion as to how we could move forward with this. The time I have had to spend defending a basic and well-known fact has really cut in to the time I would have had to expand the article. I, for one, would really like to get back to constructive development. Again, I really appreciate your contributions in this matter. Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's something to try: choose one to three edits you want to make to the article and show me where the discussion of them is or start a new discussion of them, and I'll (probably) get involved and hopefully help resolve the issue; but probably only if you stick to only article content discussion in that context. If those get resolved successfully maybe we can move on to other ones too. I don't know, for example, what edit you're referring to above.) Before doing that, though, it would probably be a good idea to take a break for 24 hours if you haven't already, take a few deep breaths, and then look carefully at your own behaviour for anything that could possibly be felt as intimidating or harassing, and try to avoid those behaviours in future. For example, posting something on someone's talk page when they've recently deleted a previous message from you without reply is often not a good idea. My understanding is that people have a right to delete stuff from their talk page and that you can take that as an indication that they've seen your message. Remember that often, from each person's perspective the other person's behaviour is much worse than their own; and to be successful, an attempt to lead the way in the direction of civility probably requires avoiding even small incivilities. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)