User talk:GTBacchus

Archives
January 2003 – December 2005 January – March 2006 April – May 2006 June 2006 July - September 2006 October - November 2006 December 2006 - January 2007 February 2007 - March 2007 April 2007 - June 2007 July 2007 - October 2007 November 2007

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Re Holovaty/Golovaty

Just a short note about the dispute. The main conflict is between myself user:Bandurist and user:Kuban kazak. He is the more seasoned editor. I have only been editing for a short time. Our backgrounds are in many ways are remarkably similar, (we can take the same side on many disputes) yet different (we can be dimetrically opposed to each other. That is why we keep on bumping into each other in particular articles dealing with the Ukrainian Cossacks and related articles such as Balachka, Cossack Ukrainian - basically materials primarily dealing with the Ukrainian Kuban Cossacks and issues regarding Eastern Ukraine and that section across the border in russia where there are many Ukrainians. I (of Ukrainian Cossack and Russian background, born in Australia, live in Canada, educated in Ukraine, worked in the Kuban) take a Ukrainocentric view. My colleage(of Ukrainian Cossack and Russian background who was educated in the US worked in Ukraine and lives in the Kuban) takes a Russocentric view.

Our main conflict is with the use and implementation of Ukrainian language and transliteration in the post Soviet, post Russian Imperialist period. If you are interested in pursuing this discussion, and hearing more please send me a note.

If after investigation you find this Ukrainian dispute entertaining may I suggest a short story by the Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol (who wrote in Russian) The story about how Ivan Ivanovych had an argument with Ivan Nikifrovych in his collection Mirg/horodBandurist 02:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The G\H letter controversy is often called the "political" letter. Ukrainian and Belarusan had both G and H in their alphabets. During the Soviet period in 1933 this was removed by the Soviet authorities in both languages. It was changed back in 1991. During the Soviet period transcriptions were done via Russian which did not have an H but only had a G. I would like yo thank you for your decision. Bandurist 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me asking for some corrections. First of all, I am not a Ukrainian, but a Russian Cossack. I have never been in the US, and got my education from St. Petersburg State University. I never worked in Ukraine, only "lived" there when I was courting my future wife. And as for ethnical background my mother is from Polotsk though I was born and live in my home stanitsa as explained on my user page. The issues are caused because of my people the Kuban Cossacks view ourselves, and how some Ukrainians view us. This is because as rediculous as it sounds, all Ukrainocentric historians believe the same stereotype that we the Kuban Cossacks are Ukrainians who forgot their history. Such a view, is openly dissproved by ethnographic, linguistic and genetic evidence. Yes the Black Sea Cossacks (which themselves included many non Little Russians) came to the Kuban. However that was two centuries ago, and in the conditions of constant war with Circassians, as well as war brides, interhost marriages and the military life that they lived in the frontier region up to the end of the Caucasus War left little of their original Zaporozhian habit. After 1860, the Black Sea Cossacks were merged with the Line Cossacks and from that point a new Cossack consience has taken over.This is supported by hundreds of indepenedent sources. Have a read of the section Ukrainians in Russia and the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 16:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Such a view, is openly dissproved by ethnographic, linguistic and genetic evidence". I disagree. "This is supported by hundreds of indepenedent sources" This is also not supported by hundreds of indepenedent sources. It is a question which I believe is still under discussion. Bandurist 18:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1550-1600 in fashion

Thanks for completing the move, and thanks for catching the double-redirect on Elizabethan fashion. - PKM 17:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Mexico State

Hey, thank you for fixing the dot, I'm gonna ask someone to teach me how to do that so I can do it myself next time I need to, regards. Supaman89 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Principality of Piombino

Today I moved this page and intended to move the talk page as well. But I had the talk page open for editing at the time, so I've managed to create a situation with two talk pages: Talk:Principality of Piombino and Talk:Principate of Piombino. Do you have the ability to correct this (i.e. by removing Talk:Principate of Piombino? Thanks in advance. Noel S McFerran 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That's taken care of now, I believe. Please let me know if you need any further assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A reply

Hi, GTBacchus. I've replied your question to me on my talk page. I'm very sorry for the late reply. I would also that I was very impressed by your question - I thought about it a lot - and I appreciate that you decided to continue the discussion. I think people on all sides of the debates in which Wikipedia is embroiled could learn from your book.  :) If you feel like posting a response, I should be able to continue the discussion later today or tomorrow. Again, thanks ~ Iamunknown 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Belle and Sebastian

i should have just edited it with my account. anyway, yeah i do have a source... read the book "just a modern rock story" they also site the other major influence in his song writing as being the band "yes" but i'm sure they're not hip enough to be sited. this is just insane. when anyone doesn't agree with anyone else on this site, they are blocked. i'd appreciate being unblocked. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.194.116 (talk • contribs) 13:22, December 9, 2007 (UTC)

86 that unblock request. apparently i am not blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.194.116 (talk • contribs) 13:23, December 9, 2007 (UTC)

There is no "not hip enough to be cited". The trick to including information is to say where it comes from when you add it. Then it stays. Also, try not to remove information that's backed up by a citation, even if you disagree with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Closure of article move of "War on Terrorism".

Hi,

You closed a rename of "War on Terrorism" of "War on Terror". Talk:War_on_Terrorism#Title, and I think that should be reconsidered.

Can I ask that this be reconsidered as either "No Consensus", or to have the discussion re-opened?

I was not aware of the discussion at the time, and would like to add discussion. The key part that was missing was any mention of was the official name is according to US White house documents. ( in general, I don't think enough discussion occurred to warrant such a change.)

While the informal name is often used in the press, Most all US formal documents on this subject refer to "War on Terrorism".

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/faq-what.html - FAQ - What is the War on Terrorism?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/100dayreport.html - The Global War on Terrorism - The First 100 Days

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/ - National Strategy for Combating Terrorism

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/progress/ - Progress Report On the Global War on Terrorism.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/index.html - CIA & The War on Terrorism

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html - Terrorism FAQs

To find official Whitehouse documents on the War on Terrorism , use the search:

google: site:whitehouse.gov "war on terrorism"

google: site:cia.gov "war on terrorism"

compare this with a similar search for the informal name.

Also, I think that "War on Terrorism" is more NPOV, where the informal "War on Terror" is more often directly associated personally with President Bush. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodWasAnAlien (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, the missing signature, was not intentional. GodWasAnAlien (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)).

---

What I am now asking is that the September consensus possibly be invalidated.

There are several more reasons I list on Talk:War_on_Terrorism#War_on_Terrorism_vs._(informal)_"War_on_Terror" that are relevant.

But one obvious reason why the consensus was invalid, is that the consensus references to google searches (the only quantitative reason given for common-name) apparently did not exclude wikipedia referencing matches.

From Wikipedia:Search_engine_test: "The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word 'Wikipedia'"

2007-12-14 Google results:

"War on Terrorism" -wikipedia :: 6,870,000

"War on Terror" -wikipedia :: 1,040,000

Though, if you wish, I can start a new official move discussion.

btw, when I started the category rename process, I was not aware of the September consensus on the main article. Otherwise I would have started with this.

thanks . GodWasAnAlien (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no formal process for "invalidating" a consensus. You just make a new consensus. There's no need to talk about what was right or wrong previously, just open a new discussion and make your case. We really don't do formal procedural solutions here. There's nothing to "invalidate" about the fact that some people made a decision. We can just change our minds; it doesn't mean the previous one was "invalid"; that's a weird, legalistic way of thinking about it.

More to the point, the article is currently at your preferred location, so what's the problem? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about the fuss. I thought there was a process for reviewing a consensus. It should be noted, though, that now the category remains different from the article. Have a nice day. GodWasAnAlien (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Once and for all? I wasn't aware we did that sort of thing around here. I'll keep an eye on the proceedings, and may provide a statement if I decide I've got anything useful to say. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

brain drain guy

thanks, and have you done this in the past? just have another quest. you might be able to help with. 75.23.79.10 (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have some experience with the subject... what's your question? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just curious if marijuana use (not 3 joints a day, just maybe 1-2 a week) changes people's personality's for the worse or dulls people down more than just temporarily. I've heard so many conradicting stories on this and also seen so many different people that all seem to handle it differently. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.79.10 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: maybe.

You're right that different people handle it differently. There hasn't been much study of the long term effects. There are plenty of daily users who are intelligent and productive people, as well as plenty who are unmotivated slackers. Some people mellow out when they smoke pot; some people freak out. Some get energetic; some get sluggish. Some acquire intense focus; some lose the ability to focus on anything. Some wake up; some go to sleep. Most get hungry. Some people seem not to feel normal unless they smoke pot; some try it a few times and decide it's not for them. Some use for years, only to decide later that it was a destructive force in their life. Others feel that it catalyzes beneficial spiritual experiences. Some of these contradictory things will even happen to the same person.

If you're curious, I recommend researching the subject by reading everything you can find. Our article Cannabis (drug) is a good starting point, but also follow some of the references to external sources in there. You might find answers to a lot of your questions.

Above all, if you're using, be careful. Be as safe as you can, think about set and setting, and don't get in legal trouble - that's probably the worst way pot can mess up your life. Don't sell, and try not to buy for others. That's where you can get into staggeringly bad trouble.

Naturally, I am neither a doctor, nor a lawyer, and none of this should be construed as medical or legal advice. I don't encourage any kind of illegal activity. If you need medical or legal advice, talk to a medical or legal professional. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagging pages

GT, We get a ton of old proposals which accumulate at Category:Wikipedia proposals. Periodically I try to prune out the deadwood. Just routine, and it was properly reverted. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry if I came across as too critical. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

your intervention is greatly appreciated

thank you for your intervention.The things were going out of control.

I will follow your advice but I need to figure out how this "Requests for commentt" works....Salutes ! Adrianzax (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "F"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "G"s, and "H"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki doctorates

Thank you very much for your interst in Wiki Doctorates. I am at the moment trying to contest the deltion of thius particular article. Would you mind explaining about this name space and also a link to where you have copied the article.

Yours Sincerely Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please place a reply on my talk page ASAP

Cheers

Thanks loads for that however now for all your help could you apply on the (project) for a doctorate thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wright93 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

How can you say that you didn't endorse wiki doctorates, you moved it to somewhever which made me think it was ok and as an administrator you SHOULD NOT have moved it and stated to me that it wasn't "worth" it!!!

I'm sorry. I probably should have said something to the effect that it would probably be deleted. I didn't want to just delete it again, and tell you to stop; I didn't consider that it would be worse to let it get tagged for deletion by someone else and taken to MfD. I was mostly trying to move it out of article space, but I ended up setting you up for a nasty experience. I apologize. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for admitting to your mistake and you were correct about it bieng upsetting. However could you just tell me how things like the welcome comittee and the recent changes patrollers get away with it and not wiki doctorates?--J.Wright (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about those projects. I know RC patrollers are just people who happen to do that task. I guess the welcome committee are the same. They're not some kind of honor system, as anyone can do those tasks. You just put your name down if you're active, and if you feel like being listed. I'm not sure what they're "getting away with". It's just a list of people who happen to work on one kind of job.

The only honorifics we really have here are Wikipedia:Barnstars, which are given to individual people, by other individuals, for individual reasons. The idea of having some Wikipedians who have earned a rank and others who haven't really goes against the spirit of the project, and nobody thinks that RC patrollers or welcomers have any kind of "rank". Even admins are considered janitors, who have certain types of mops that are necessary for dealing with certain types of messes.

Most "power" or prestige on the wiki comes from one's edits, one's arguments, and one's reputation - which is established through making many good edits and helping work out many arguments. The idea that you could just list your name on a page and thus hold some kind of honorific or title is... it just doesn't make sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I also supplied what I beleive was a detailed explanation as to the difference, but J.Wright saw fit to delete it. Cest la vie. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it for any reason other than that I had read it --J.Wright (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WUFH/WUSH

Thanks! :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 01:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem - cheers! -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Guideline discussion

Hi, there is currently a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), with the purpose of drafting an opening paragraph for the guideline. One point (albeit a minor one) that remains to be sorted out is the relevance of NPOV/brand management-related concerns to the overall rationale. Since you are involved in move requests proceedings more extensively than any other editor that I know of, your expertise and opinion on that particular issue, as well as the overall draft would be most welcome. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. It's late now, but I'll have a look at it tomorrow. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

:) -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

proposed Move

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia.

I wrote a propsed move for "Queen Mother of the West". Can you review it and if you agree with me could you move that article to 'Xi Wang Mu'? If you don't agree with what I wrote then let me know.

Thanks, Kong, Wo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongwo (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Line breaks

You wrote, "forcing line break - what's up with the blank lines getting eaten?". I fixed that for you (diff). You had (by accident or on purpose) embedded a <p> tag in your comment text. But MediaWiki is already turning our wiki text into paragraphs, such that they begin with <p> and end with </p>. In XHTML, things are a bit stricter than HTML of old, and a nested or unclosed <p> is going to confuse the rendering (I'm not sure what the standard actually says on this, but any which way, it's not going to do what you wanted). If you want to force a paragraph break, you can hit enter twice to insert a blank line in the wiki markup

<--- like that, or you can insert <br/> (make sure you include the trailing slash, which in XML means it's a stand-alone tag, rather than an paired tag (which would expect a closing </...> tag)). Hope this helps!  :-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is strange though... I've been putting <p> tags in my comments for a while now (months?), and that's the first time it's caused a rendering problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That damn register article

You seem to be a voice of reason over on the Criticism of Wikipedia page. I'd like to ask you something without it blowing up into a big conflict. User:Onlyjusthisonetime has been making several comments to the talk section, and when I looked him up, he's only ever commented on internal Wikipedia stuff. On his first edit, he said he was an alternate account for an admin. While I respect his right to privacy, this appears to be a violation of WP:SOCK, especially since he voted on that account. I don't want to cause a big scene, especially since I think people are reacting irrationally because the Register article hits so close to home. But I do want some guidance as to how to approach this. Wellspring (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Background for my recent actions

Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_consensus --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speak My Mind, please speak up

Hi. Regarding your message about Speak My Mind: I've just unprotected the redirect and moved the Speak My Mind (album) article over it myself. I inadvertently missed the message about it left by BritandBeyonce (talk · contribs). Extraordinary Machine (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

About WP:IAR

Generally, I agree that there is a problem of WP:Anti-elitism and as noted in WP:FAIL, German Wikipedia has done better at creating a greater percentage of content, imo precisely because of their elitism.

Do me a favor and look at this: Wikipedia talk:There is no credential policy

The situation:

• I boldly create the page. For a few days, it stays up and people even make minor copy-edits.
• A few disgruntled users pop by, seem to misunderstand what the page is above, and tag it with "essay," even though there's no actual opinion.
• I get into a lengthy discussion with Rogue Penguin where he claims he doesn't even need to discuss with me, per WP:BRD. The conversation roughly goes something like this:

(paraphrase)

"There's no consensus."
"Yes, but why? What's the opinion in the essay?"
"The opinion is that there's no consensus."
"That doesn't logically follow. It's a red herring. There is no opinion in the essay."
"It doesn't matter if there's no opinion. There's still no consensus."
"You're not really adding anything to the discussion, here."
"I'm not required to discuss."
"WHAT opinion or advice am I putting forth?!"
"The opinion that there is consesnsus, look I'm done discussing this with you!!!"

How on earth am I supposed to deal with that?

The only way: WP:IAR. Of course I choose not to invoke it right now, because based on the way Wikipedia is currently, I would probably get blocked for edit-warring, since the 3RR is enforced strictly, despite what the policy page on it says. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that IAR is the only way to deal with the situation is the recourse of the intellecutally lazy. The way to deal with that situation, as with any content dispute, is to bring more eyes to the situation, and expose your opponents logical fallacies to the light of day. Since you're correct (right?), you will easily convince disinterested parties that you're the reasonable one.

Edit warring is a terrible solution; it shows that you don't know how to get things done on the wiki, it makes you look like the POV-pusher when the wider community finally does look, and it fails in its aim, which is to win the content dispute. It's like trying to open a closed door by standing in the center of the room and stabbing yourself repeatedly in the leg - it's a bad idea for multiple reasons.

If you seriously believe that IAR is the only way to deal with a content dispute, then you've clearly never tried effective dispute resolution (walking to the door and opening it). I recommend it. Making an edit repeatedly in the face of opposition might feel very righteous, but it's blinkered, ineffective, and distracting from the good work we're trying to do. Bringing more eyes is always a better solution. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam

Thank you for helping return the disambiguation page to Adam. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to complete this move. - CheshireKatz (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Voluntary caregiver

My understanding is that we did want a move, just not the one that was originally suggested. I've commented more on the talk page. Franzeska (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it now. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy hangup.

You said:

We need to encourage people to stop seeing Wikipedia in terms of "rules" and "policies" and to start thinking more in terms of "good ideas" and implementing those good ideas by means of communication with human beings..

See: WP:VPP#We need to encourage users to think critically. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just reading it. We agree on more than you might think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Levon V of Armenia move request

If you want, revisit the move request at Talk:Levon V of Armenia that you attempted to close and review additional comments. I will propose a systematisation of all the monarchs of Armenian Cilicia, i.e., a move to English names including Leo and a dropping of titles before names, following your decision. — AjaxSmack 18:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Out of line user

Since you were there cleaning up after User:TJ Spyke, perhaps you can speak to him about how to properly discuss issues with other users. TJ was extremely rude to me, took the conversation to someone else's user page for what looked like the sole purpose of discrediting me, continued to badmouth me for things that I actually did not do on the Request for Move page, and his actions (Even if I could believe was done to improve Wikipedia) were pretty messy as you are aware.

He edited another user's entry on a talk page, correct me if I'm wrong but that is a mistake for any purpose, and needlessly changed a Navbox. He violated more policy that he upheld and caused a lot of article damage that will take a while to fix. In his haste he completely overlooked the fact that a discussion about the article names was being held on one of the pages. His changes were actually only half correct, he didn't bother to research the proper spelling of the names of some of the titles and just made a bad problem worse.

I'm going to talk to him about this, and revert his changes that were made in error, but I would like a mod to back me up so that it doesn't turn into dirt kicking. Thanks for your help. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually know anything about the naming dispute, but was just clearing backlog at WP:RM. As far as the other user's behavior, I might be able to say something if you point me to a page where there's any dirt involved. I would suggest that you can handle it yourself by applying good dispute resolution skills. Just remember not to let it get personal, and if all else fails, go get more people. The more you can treat a content dispute as a content dispute and not let it become a personality dispute the better. Do let me know if I can be of more specific assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WIARRM

From Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" really means:

According to your model, the person who is right wins, whether or not he manages to convince a consensus of others.

Exactly. The person who is right wins, Even if they lose.

How should it be any other way?

• Descriptive policy: "The person who is right never loses."
• Prescriptive policy: "The person who is right should sometimes lose."

Which do you believe in? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought you retired. :p You're still not replying to the substantive issue I've raised. How - by what mechanism - does the person who's right win? You've got no answer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there GTB. (Sadly, but only for a while.) Cheers, Newbyguesses - Talk 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting an RfC on JzG's conduct here if you'd like to participate. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads-up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

Me and several other editors have been drafting an RfC on JzG here. We listed efforts by you to influence his behavior in the past but don't necessarily expect you to be one of the certifiers for the RfC. But, if you'd to look it over and tell us if you think anything that we listed is unfair or inaccurate before we post it, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say "thank you" for your welcoming posts on the WP:ANI page, re: the Mikkalai discussion. Jonneroo (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Thank you for WP:SOW/REAP (the acronym worked out way too easily - pretty awesome). As you get to know Wikipedia, please don't hesitate to contact me if I can help you with any questions or red-tape navigating. (We try to keep the stuff to a minimum, but there are thickets. (At least two of those particular thickets exist for good reasons.))

I notice by your userboxes that you're into math. Have you checked out Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics? That page, and also Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics can be fun to have on one's watchlist. The latter is also quite useful for getting questions answered, and for practice in helping others. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOW/REAP is totally cool, and I'm honored to have had a part in it.

Thanks for the suggestions re: math. I was a math major in college...30 years ago...and I am really rusty now. My family didn't have much money, and after only two years of college, I started working full-time, and I never graduated. I did have three semesters of calculus (making an A in all three, including scores of 100 on most of the Calculus III tests I took, as I recall), but nothing beyond that (no theory classes like Modern Algebra, no Differential Equations, no Statistics).

I read some of the posts at the reference desk, and while I understood some of them, the notation used in other posts was pretty foreign to me. I really need to brush up on my calculus. Fortunately I still have my college textbook somewhere. I'll check out the reference desk now and then and reacquaint myself a little bit.

Way back when, I had an interest in theory, and I actually developed a theory of my own. I'll have to try to locate my notes on it (if indeed I still have them; if not, I think I can come up with the theory again). I have a gut feeling that there is a real-world application for my theory, but if there is, I don't know what it might be. I had always kept my theory to myself, intending it to be the basis of a Master's thesis that never got written. There's no chance of me going back to school and getting my Master's degree now, so I suppose it's safe to share my theory with others. The reference desk might be a good starting place. I'll look into that.

Thanks again. Jonneroo (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your essay

I think your essay needs more work before you tout it so. Average White Dork (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Before I "tout it so"? I wasn't aware of going over the top. Got any specific feedback? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

JzG RfC

A user conduct RfC involving the actions of JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in which you have been mentioned is about to go live and will be found at WP:RFC/U shortly. Viridae^Talk 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You said it (at talk:Iar)

AGF is "assume good faith because doing otherwise is blinkered, pointless and unproductive." -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope that more people do so as well. I've been thinking for a while about the page WP:AGF and how it can be improved. If you'd like, I'll let you know when/if I try to do something about that. Way too many people are taking it as something to lawyer and to look for exceptions to. It should be stated more like the law of gravity. People don't try to find exceptions to that, at least not for long. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested. Do let me know. Newbyguesses - Talk 23:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in that discussion too. I find your comment excellently wise, GTBacchus: [1]. I also very much liked this comment by you at WT:NPA: [2] --Coppertwig (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of things you said, GTBacchus: I had forgotten that it was you who had said it, but I wanted to thank the person who said the following because it contributed significantly to my shifting of perspective about Mikkalai: "Get to that place of understanding, and you'll find Mikkai already there.". I found this comment baffling at first, but I pondered over it and now it makes sense. I think I'm getting closer to that place of understanding. Thank you for your wise words. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Provocation

Hi - I thought I'd reply to your comment from the RfC talk page here rather than clutter it further. Just by way of clarifying my remark on provocation, I was referring to Martinphi's commentary on the RfC page itself, particularly his description of Guy as The Most Abusive Admin Of All Time ([3]), trying to tweak Guy into defending himself when he's clearly made a decision not to ([4], [5]), and suggesting that the death of Guy's father is not an excuse because it "occurred over a month ago" [6]). The last, in particular, I found deeply troubling, but I chose not to address it at the time since the RfC has generally been making very good progress and I didn't see a way to do so without derailing it substantially.

My point was that Martin has a long-standing dislike of Guy; he's shown up at a time when Guy is down and is making comments which I construe as attempts to provoke Guy; and he has a long history of being deliberately provocative. I've never been RfC'd, but I can imagine that it is a highly stressful experience at the best of times and that angry defensiveness would be most peoples' gut reaction. RfC shouldn't be about kicking someone you dislike while they're down - it should be about giving the subject a clear indication of how the community views their conduct and suggestions for improvement. Lest you think I'm just being sympathetic to Guy here, I believe I took the same tack about a year ago at Martinphi's RfC. Guy is provokable - that's never been in doubt - and it bothers me to see what I view as an attempt to do just that when the RfC has run along surprisingly constructive lines thus far. That's where my comment was coming from, though I obviously did a poor job of explaining it and perhaps it ought never to have been made in the first place.

I don't know that I have any particular influence over what Guy does, but I'd like to be more active in providing him with feedback and suggestions when he's nearing or crossing the line. That's certainly going to be part of helping him here. Another part of helping him, though, would be to have a word with people who have come just to poke him with a stick and see if he'll snap. Maybe I'm reading Martinphi's actions incorrectly, but as I was lamely alluding to, they're not occurring in a vacuum.

Anyhow, that turned out longer than I intended, but its purpose was to provide some context for my comments in a venue more appropriate than the RfC. I was serious when I agreed that my approach on that thread was on balance unconstructive, but I felt the need to explain a bit further. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi GTBacchus, i noticed that your name was on the list of active coaches for admin coaching at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status. The project as I understand can work where the coach finds the student or the other way around. And I was wanering if you would be interested (and had the time) to be my coach to help me become and administator. If you could that would be great! Thanks Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Hatmatbbat10. Thanks for dropping by, and for your vote of confidence in asking me to help you become an administrator. As I guess you can tell from the coaching page, I haven't been signed up there long, and you're the first to ask me for coaching. Being new to this, I'm not sure if there's a regular procedure to follow, but I'm probably more comfortable working without one anyway.

If you're ok with that, then I'm happy enough to accept you as my first coachee. I've looked briefly over your contributions, and you seem to be a good editor, so why not see whether you can contribute as an administrator as well?

I'd probably like to start by asking you some questions, to get a sense of what you want from the coaching experience, but first I think I should let you ask me any questions you may have about myself, or about my experience as a Wikipedian and as an admin.

We could set up a separate page for communication, if you like, or I'd be happy using whichever talk pages seem convenient. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would like for you to be my coach. I was just hoping I could get somebody to help me and you sound like you could help me a lot. Right now I can't think of any questions to ask, I havn't really looked at your userpage to find out much about you yet. For a place to talk, I guess we could set up a subpage on either mine or yours for admin coaching. I'm looking foward to getting to work with you soon. Thanks again Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way I think you need to go to the Admin coaching page and say that you've matched my request. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the page, and I've left you a couple of questions at User talk:Hatmatbbat10/Coaching. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RE Coaching status page.

Yes, if he has accepted your offer and you are now his coach go ahead and delete the row.Balloonman (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh

Thanks for clarifying that, I knew we were on the same page! Dreadstar † 21:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

A POV-pushing situation

Per your kind offer at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/JzG2, I bought my response here so as not to get the RFC farther off track. SA is involved with these. Please forgive me if you are aware of this.

Atropa belladonna would be a good article to start with. There has been an issue with how much weight to give homeopathic usage of belladonna for about a month and a half or more starting about here. It could be longer as I came to the article after the start of the argument. One group believes a sentence or so from RS should be included about homeopathic usage, and another group none unless an RS can be found to state specifically how prominent homeopathy is in regard to use of the plant. The issue has been to RSN, NPOV/N, WikiProject Plants [7], [8], [9], and maybe other places I don't know about. This is one of many plant articles where the debate is happening, but the only one I have been involved with. It is a subset of the Homeopathy article debate (which I have very little interest in) where probation started, but that does not seem effective to me. It is, in turn, a partial subset of what has been termed by some SPOV vs NPOV, and there is going to be a debate by User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist concerning science-related articles on Wikipedia. Anyway, any help in resolving these issues would be appreciated (by myself anyway) as I see it causing a lot of extra drama and effort in an increasing number of affected articles. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Ward20 (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I can't guarantee it will be today or tomorrow, but as soon as I have some good wiki time, this is on my list. Thanks for the links and the briefing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You could drop in on EVP. If you decide to, leave me a message, ok? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Parsnips and butter

You may already know about the phrase, but just in case: [10]. Dreadstar † 23:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Assertiveness" and "Professionalism" vs "Civility"

Perhaps the debate should focus on the words "assertiveness" and "professionalism" rather than "civility". It seems that many editors seem to confuse "civility" with "meekness" or "weakness", and that may be at the root of the disconnect here. Tell them to be civil and they think you're telling them to back off and give up.

Assertiveness does not imply weakness, and there's plenty of documentation on the relative merits of assertiveness vs aggressiveness (see, for example: [11]). Assertiveness is about getting your point across without aggression, and implies both strength and civility.

I also believe "professionalism" might be a better term to describe what you're advocating. Again, professionalism implies civility, but it's weightier so that people will not confuse it with weakness.

Perhaps an essay could clarify this? "Be Assertive, not Aggressive", or "Act like a Professional"? ATren (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried to couch the matter in terms of "professionalism" before, and that seems to work to an extent. I like the idea about distinguishing assertiveness from aggressiveness. It's certainly possible to be assertive without making personal remarks or displaying aggression. Thanks for the thoughts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a great suggestion. I'd love to see the sort of essay you could write along these lines. If you don't maybe I will. --John (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I guess we were talking past each other

So I guess I never really got the thread of what it was we were actually talking about from your perspective in regards to WP:SPADE. Perhaps I was talking more in term of theory, and you were talking more in terms of practicality. In truth, there's exactly one editor in the past year I've ever felt the need to be frank and honest about their tenacious editing habits -- and he's quite possibly become a better editor since I've last interacted with him. And I think you are right, based on a cursory reading of WP:CIV that as things stand my complaining about him -- name calling if you if will -- probably would not even now be a block-able offense. But it's still not a road I'd want to start down. I don't know User:Dreadstar at all, but when an editor uses an RFC on one talk page to ultimately change the contents of a different (and higher ranking) WP-space page, as Dreadstar has done with WP:CIV, and doesn't understand why that's not really kosher per WP:BURO, and then tries to start rewriting one of our communities long standing essays based on that RFC twice removed, I quickly get frustrated and wary. A few flakes working together can quickly cause an avalanche, as they say, so I've been overall disappointed in your contention that this push to limit certain kinds of user speech -- that I believe, again, is in the interest of the project as a whole, i.e. being free to WP:Call a spade a spade -- is simply a snowball rolling downhill, and somehow that's going to be the end of it. But then again, you are talking to someone who's favorite poem is First they came..., so I'm rather reactionary when it comes to throwing up the barricades. Exactly how quick things go from not being able to call a WP:TE editor as such, to not being able to suggest any likeness to a hypothetical TE editor's behavior, to not being able to give any meaningful caution to third parties or second hand criticism at all I believe is a very, very short path.
Like you, I absolutely appreciate the civil nature of discourse on the project; having been online for twenty years now, it's rather refreshing. I participate on exactly one other internet forum, where the standard welcome for the typical new user making the typically brain-dead newbie post, is to express your wish that they might die a horrible death in a grease fire. Although, as this response is tiring to type out fully several times a day, in the past six months or so this is most often expressed in checkbox ([ ]/[x]) form. Only yesterday, as we were having our high minded discussion on Wikipedia civility, someone at Two Plus Two suggested that perhaps it might be worth designing a plug-in to express the sentiment, such that typing all that out would not even be necessary.[12]
So I appreciate the kind of "decompression chamber" the typical internet user needs to go through to become a good wikipedian. I don't think we should set our standards so high, we end up not giving new editors a fair shake.
But, as of checking my snail mail this evening, wherein the Harvard Extension School informed me that (a) I've been officially accepted into the master's program, but that (b) I have all of 3 1/2 months to do a thesis from scratch before being thrown back out, my life just became one of those insane road trip movies. So, {{wikibreak}} here I come.
I just don't want the project to look too much like Nineteen Eighty-Four by the time I get back, taken over by bad oops, I mean, double plus ungood editors. I know internet culture is generally resilient over the long term so far, but based on the rest of the internet, we're quite far from that already in a good way. We need to strike some balance in between that and... well, let's not be the part of the internet to find out what the opposite of that is. There's too much at stake. Good luck! -- Kendrick7^talk 05:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message, and congratulations on your acceptance to the Harvard Extension School!

I think we won't turn into an Orwellian nightmare so quickly. You can trust that there are at least a handful of sane people keeping an eye out for that. It turns out that, even in the current context, nobody is arguing for prohibitions on name-calling, enforced by blocks, while NPOV problems become harder and harder to talk about. I realize that's what some people seemed worried about, but I think that worry is based on misunderstanding the position being advanced. On both sides of the fence, what we want to be able to deal with problem editors effectively and efficiently. We're not going to hamstring or shackle anyone, and we're also going to teach better methods than the "Bad Doggy WHAP!" school of conflict resolution. The result will be stronger neutrality, verifiablity and non-originality policies, not weaker ones that have somehow been hobbled to make way for civility. We know not to push in that direction. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we really all worried about the same phenomenon? Some of our best admins being RFCed and RFAred for civility issues? Some think the admins in question should change their behaviour, and some think it shouldn't be so easy to bother them for superficial things. Perhaps these responses aren't mutually exclusive, after all. In any case congratulations, and happy writing! --Hans Adler (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you are wrong

about homeopathy and in fact all alternative medicine areas and most WP:FRINGE areas. The system has decided that CIVIL is more important than all else, and disagreeing with the FRINGE is unCIVIL or even wanting an article to satisfy NPOV is unCIVIL. If you want to try to fix this, go ahead. It is suicidal, from what I have seen.--Filll (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "the system"? Have you been blocked for supposed incivility? What is "suicide" in this context? Why bother warning me? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Admin training

Woops! How could I possibly miss that, of all states... my father grew up there. Thanks!

And yes, I appreciate your input too - I agree that we have to find better ways of combating these issues than frustrated vulgarity.

Perhaps we can work on gathering a group together to help educate administrators - as soon as they get their bit - on means of conflict resolution, calling for backup, attracting broader attention (and from the right people) to an issue, dealing with troublesome/difficult/impossible editors, when to consider something a true emergency and act appropriately (libel on a BLP) and when to step back, bring in help and other such issues.

Yes, yes, I know, technically admins aren't supposed to be more than regular users with a mop... but that mop is powerful. That mop has the power to righteously expunge attack trash, or to wrongly block a user who just made a slight mistake. It makes the person who has that mop a symbol of authority, whether we want to admit it or not. It will put that person in a position to help or hurt the encyclopedia far more than the average non-bitted user. It will make that person a target, if he or she uses that mop in the conflict-ridden parts of the encyclopedia.

It boggles me that we give these people the tools and don't tell them, beyond the most basic and obvious, how to and when to use them appropriately.

Wikipedia:Administrator College or something.

Just my thoughts. FCYTravis (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, there's a happy bit of timing going on here. I've just been approached in the past week by researchers from a University who are studying Wikipedia, from a variety of angles. The person I met with so far is developing accessibility software, and he put me in touch with someone who's been studying conflict on Wikipedia. I should be meeting with him soon...

I like your idea, WP:COLLEGE. Something like that. Or maybe different from that, who knows? I think it boils down to a few essential principles, and most problems can be solved, if not obviated completely, by sticking to a few rules of thumb. Writing down those thumbs could make it much easier to educate admins, and to refine the principles themselves, as we gain experience working with them explicitly. We could also be guided, to whatever extent we find helpful, by parallel academic research, which is apparently already in progress.

How does one begin something like an admin college; in a sandbox somewhere? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think in Wikispace, we can just stick ideas up, put a "proposed" tag on it, and go. FCYTravis (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do something like this, I think you need to stay clear of any admin elitism or otherwise closed structures. Perhaps a WikiProject like WP:ADCO, WP:KIND or WP:WPVS would make sense for this. Hans Adler (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I also note that Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:New admin school already exist. I don't reckon I'd ever heard of either. Can we use structures that are already in place, rather than starting from scratch? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know we had WP:NAS either. I reckon we can take NAS and run with it. Right now, it's "how to click the block button." We need "when to click the block button," "how to respond to POV warriors," "getting help resolving a conflict," etc. FCYTravis (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck yeah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's elitism to say that this is directed at our administrator corps. The crux of the issue, to me, is that we give people admin bits and don't help them understand how to use them effectively and appropriately. We don't give them a support structure, we don't give them training, we don't give them the titanium-plated mindset to deal with trolls... and then we end up with administrators who burn out, who lash out, who do the right thing but in the wrong ways, like Guy. FCYTravis (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't good admin conflict resolution skills also applicable by non-admins? Most conflict resolution doesn't involve much use of the buttons, does it? I like the idea of some kind of DR training program, which could be available for any user, recommended as a prerequisite for adminship, and maybe sometimes required by ArbCom as a part of some remedy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can recruit Zenwhat as a trainer? --Hans Adler (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I sense a double standard here. If it's elitist to direct something at administrators, how can it be appropriate to hold administrators to different standards than regular users?

The Wikipedia community has spoken - it wants its admins to adhere to higher standards than the rest of the community. That's fine. But I don't think that it's then elitist to aim a project at helping those admins uphold those higher standards.

I did not intend to say that this would only be open to administrators - only that it would be clearly aimed at helping admins - and those who wish to become admins - do their thing in an appropriate, effective manner. This is particularly relevant for those administrators - and we need more of them - who get involved in the conflict-ridden parts of the encyclopedia; stopping POV-pushers, patrolling BLPs, etc. FCYTravis (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not a double standard, just wildly varying opinions. Some feel that everybody who is unlikely to "abuse the tools" should get them. Some believe that you need to contribute to several featured articles, fight valiantly in the vandal wars and take a vow of chastity to become an admin. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect we're in broad agreement. WP:NAS is already set up, and unless people think that it's elitist (Hans?), we can use it as is. If the name bothers people, then we'll get a new name for it. The point is that it's a place containing good advice on how to deal with difficult situations that admins often handle. Naturally, that advice is available to anyone, whether they be an admin, an admin candidate, a brand new user, or whoever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think we can emphasize the "admin candidate" aspect; I don't disagree that it would be a good thing to have a broader group of people using the tools, and if we encourage and help people do this, it might encourage more people to apply and more people to pass. Admin Candidate School? Or is that too... militaristic? :) FCYTravis (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We've got Wikipedia:Admin coaching already, as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject on Adminship/Training. They're tagged to merge. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Let's see if we can figure out a structure that achieves these goals. Keep the "New Admin School" stuff as-is, essentially as the "how-to" guide for button-pushing. Open an "Admin Candidate School" page with the "when to" guide for button-pushing, and a "Dispute Resolution Academy" for skills which can broadly be applied not just to admins, but for all editors. Include Admin coaching under the umbrella. FCYTravis (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We have to look at the encyclopedia as it is. Only a selected subset get the tools. We have to stop pretending there is no difference between administrators and regular editors. There is a difference. It exists. End of story. That doesn't mean admins are overlords, it means they have different - and much more powerful - tools than regular users. Regular editors get all sorts of chances to misuse and screw up editorial tools; one bad screwup by an admin with his/her tools can easily mean RfC, ArbCom, desysopping or worse. That's the way it is.

Admins are under a microscope these days, and I believe that's one of the reasons so few are willing to take on the really tough tasks. It's thankless, time-consuming, stressful, opens you to potential off-Wiki abuse and can deal with extremely sensitive issues. It's very easy to feel isolated doing this stuff, until/unless you get to know the other people who choose to dive in.

That's why I understand how Guy got to where he is. He has supported me, and I in turn supported him, on many of these issues. Sans the mutual support, you can very easily get to the breaking point. We need to help people find support. FCYTravis (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Similar to my position about WP:SPADE, my position about the code of honour for admins is: Judge yourself by the highest standard, others by the lowest. I am not bothered about elitism, I just felt others might be. Starting at WP:NAS sounds like a good idea, it can always be renamed or split later. Good night! --Hans Adler (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

← (Sorry to butt in) Why not go with "Conflict resolution training", or something that's not admin-specific? After all, non-admins get into conflicts as often as admins, and the same skill set would presumably apply. The most challenging and frustrating conflicts I've been involved in all occurred before I became an admin. Undoubtedly there are some admin-specific wrinkles, and admins are and should be held to higher standard and would certainly benefit from these skills, but in the end they'd be much more widely applicable. I think part of the problem with homeopathy et al. is that both sides want "admins" to sort it out. If conflict resolution at all levels were more highly prized, then admins wouldn't always be in the position of playing referee or bouncer. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Research into conflict resolution on Wikipedia

Please see this homepage of a University of Washington researcher who is working on studying conflicts on Wikipedia. I've read one of his papers already, and we're scheduling a face-to-face meeting for later this week. I'm encouraged that certain dispute-resolution principles are already receiving empirical support as to their effectiveness, and I'm hoping to see more research in that direction. If we could show empirically that certain behaviors tend to lower or raise the temperature, we'll be in a very good position to design strategies for handling conflicts. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

WOW! That's very cool. Could you also post to WT:MEDCAB and keep that project updated on your progress? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, he should at least submit a paper to Wikimania 2008. Worst case he gets a free trip to Egypt? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll definitely pass that suggestion along. Oh, he's User:Leafman, too. Now I'm off to leave a note with MEDCAB... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Techniques

You might be interested in my draft of some techniques that seemed to have worked in a very contentious area. Unfortunately, these techniques are not working so well in other areas yet.--Filll (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I think that's a great start. I think you enunciate a lot of very useful principles there. What, do you think, is different about an area where you're not seeing the same method work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I think there are some differences. First, alternative medicine is a profession for many who are here on Wikipedia as editors. And they are quite upset at NPOV and similar policies which I think they view as a personal attack and an attack on their careers and livelihoods. Although there are people who make creationism a career, there are fewer of them than alternative medicine practitioners, probably. And we have had fewer professional creationists on Wikipedia as editors than alternative medicine practitioners. Also, there is not the same sort of organized opposition to alternative medicine because they have not been trying to replace regular medicine with alternative medicine in schools. Also, many current practices in regular medicine were alternative medicine at one time, and studies of efficacy are not always so clear cut; it takes a very carefully done study to show a huge difference because of placebo effects etc. There is a history of allopathic medicine stomping out other forms of medicine, and this does not help with the atmosphere or attitudes. Although I have been slowly trying to encourage a suite of articles on homeopathy as we have in the evolution-creationism area, we are not very far along. Having more articles exploring different parts of the subject and controversy can diffuse and defuse the trouble a lot. I believe that in addition to the main homeopathy article we should:

• have an article on the main homeopathic remedies (which I had restored) and a mutual agreement on how many of these we will give their own articles or their own sections in other articles. I have suggested about 50 on plants, 50 on minerals, 50 on remedies from animals, 50 on chemicals. I have also suggested trying to limit by agreement the number of homeopathic "miniarticles" in biographies of people who tried homeopathy or who might have tried homeopathy. This will allow us to cover the subject, but control it. These offers to compromise so far have been soundly rejected, over and over and over.
• a separate article on homeopathic prevalence around the world. This material clogs up the main article, is sort of boring, and could be more fleshed out in a subsiduary article. For example, homeopathic products form only 0.3% of the worldwide pharmaceutical market, but this is not addressed in the main article. If we have careful documentation for its FRINGE nature, we can answer this and put it to bed.
• A more advanced article on homeopathic scales, giving careful comparisons to standard chemistry. I am working on such an article in a sandbox with Peter Morrell, a famous homeopathic scholar. [13] This will clear up a lot of confusion about their scales and really nail down the dilutions and the language and at what point they dilute past having a single molecule of active substance left in the preparation.
• An article that is focussed just on the scientific tests on both sides. Over the last 8 months or more, both sides have hit each other with a firestorm of hundreds of studies, many of them multiple times. We need to channel this energy and capture this information, organize it and present it. There is not room in the main article for more than a very simple summary.

In addition, homeopathy is under probation. As a result, we cannot be as aggressive as we were in the evolution and creationism area. I think removing repeated comments might get a person blocked for example. Also, I believe some admins are rooting for the underdog, the poor downtrodden alternative medicine group. And CIVIL is now a fairly useful weapon for them, which was not the case a year or two ago for the creationists. I am far more cautious and careful about even disagreeing with them since disagreeing has been viewed as unCIVIL. NPOV is not being enforced; a clear message to the malcontents is not being sent that we will have NPOV whether they like it or not. They believe that if they argue hard enough and long enough, the definition of NPOV will be changed, or they will get an exception from it.--Filll (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Another daughter article might be on connections of homeopathy with religion. Some view it as satanism and the work of the devil. Some view it as tapping into some sort of spiritualism. We could also have a subsiduary article exploring more of the details of the energy field, and connections to other "energy fields" or the ether.--Filll (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Other useful articles in the area that should be improved include placebo and clinical trial. As can be seen from the Raymond Arritt Expert Withdrawal pages, there is a group forming to rewrite and clean up placebo: [14]. The placebo effect is one of the most interesting and mysterious factors here, and although homeopaths reject it, it really is intriguing. It is a way to encourage the body to heal itself. If we could find a way to reliably tap into this, it would be a huge advance. Hormesis, Nocebo and Arndt-Schulz rule could also be improved a bit. Other related articles like Water memory might also be improved.--Filll (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot to think about there. One reply I can give you, is that people using the civility policy is a weapon is nothing to fear. That can be stopped in its tracks every time by applying the right strategy, so we do not have to tolerate any uncivil use of WP:CIVIL. Note how far that personal attack accusation on your talk page got - nobody believes it, because you didn't attack anybody. You can float right above such mudslinging, as long as you keep your own hands mud-free.

I really like your ideas about splitting off daughter articles; let's work on that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me

Dear Tony,
Please put this on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and mention it is posted by me (or else the others may think I've bribed you); I'm not yet able to post there directly myself because the Page is semi-writeprotected.

Here are some of the studies/clinical trials:-

STUDIES OF THE ACTIVITY OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES

ORIGINAL/TRANSLATED TITLE	AUTHOR(S)	PUBLICATION	ACTIVITY	STUDY
Inhibition of lymphoblast transformation test (LTT) in phytohaemagglutinin (PHA) with Phytolacca americana in homeopathic dilution	Colas H., Aubin M., Picard P., Lebecq J.C.	Ann. Homéopat. Fr., 1975, 6: 1-11.	Inhibitory	Lymphoblast transformation
Inquiry into the limits of biological effects of chemical compounds in tissue culture. I. Low dose effects of mercure chloride	Mansvelt J.D., van Amons E.	Z. Naturtorschung, 1975, 30: 643-649.	Inhibitory	Lymphocyte growth
The effects of Belladonna and Ferrum phosphoricum on the chemoluminescence of human poly-morphonuclear neutrophils	Poitevin B., Aubin M., Royer J.F.	Ann. Homéop. Fr., 1983, 3: 5-12.	Inhibitory	Radical release
Effect of aconitum and veratrum on the isolated perfused heart of the common eel (Anguilla anguilla)	Pennec J.P., Aubin M.	Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 1984, 776: 367-369.	Protective	Aconitine toxicity
Elements of homeopathic pharmacology	Aubin M.	Homéopathie Franç., 1984, 72: 231- 235	Protective	Aconitine toxicity
The effect of homeopathic preparations on the phagocyte activity of granulocytes. In vitro tests and double-blind controlled trials	Wagner H., Jurcic K., Doenicke A., Rosenhuber E., Behrens N.	Arzneim. Forsch./Drug Res., 1986, 36: 1424-1425.	Stimulant	Phagocytosis
Approach to quantitative analysis of the effect of Apis mellifica on the degranulation of human basophils cultivated in vitro	Poitevin B., Aubin M., Benveniste J.	Innov. Tech. Biol. Med., 1986, 7: 64-68.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
In vitro stimulation of human granulocytes and lymphocytes by pico- and femtogram quantities of cytostatic agents	Wagner H., Kreher B., Jurcic K.	Arzneim. Forsch./Drug Res., 1988, 38: 273-275.	Stimulant	Lymphocyte growth
Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE	Davenas E., Beauvais F., Amara J., Robinson M., Miadonna A., Tedeschi A., Pomeranz B., Fortner P., Belon P., Sainte-Laudy J., Poitevin B., Benveniste J.	Nature, 1988, 333: 816-818.	Stimulant	Basophils
In vitro immunological degranulation of human basophils is modulated by lung histamine and Apis mellifica	Poitevin B., Davenas E., Benveniste J.	Brit. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1988, 25: 439-444.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
Cytotoxic agents as immunomodulators	Wagner H., Kreher B.	Proc. of the 3rd GIRI meeting, Paris, 1989, 31- 46.	Stimulant	Lymphocyte growth
Contributions of fundamental research in homeopathy	Boiron J., Belon P.	Berl. J. Res. Hom., 1990, 1: 34-35.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
Synergism of action between indoleacetic acid (IAA) and highly diluted solutions of CaCO3 on the growth of oat coleoptiles	Bornoroni C.	Berl. J. Res. Hom., 1991, 1 (4/5): 275-278.	Stimulant	Growth of plant cells
Study of the action of Hahnemannian dilutions of mercury chloride on the mitotic index in animal cell cultures.	Boiron J., Abecassis J., Cotte J., Bernard A.M.	Ann. Homéop. Fr., 1991, 23: 43-49.	Protective	Hg toxicity
Dual effects of formylpeptides on the adhesion of endotoxin-primed human neutrophils	Bellavite P., Chirumbolo S., Lippi G., Andrioli G., Bonazzi L., Ferro I.	Cell. Biochem. Funct., 1993, 11: 231-239.	Inhibitory	Cell adhesion (bact. pept. 10-8-10-9)
Effects of homeopathic preparations of organic acids and of minerals on the oxidative metabolism of human neutrophils	Chirumbolo S., Signorini A., Bianchi I., Lippi G., Bellavite P.	Br. Hom. J., 1993, 82: 227-244.	Inhibitory	Leucocyte activation (metabolism)
Platelets/endothelial cells interactions in presence of acetylsalicylic acid at ultra low dose	Doutremepuich C., Lalanne M.C., Ramboer I., Sertillanges M.N., De Seze O.	Omeomed 92 (C. Bornoroni, ed.), 1993, Editrice Compositori, Bologna: 109-115.	Inhibitory	Prostacyclin release
Effect of high dilutions of epidermal growth factor (EGF) on in vitro proliferation of keratinocyte and fibroblast cell lines	Fougeray S., Moubry K., Vallot N., Bastide M.	Br. Hom. J., 1993, 82: 124-125.	Inhibitory	Growth of keratinocytes
Effects of different homeopathic potencies of Lachesis on lymphocyte cultures obtained from rabbit blood	Enbergs H., Arndt G.	Biol. Tier., 1993, 4.	Stimulant	Mitotic and immunostimulating activity (bact. pept 10-5-10-6)
The effect of homeopathic potencies of housedust mite on the migration of house-dust sensitive human leukocytes	Gibson S.L., Gibson R.G.	Complement. Ther. Med., 1996, 4: 169-171.	Stimulant	Leucocyte chemotaxis
The effects of Nux vomica Homaccord and Atropinum comp. on intestinal activity in vitro	Kanui T.I., Enbergs H.	Biol. Tier., 1996/1, 43-47.	Stimulant	Contraction of intestinal muscles
Application of flow cytometry to the analysis of the immunosuppressive effect of histamine dilutions on human basophil action: effect of cimetidine	Sainte-Laudy J., Belon P.	Inflamm. Res., 1997, 46: S27-S28.	Inhibitory	Basophil degranulation
Effects of Podophillum pellatum compounds in various preparations and dilutions on human neutrophil functions in vitro	Chirumbolo S., Conforti A., Lussignoli S., Metelmann H. et Al.	Br. Hom. J., 1997; 86-16.	Inhibitory	Release of superoxides
In vivo and in vitro studies on the efficiency of potentized and nonpotentized substances	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BT, 1997, 2; 40-46.	Difference between potentised and non-potentised substances	In vivo and in vitro study; basic research
Experiments with the effects of Ubichinon-Injeel and strong Ubichinon-Injeel on an acellular system	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1997, 3; 99-104.	Different effects of associations of various potencies and individual potencies	In vitro study; basic research
Efficacy of the homeopathic drugs Suis and Arnica comp.-Heel® on lymphocyte and phagocyte activity	Enbergs H.	BM, 1998, 1; 3-11.	Effect of organotherapeutics and Arnica comp. - Heel® on immune system cells	In vitro study; basic research
Influence of dilutions and potencies of cAMP on different enzymatic systems	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1998, 2; 55-62.	Effects of dilutions and potencies of cAMP on some enzymatic activities	In vitro study; basic research
Studies of the principles of homeopathy; the changeover from in vivo to in vitro experimental research	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1998, 3; 98-103.	Potentised and non-potentised dilutions are equally effective, but have different actions	Basic research
Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase with cAMP at various potencies	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1999, 1; 4-8.	Different effects on enzymatic activity	In vitro study; basic research
Contribution to study of the efficacy of homeopathic potencies of phosphorus	Gomez J.C.	BT, 1999, 2; 53-57.	Effect of different potencies of phosphorus	Tests on guinea pigs
Determination of the activity of acid phosphatase in the presence of Ubichinon comp.	Harisch G., Dittmann J.	BM, 1999, 4; 188-194.	Effect of enzymatic activity of homeopathic medicine	Basic research
Biochemical efficacy of homeopathic and electronic preparations of D8 potassium cyanate	Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G.	FKM, 1999, 6; 15-18.	Homeopathic potentisation is more effective than electronic potentisation	Basic research
Osteoporosis in vitro in rat tibiaderived osteoblasts is promoted by the homeopathic preparation, FMS Calciumfluor	Palermo C., Filanti C., Poggi S., Manduca P.	Cell Biol Int, 1999, 23(1): 31-40.	Stimulant	Osteogenesis (trial with compound drug)
Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) of homeopathic active constituents	Schmolz M.	BM, 1999, 5; 248-250.	Constituents of Arnica comp.- Heel® ointment: electrophoresis accelerates their skin penetration.	Basic research
			Effect of homeopathic constituents on enzymatic activity.	Basic research
Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice	Datta S., Mallick P., Bukhsh A.R.	Complement Ther Med, 1999 Jan; 7 (8): 62-75 (a).	Protective	Arsenic trioxide toxicity
Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice	Datta S., Mallick P., Bukhsh A.R.	Complement Ther Med, 1999 Sep; 7 (3): 156-63 (b).	Protective	Arsenic trioxide toxicity
Non-cytotoxic antiviral action of a homeopathic drug	Heine H.	Ärzteitschrift für Neturheilverfahre, 2000; 41: 542-7.	Stimulant	ã interferon synthesis
Efficacy of a potentised homeopathic drug in reducing cytotoxic effects produced by arsenic trioxide in mice	Kundu S.N., Mitra K., Khuda Bukhsh A.R.	Complement Ther Med , 2000 Sep; 1 (3): 157-65.	Protective	Arsenic trioxide toxicity
Stimulatory effect of some plant extracts used in homeopathy on the phagocytosis induced chemiluminescence of polymorphonuclear leukocytes	Crocnan D., Greabu M., Olinescu R.	Rocz Akad Med Biochemist, 2000; 45: 246-254.	Stimulant	Phagocytosis
Difference between the efficacy of single potencies and chords	Dittmann J., Harisch G.	BM, 2000, 1; 18-23.	Potency chords are more effective than single potencies	Basic research
Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of uricase, acid phosphatase and the cytosol glutathion-S-transferase	Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G.	BM, 2000, 3; 125-131	Effect of D8 potencies on three different enzymatic systems	Basic research
Influence of some homeopathic drugs on the catalytic activity of cAMP-dependent protein kinases	Dittmann J., Kanapin H., Harisch G.	BM, 2000, 6; 289-296.	Effect of different potencies of 5 substances on enzymatic activity	Basic research
Neuroprotection from glutamate toxicity with ultra-low dose glutamate	Jonas W., Lin Y., Zortella F.	Neuroreport, 2001 Feb 92; 12 (2): 335-9.	Protective	Glutamate toxicity

 

KEY: BT = Biomedical Therapy

BM = Biologische Medizin

FKM = Forschung Komplementär Medizin

Ramaanand (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Dr.Jhingadé

Um... can you give me some context? I hardly know what you've just dropped on my talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to put the above table into a collapsible box thingy? I'd like to keep it here, but scrolling all the way past it is annoying. Thanks in advance if someone can make it zip up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC

I think I did it. You can use {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} to bookend it and it will collapse. Hope that's OK. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's brilliant; thank you very much. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see the little "show" button (to uncollapse the text), for some reason - never had that happen before. Maybe it's my browser. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Works fine from this end. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I see you've begun dabbling at Homeopathy. Just a friendly warning -- that way lies madness. I couldn't stand it any more and quit editing the article a couple of months ago, though I look in on it occasionally. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm dabbling there in direct response to people at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. The claim has been made repeatedly that those arguing for greater civility aren't sufficiently aware of the conditions that drive other editors to incivility. The word seems to be "stop complaining and get down in the trenches, so I'm getting in. I hope to make an empirical case for what I believe to be effective dispute resolution techniques, and I'm hoping we can create some kind of structure to discover and write down good rules of thumb for handling such situations. See the above section: #Re: Admin training.

Nevertheless, thanks for the warning, and I would certainly welcome any pointers you can give me for navigating what seems to be quite the minefield. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely this might be a safe time to get involved in homeopathy. One of the worst offenders has begun a six-month topic ban and another has been inactive for a week or so (whether in response to the topic ban of his comrade, or for some other reason). If it goes pear-shaped again I'll book us a double room at the funny farm. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, expect different results this time. It seems to me there are some tricks that haven't yet been tried. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that one of those who is upset on the homeopathy talk pages has just declared that he thinks the current article is awful and violates NPOV: [15]. Of course, when we have tried, hundreds of times to describe what NPOV is, somehow they accidently or intentionally never absorb the definition. I have wondered if we should rewrite the documents that describe NPOV to make the policy more clear. Should there be exams of the concept? More examples? It just gets very very tiresome to explain it over and over and over to someone who has had it explained to them 300 times previously and still continues to ignore what they have been told.--Filll (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What helps me in such situations is to imagine working together with my grandmother on an article like same-sex marriage. The concept of NPOV is problematic because it is based on our experiences, and I am afraid neither side can solve the problem by "educating" the other. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What helps me (sometimes) is to think that anyone editing Wikipedia might be someone I know (family or close friends). Replace this with anything that fits for you. The point, of course, being to humanise the person behind the screen. Try and explain things to them as you would to anyone else, and to someone in the same room as you, not on the other side of the world (or the next street over, or whatever). Carcharoth (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately in my case, my parents both ridiculed homeopathy the entire time I grew up. They would take every opportunity to point out how ridiculous it was.--Filll (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not a very wise thing to do, to spoil the placebo effect of provably harmless medicine for one's child… Having learned about your COI, here is mine: My mother is a nurse and very open-minded (i.e. not believing either way) about these things. Some years ago, when my GP prescribed me a homeopathic combination drug against hayfever, I thought it has a chance to help because I know that in my case there is a strong psychological component. And it did seem to work. My GP also had some funny "energy" apparatus which he said is surprisingly effective although he doesn't really believe in it. But that was too bogus for me. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My mother is a nurse and a big believer in mainstream medicine. My father is an engineer, and a skeptic. I am willing to try herbal and nonstandard approaches, and have managed to convince my father to try some of those in recent years. I have tried homeopathic remedies without knowing they are homeopathic, because they are not always so clearly labelled in the United States, in all places. It is such a FRINGE belief in the US that few people even know what it is, and so packages of homeopathic remedies are not even necessarily prominently labeled as such.--Filll (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A bit more information for you

I apologize if you read this before, since some of this is material that is in the homeopathy talk page archive. I believe the current weight to exposition and critical analysis is about right, give or take, and was the result of consensus previously of skeptics and homeopathy supporters. The translation of the French, German and Dutch LEADs show that all of these articles have a similar tone to our current article, if not more critical. I am told that the other European language homeopathy articles are of a similar nature by a friend who has a facility with them. This is relevant because these languages are associated with places where Homeopathy is supposedly far more popular and accepted than it is in the US and the UK. Also, homeopathy is definitely a FRINGE treatment by almost any measure:

• the homeopathy share of world drug market is 0.3% [16]
• money spent per person on medical items in the US in 2004 is 5267$ [17]
• money spent per person in the US on all herbals including homeopathy is 54$ [18]
• there were 315 professional homeopaths in the US in 1993, but counting lay homeopaths (unlicensed), maybe over 1000 [19] ( there were only 50-100 homeopaths in the US in the early 70s [20]) compared with 884,000 regular physicians in the US in 2006 [21]

Even in India, where about 15-20% of the medical professionals are homeopaths, homeopathy is 3rd or 4th behind regular medicine and ayurvedic medicine.

I have a request in to have the Hindi version of the homeopathy article translated into English so we can compare it. I also looked at the World Book and Funk and Wagnall's articles on homeopathy, and both of them were similar to ours, with about 1/3 or more quite skeptical and critical of homeopathy.--Filll (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I also have some references (I can get them for you) that show that in England, Germany, Switzerland, Holland and France, government health services are cutting back on support of homeopathy in the light of numerous repeated studies that showed it had minimal value. This has all erupted in the last handful of years, and might be driving some of the desperation we are witnessing on the talk page.--Filll (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the German and French versions. The French version has a completely unsourced Hahnemann quotation at the end, in incredibly poor French. I tried some obvious German search terms with Google and with a PDF version of the 6th edition "Organon", but couldn't locate the original German source for this, so I just gave up. To me this suggests that perhaps the French version is not the best one to base any changes on, although of course it provides some details that should be verifiable. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What I think we should draw from the German, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish etc versions is the overall tone, rather than the details (like the lousy French translation of a German passage). The reason I decided to look at these was the claim that homeopathy is much more prominent in the countries represented by these versions, and more accepted. So I thought, let's see how they wrote their WP articles. And guess what? They were not written very differently than the English version, as far as I was able to tell. There is a substantial chunk of mainstream and critical material in each of these, contrary to the claims of our malcontents here.--Filll (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. As I have probably said several times I agree with the overall balance, and I think whatever we do we should keep it approximately at this level. However, I do hope that we can get the article into a state where everybody is content, if not happy, with it. Each POV seems to have accepted that the opposite one exists and needs to be represented in the article. It should be possible to represent each in such a way that its opponents aren't more offended than necessary. If this works, we won't have to refer to versions in other languages for justification.

Here are things that I really like about the other versions: The first sentence of the German lede is very elegant and summarises the most important point. The rest is outspoken but uses carefully neutral language, avoiding potentially problematic words such as "contend". And the French version mentions references to "homeopathic doses" in everyday language in a prominent way. I think we can use this in the lede. I will try to make a concrete suggestion later, and see what happens. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend

An "interview" on science and pseudoscience, enforcing CIVIL instead of NPOV and similar topics, to be published in the Signpost, is underway. You can watch some of the progress here.--Filll (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting; thank you! -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

I am really interested in the fact that you will dealing with and learning more about conflict resolution as you mentioned on the Expert withdrawal page. Although collaborative communities like Wikipedia are relatively new within the last 10 years or so.... conflict resolution is not, and my sense is that we don't have to reinvent the wheel here, and that there are multiple strategies for dealing with conflict .... although it will very interesting to hear what those who have studied Wikipedia specifically have to say. Anyway if there is a way for you to share this information here with other editors, I for one would be delighted. In my reading in the area of collaborative communities I find over and over the authors say that if a community can't become successfully collaborative in today's world they will fail, so this is an important step you are taking . Many thanks.(olive (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

Hi, Littleolive, thanks for dropping by. Your remark about not reinventing the wheel seems apt, but I've never studied conflict resolution formally, although I guess our article conflict resolution research is a start. I'm excited about learning more, and about applying whatever we can to disputes on Wikipedia. I'll be sure to bring this up with Leafman when we meet tomorrow; thanks again for the note. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have suggested a few times, on the Expert Withdrawal pages and elsewhere, it would be nice to have some "permanent" pages, or project pages where we can share information and ideas, write reports and papers and have them available, organize research projects, be a point of contact for outside groups like that associated with Leafman, etc. Does anyone know how to start a project? And what should it be called? How about Wikipedia Institute? It would be nice to have a bland name and have different focus areas under it; conflict resolution is definitely one. Conflict and collaboration? I for one find that many ideas on Village Pump just disappear into the ether, much too quickly before anyone sees them. We could have membership as well where people who were interested could sign up. It would be a place to coordinate with those interested in statistics about WP as well. --Filll (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward, really. If you have some specifics we can probably set something up, on- or off- wiki. A quick&dirty solution could be done in minutes. A more thoughtful solution might take a couple of days or longer, depending on what you see as the core task. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Kim, would MEDCAB be a good structure under which to host a project on conflict resolution? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Although the MEDCAB might very well be suitable, I wonder if it might obscure its visibility to be attached to MEDCAB. This is especially true because I would like its purview to be broad enough to consider more than dispute resolution, although clearly dispute resolution is a very important part. I would like to have a place that encourages constant investigation into how we do things here, such as consideration of alternative and new methods and mechanisms for (1) sock puppet detection (2) RfAs (3) admin powers, vetting and certification of decisions, (4) content arbcomm and/or outside review (5)"finished" article locking (6) NPOV description clarification, training, etc (7) new admin and new editor training (8) guidelines or other ideas making it easier for admins to enforce NPOV, NOR, RS, etc (8) evaluation of the proliferating noticeboards (9) collection of various statistics (10) a permanent version of the discussion at Raymond Arritt's Expert Withdrawal pages (11) interaction with outside research projects (12) assorted rankings and ratings of editors and admins (13) value estimation for admins and editors of various classes (14) documenting irrational or nonmainstream or FRINGE ideas and movements

The more ideas we can stimulate, the better. Most of the ideas will stink and be discarded of course, but some will bubble up and be judged worthy of further investment and testing. I would like to institutionalize the idea that we want to constantly be involved in process improvement.

Procedures that were fine when we were the 50th most popular website and had 100,000 or 500,000 articles are not as useful now as they were. When we had a community of editors that was a few thousand dedicated geeks things were very different than they are now. We are far larger and far more visible. And things will continue to evolve as we grow, and become more accepted and more visible. For example, assorted judicial systems in various countries have made pronouncements that WP is recommended as a suitable place to start legal research ! Can anyone imagine this happening 3 years ago?

Anyway, my preferred idea would be to give it some general name like Wikipedia Institute and have it as a project or something that appears semi-official. We can start out hosting this investigation of dispute resolution and controversial topic documentation. And hopefully add more interested editors and grow into all kinds of areas. Comments?--Filll (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good strategy to start with only a few aspects from your list, to get off the ground and avoid attracting too many wikilawyers. Your list makes sense, but it did remind me of a German word that is hard to translate. Maybe woolly laying dairy sow? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a lurker in these parts, having much respect for the conversations that go on (and yeah - being nosy too...!) - I've been plucking up the courage to ask you (GTB) if you might be interested in having a 'real world' conversation which anyone who wanted to could listen to - I've been supporting such initiatives over at Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly - and have piped up specifically at this point, because both your meeting, and these discussions are of great interest to me, and maybe others.... Filll has already signed up to take part in the project in general - but I wonder if I could persuade Kim and GTB to pop along to talk about some of this stuff? - I'll watch with interest regardless! best to all, Privatemusings (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

testing

Hello, I've been trying to post on the Talk:Homeopathy Page unsuccessfully. I read about the studies/clinical trials mentioned at the bottom of that Page (url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Selection_of_studies) which seem to be in favor of Homeopathy, but the main article says, "Claims for efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond the placebo effect are unsupported by scientific and clinical studies.[7][8][9][10] Meta-analyses of homeopathy, which compare the results of many studies, face difficulty in controlling for the combination of publication bias and the fact that most of these studies suffer from serious shortcomings in their methods.[11][12][13] The ideas behind homeopathy are scientifically implausible and directly opposed to fundamental principles of natural science and modern medicine.[14][15] The lack of convincing scientific evidence supporting its efficacy,[16] and its contradiction of basic scientific principles, have caused homeopathy to be regarded as pseudoscience[17] or quackery,[18][19][20] or in the words of a 1998 medical review, "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst."[21]." I think someone should correct the main article (url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy), to read something like, 'There is scientific evidence that Homeopathy works......... Thank you, Jim

An interesting strategy. But I wonder if this is not more of the same?--Filll (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)