User talk:Mervyn Emrys

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

Hi!

Wikipedia needs experts. I do hope you'll be willing to contribute. Feel free to post messages to my talk page, for example if you have any questions about how to do things on Wikipedia. Or just to say hi. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to echo Coppertwig's sentiments; it's really great to have experts on Wikipedia, and I really think it's a real shame to get driven away by this. When I got started, I tried to edit within my own area of expertise (I hold a degree in linguistics), but got driven away by the frustration. But I came back, and I have really found the community atmosphere here appealing. While I can understand if you don't come straight back, I do hope you'll give it consideration in the future! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC

Advice

Does the following WP statement about attempted outing really mean anything in Wikipedia?

"Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one?

"Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. '''Off-wiki harassment''' can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your votes

Stop. You are not eligible, as you have been notified. We are alerted every time you vote, and we will remove them as we have to. Regards, — neuro^(talk) 01:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Neuro, my understanding is that he's allowed to vote, but his votes will just be indented so they don't "count". I actually advised him to proceed, per discussions at WT:ACE2008 (see the above thread). --Elonka 01:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have added four more votes to ArbCom candidacy pages today, after being made aware of them several times and being offered the opportunity to comment by making indented votes, I am forced to assume that you will not consent to following the election policies put into place regardless of how many times we ask nicely. Therefore, this will be your final advisory, from me at least, about the policies. You are not permitted to make votes to these pages. The policy is not clear this year on whether users are allowed to comment, so I'm offering the benefit of the doubt by indenting votes rather than removing them. Thus far, your votes have been indented by other users, wasting a significant amount of their time. If you wish to make any further comments in support or opposition to ArbCom candidacies, please prefix them with a "#:", rather than a "#", so as not to affect the numbering and to make it obvious that you wish to comment. If you fail to do so and continue to circumvent election policy, you may be blocked or topic-banned from the election subpages for the remaining duration of the election. ST47 (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a sec, this is not what was agreed at WT:ACE2008. My understanding of the consensus is that he was allowed to vote, with the understanding that it wouldn't count towards the numeric count, but he would at least be able to make comments. --Elonka 19:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why ST47 asked him to prefix the comments with :# so that his words remain, but do not contribute to the count. The result is the same, but it prevents other editors from having to take the time to do it. لennavecia 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the votes should be indented. But it's a bit extreme to threaten a new editor with a block, just because he's omitting a ":". Let's just indent for him and not worry about it. The threats of block and ban are not needed. --Elonka 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Mervyn Emrys has been getting a really raw deal on Wikipedia ever since he started. He's a PhD, a professor of political science, but he got off on the wrong foot at the beginning. He wandered into the crossfire of some other dispute, and had another editor attempt to "out" his real-life identify. So Mervyn Emrys attempted to start a new account, but then that account got "outed" as well. So he's retired the other account, and tried to just edit as Mervyn Emrys. With expertise in political science, he decided to try and weigh in at the ArbCom elections, but then was told his votes wouldn't be counted. The irony is, that if we would count the contribs of both his accounts, he does have enough edits. And to add insult to injury, when he tried our automated utility to tell him if he was eligible to vote or not, it told him he was eligible to vote. So he voted, and then got chastised for voting because he's not eligible, even though he had been told that he was eligible. So we talked this over at WT:ACE2008, the consensus (as I read it) is that he's allowed to vote, but his votes just won't be counted. But because he's not adding the right punctuation on his votes, Mervyn Emrys is now being threatened with a block?! I don't blame him for getting angry and frustrated here. He's being yanked all over the place with conflicting information, and has been repeatedly bitten ever since he started. So please, could everyone just chill out? Mervyn Emrys, this is directed to you too, could you please try to take a deep breath, as well? I know that this situation is frustrating, but yelling at admins is not going to help de-escalate this dispute. The best way through this, is for Mervyn to be allowed to post his (polite) comments on the voting pages. If he indents wrong, well, we'll fix it for him. It looks like Mervyn Emrys has an enormous amount of expertise to contribute to the project, and I'd really like to see if we could get past this dispute, and help him learn the ropes here. --Elonka 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I repeat, until the message from ST47 above (a short while ago), NOBODY ever told me I should indent my votes. See comments at UltraExactZZ at WP:ACE2008 under "Eligibility." It says somebody else will indent my votes. It does not say I should do so.

Earlier today I took some pains to edit and shorten the comments at my earlier INVALIDATED votes, and added a few others with shorter comments. I had no plans to add any more before ST47 jumped on me. This is all just too much. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the person encouraging him to vote after it became clear he wasn't eligible should apologise for that advice. Verbal chat 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps your commentary would be more helpful if you read and registered the comments you're responding to. A silly little thing called consensus determined he could vote, but not toward the count. The issue is over punctuation, Verbal. Personally, if he was forced to create another account because an editor outed him and then decided to just go back to this one after the second account was also outed, I think the editor should be able to vote if the two accounts are confirmed as being the same person. لennavecia 20:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Need I say, that I agree with Jennavecia immediately above: "I think the editor should be able to vote if the two accounts are confirmed as being the same person." Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn: Please see User_talk:Lar#Mervyn_Emrys (you can respond here since there is more discussion here). I am a Checkuser and I would be willing to run a check on you to establish that there is an other account (I'd suggest you contact me offline and tell me the name before I run it) and then state that I found another one and that the combined accounts are over the 150 mainspace mark, if in fact they are. I cannot promise that will resolve anything but it may help. On the other hand, if you do not want such a check run, that's fine too. Just let me know your wishes and if I can assist you, I will. Best wishes. (and thanks to Elonka for bringing this to my attention... much appreciated!) ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Followup: I have posted at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#Eligibility_of_Mervyn_Emrys. Please advise of questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your votes have been reinstated following Lar's CheckUser results. --Tznkai (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

It is noted on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [1] [2]" and may be used as a Reliable Source. It is also stated there that a link to an audited financial statement on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source concerning the organizations finances. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's be fair now, this is sources

That was supposed to be "Let's be fair now, this is sourced". Sorry about the delay, I've had some real world things taking up more of my time than usual the last few days. I see your point about concerns about the SPLC's business conduct more properly belonging on the SPLC's page on not on the page of the fellow that runs it. At the same time wouldn't you agree that since this is, as far as I know, his life's work it is worthy of mention. How would you feel about a sentence along the lines of "At times, the SPLC has been criticized for what some perceive as financial impropriety"? In the vein of making the article more concise, and this would be your call, it looks like there is enough material to make a separate article out of the Morris Dees Justice Award. Also, as I look over the article, I'd like to expresse my concerns regarding the sentence "in this respect Dees was apparently successful, because those candidates were rejected by voting members." If Dees came in 16th out of 17 candidates do we really know if he was responsible for those other 3 not getting elected? Did the head of the SPLC really draw votes away from immigration reform activists? - Schrandit (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Dees WAS successful in the election, in a funny way, because in his campaign materials he asked voters NOT to vote for him, and not to vote for the three FAIR candidates either--and that is what voters did. Dees didn't draw votes away for himself, but drove them away to other candidates besides himself. But if that sentence bothers you, you can reword it. Not a biggy for me.

As for fundraising, it is not so much "impropriety" that is criticized (there apparently has been little to criticize) but Dees success at it that bothers some. If there was impropriety, SPLC would have lost their tax-exempt status with the IRS. He was a skilled direct-mail fundraiser before he got into civil rights, and knows how to do it effectively. And remember, the SPLC building was firebombed, certainly a signal success for his enemies, and he had to raise money to build a new one. When he did, that had to have been a major disappointment for his enemies. And Dees has periodically had to raise additional funds for security upgrades. That building probably has better security than the Pentagon, of necessity, of course. There is hardly anything that brings so much criticism as success, expecially in race matters.

Did you see my other message on your talk page? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a damn interesting campaign tactic. The problem is that because we'll never know how many people were swayed to not vote (unless there was a really strange "none of the above" option on that particular ballot) so it has to be wrapped in the language of uncertainty and non-specifics. Do you know of any online sources regarding the number of people that usually vote in a Sierra Club election and how many voted in that one? I'd like to re-work that sentence/section to include that information.

As per the finances, financial impropriety is something of a legal term and as such I should stay away from it. I too read that article and yeah, it would be a falsehood to say the SPLC has embezzled any funds or directly deceived their donors but I feel to be balanced a sentence reflecting the criticism voiced in the Harper's article should be included. The wording doesn't really matter, just the inclusion of the fact that there has been criticism.

Per my talk page - yeah, someone is probably trying to dick with that article and if you want to put off the above mentioned until you've resolved that with the other party that is cool with me. Regarding internal caucuses, I just don't know enough about the Sierra Club or its history to comment one way or another on their notability. - Schrandit (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, unusual campaign tactic, but Dees at least is genuinely interested mostly in civil rights, and was straightforward about it. I agree about the "language of uncertainty." Incidentally, results for all Sierra Club elections since 1998 are given on the linked page I provided for that statement, and there is another statement saying 2004 was the largest turnout ever [3] (or since). You can see some comparisons there.

Let's be clear: I have no objection to including "criticism" provided it is stated in a manner that does not give it more credibility than it deserves. There is a Wiki policy that says criticism--especially in biographies of living persons--should not be given prominence in an article about something else. This suggests that if it is minor criticism or "disapproval" criticism, it can be included but should be played down.

It is somewhat problematical that "balance" has so often been interpreted in Wikipedia to mean if something favorable is said then something unfavorable deserves equal space. Personally, I don't think that is what "balance" means. That seems like an invitation to slander, or at least unfairness, and unfairness is not balance. It opens the door and gives license to persons who are biased on the basis of personal prejudice or ideology. How does one "fairly" criticize Mother Theresa? By saying she was short? Or George Washington, by saying he had wooden teeth? Some people and organizations really are laudable, and others are not. Tearing everybody and everything down equally does not seem balanced to me. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for the layout work on Southern Poverty Law Center. Its much cleaner and no longer a jumbled mess! Thanks for sticking your neck out in a hot topic and helping improve the article! ```` 198.70.210.143 (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

David Easton

Thanks for your feed back, and sorry for the mess. Because two things were not correct here, I assumed the third was incorrect as well. My mistake. I hope you and me can find some time to express Eastons importance in the aricle some more. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lynton K. Caldwell

Thanks for all your work on this article. I've put it through as GA. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:)

It's all good. Schwael (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wengert article

Hi Mervyn Emrys - I've been popping in on the Wengert article. There is one remaining claim that I think should be independently sourced: the sentence that begins "These publications were eclipsed somewhat later in his career when he advanced a seminal theory of the 'politics of getting'..." What would be needed is a citation that supports this being described as a seminal theory and/or one that eclipsed his earlier contributions. DO you think you can come up with something on that? If you can, I would feel this was almost all of the way there for GA and you could re-submit it (if you're game! :-)) If you're ready to have a shot at that, we should get User:Coppertwig to have a look and see what s/he thinks, too. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can come up with a reference after a visit to my library. A day or two perhaps. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Added text and references to article as suggested. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make a separate page: List of scholarly publications by .... This is almost certainly not sustainable. Add the most important of them to the page for the author. Nothing ever gets lost here--at least, almost nothing. I am about to simply add them back from the version in the edit history.--you might want to trim slightly, or divide by category. If you really want a separate page, discuss here first. DGG (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see there is some confusion about this. I think the talk p of the article is a better place to discuss this. Anyway, they're in the edit history once its decided. DGG (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mervyn Emrys. You had asked me a question a few days ago and I don't think I answered yet. The answer is that in my opinion, the reviewer indicated that the only things essential for GA review were the things mentioned in the sentence at the end with the word "decisive" in it. I.e. nothing about details like punctuation, just a couple of content issues. By the way I did go to the library on the weekend and looked for material, but didn't find much. I got a copy of a biography from a database called something like "Academics Online" or something (I don't have it with me right now) which mostly lists a bunch of the positions he held at various times. Plus one sentence mentioning him in a review of a book by someone else. I searched the articles on the New York Times obituary pages for about 9 days after he died and didn't find anything. (I didn't look at the little notices, just the articles.) I've renamed the page to Norman Wengert; his son has a different name so I don't see any good reason to object. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the other stuff is covered by changes I've made and refs I've added for evaluative statements. I think the distinction he made, if any, is more evident to you than it was to me, but I don't want to argue about it. What more needs to be done to the article before it gets renominated? I'm not seeing much. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're done! I just covered in the last few minutes a few of the things that had been listed in the GA review. (Feel free to revert if you don't like how I did it.) Optionally, re "Never shy about poking holes in other people’s balloons": this is not a problem as it stands now, but in my opinion something like this could be expressed in the form of a quote from a source, if you have something good, to add colour to the article. We can't state opinions directly, but we can quote opinions (within reason). I suggest re-nominating. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate all your efforts. I think it far exceeds any reasonable expectations for a Good article. Then, I thought that before.... The balloons phrase was a paraphrase but I saw it so long ago I'm not certain where to find it, and its probably not worth looking for at this point. My concern now is about who may review it. It sat for a couple weeks on the nominations list last time before suddenly disappearing. I'm not looking forward to going through anything like this again if it turns out to be the same reviewer or a buddy who didn't like things I said about the review. Neither you nor hamiltonstone can do it after making so many changes yourselves. So, I hesitate, undecided. Any thoughts? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to go ahead and nominate it again. If it would help you feel better, you might want to wait a few weeks before nominating it just so that you might have gotten your mind off it and started thinking of other things, so that what happens in the review won't seem as important. I don't know whether that would work for you. Probably just nominating it right away is the way to go. I agree that we've done a bunch of stuff that wasn't really required for GA, so I figure we probably should have exceeded the expectations. However, you have to accept that there are no guarantees about what will happen and be ready to accept whatever is the outcome of the review. There may be a noticeboard or wikiproject where it could be appropriate to post a general notice asking people to come and review it; perhaps it would make sense to do that after waiting about a week if nobody has reviewed it by then. At the moment I can't think of what would be a good place for such a notice. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hearing from neither DGG nor Eustress, I moved list of publications back to where it started, and requested the list page be deleted. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well done.

Good concise summary of WP:NPOV – here. Thanks for helping other users learn one of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind that I was looking at your contribs: I was looking for a particular comment, but found this instead. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Random question

I've been assuming your username is an alternate spelling of Mary Stewart's Merlin character, named "Myrddin Emrys". Is this where you got it, or was there another source? Just curious...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's where it comes from. There are many other versions of that name in other sources.

I think you are a little too interested in my identity for your own good, certainly for mine.

You seriously misinterpreted my statements and actions concerning Sturmde, with the result that my attempts to uphold NPOV on the University of Maine page were thwarted, and he now thinks he's a hero, I suppose. Or maybe he just thinks YOU are a hero. I don't know, and don't much care.

I saw his full email address on his user page LONG before he changed it, and had no thoughts about spam when I put it on his talk page, never having been informed of that concern before. I would not have used it if I had been so informed. Yet HE had it posted in public space for FOUR YEARS until he suddenly got concerned about it during our little conversations. Do you suppose somebody else pointed it out to him? I certainly never contacted him off-Wiki using it. And I never searched for some indicator of YOUR identity either.

I still have no idea what most of your cryptic comments were about. They were not any form of communication I ever saw before.

Especially the reference to your rules. I don't know whose rules yours are, but MY rules are Wikipedias rules and always have been. I've learned I'm definitely in the minority trying to uphold them.

Sarek, you have the singular distinction of having driven me out of Wikipedia. I don't edit here anymore because of your actions, and before long, I won't be checking here for messages either. I guess there must be some sort of bloody barnstar for that accomplishment. If there is, it belongs to you.

I've been outed here before, and there were ZERO consequences for those who did it. I thought maybe once was a fluke. I don't think that anymore. People who do try to uphold Wikipedia's rules are definitely at a severe disadvantage with folks like you administering things. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hope that you reconsider leaving. Please take note that I asked for the edit you made without logging in to be oversighted, so it no longer appears in the edit history of the page, even for administrators. I have not posted anywhere on WP concerning the conclusions I drew from that. I did make one snarky comment in email, but it just related to the existence of the IP edit, not what it showed about you. When I emailed you, I had no motives beyond pointing out what that whois query showed, so that you could (if possible) take steps to minimize the exposure.

Since you thought the pothole sundae was too obscure, let's be clearer. I would be happy to buy you a beer (or coffee) should you wind up in my neck of the woods anytime soon, or if I should wind up in your neck of the woods sometime with time to kill.

And I agree it's rather hard to out someone who leaves their email on their userpage for years. :-) (Note that my identity has been clearly stated on my userpage for 5 years now.)

However, claiming to uphold NPOV by removing "flagship" from a single university page on the grounds that it's "not a ship" without doing anything about any other pages making the same claim is disingenuous at best. Sorry.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, please consider refactoring: I suggest avoiding using the word "disingenuous" in this context. Please AGF. To me, "not a ship" is a reasonable explanation for removing "flagship". I don't expect you to necessarily understand or agree with that; but please understand that Mervyn Emrys is not the only one who thinks so. Even if he were the only one, so what? There's nothing wrong with a bold edit where one believes policy is not being followed. The reason "not a ship" is an explanation, in my view, is that a statement that a university "is a flagship" can be seen as being not verifiable because it's not possible to verify that a university is a ship, because obviously it isn't. I realize there are other interpretations of the phrase too. Personally, I think something needs to be changed, because if the flagship university page says that "flagship" means "leading university", which appears to me to be vague and subjective, then I don't think under NPOV the individual university pages can just state without qualification that they are flagship universities. The reason for changing it on only one page, presumably, was that he happened to be looking at that page and noticed what he saw as an error.

Mervyn Emrys, I really hope you'll decide to stay and continue editing here. I think it might be a good idea (if you're interested in pursuing it) to have a centralized discussion about how to use the word "flagship" in multiple university pages. But we have to accept that sometimes the general community consensus doesn't agree with our own interpretation of policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

One might note that in multiple edit comments hereand here and here I endorsed WP:NPOV and made constructive suggestions about how the "flagship" reference could be retained in an acceptable manner by prose-attribution, as User:Coppertwig did on at least one occasion on the Talk:University of Maine page (12:06 23 March 2009). On that occasion I expressed agreement with her suggestion.

It is not my responsibility to police every university page in Wikipedia and suggest this change before I do so on the page in question. Every change that affects more than one article must start somewhere. And if one took the time to investigate, one would find I made substantial improvements in the articles about ALL SEVEN state universities in the University of Maine System in that same period. My edits and comments were made there because that is where I was at the time.

I do, however, believe it is the responsibility of every admin to uphold Wikipedia policies, including those concerning harassment and respect for privacy, both on and off-Wiki. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria

Neutral Point of View (from WP:NPOV) for reference to above discussion

The following four paragraphs quote from WP:NPOV. The first sentence of the article University of Maine does not conform to this standard.

"The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides."

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources. [The second statement is appropriate for Wikipedia]."

"Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutral statement by attributing or substantiating it. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

"Where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."

The preceding material is presented here for any who may have overlooked its significance in the current discussion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about policy. I agree with you. I posted a comment at Talk:Flagship university. I'm going on wikibreak in a few hours, until Thursday. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help on Tanton-related articles

Hi Mervyn, I applaud your work on making Wikipedia more factual. I have no real working knowledge of Wikipedia so I hope you could keep an eye on Center for Immigration Studies, Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, John Tanton and Southern Poverty Law Center entries. Diversity of citations is seriously lacking, especially on the first three, and I don't have anywhere near the wikiprowess to get them where they need to be. If you need articles or reports about any of these sources, will be glad to help out. --TheSilverRiver (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING

An IP from the UMaine Physics Department posted on Talk:University of Maine claiming that you had a particular basis for your opinion on the flagship discussion. Whether what he posted was accurate or not, it's a violation of WP:OUTING, and I have deleted those revisions and informed the user that further attempts at WP:OUTING would result in a block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:University of Maine. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)