User talk:Coppertwig

Haselzweig im Schnee (Hazel twig in snow)

☺

Welcome to my talk page. Messages that are welcome here:

• politely-worded criticisms of my behaviour
• calmly-expressed differences of opinion
• questions about how to edit Wikipedia
• just saying hello or whatever
• etc.; I like getting that "you have new messages" banner.
• I hope my friends will tell me when they disagree with me or think I'm doing something wrong.

One way to leave a message here is to click on the "+" tab at the top of this page. Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.; feel free to let me know which you'd prefer.

Thank you

For this edit. I apologize for catagorizing you as a pro circumcision editor. You stood up to Jake and Avi with clear logic and listened to others concerns with an opened mind. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary. I accept your apology. In general, I prefer not to be categorized. I believe that each individual has their own unique set of beliefs that are not easily summarized in a single phrase. In general on Wikipedia, I try to base my edits and talk page discussion not on my personal beliefs (which I haven't stated!) but on reliable sources and policies and guidelines, as well as trying to find compromises.

You can help. I think a similar edit needs to be done in the body of the article, (perhaps a full sentence, based on that source or some other source) and perhaps the wikilink moved to the body of the article (i.e. "female circumcision" could appear without a wikilink in the lead since it's near the hatnote, and with a wikilink later in the article.) Perhaps you can find time to do that if I don't. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Would you mind taking another look at this edit? I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think that both refs support both claims in that sentence... Thanks, Jakew (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. No strong feelings either way. I've self-reverted. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Jakew (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Search multiple prefix template

Coppertwig, I finally got around to finishing this template, the one we discussed a while ago here question about parsing in a template and here User_talk:Coppertwig#Extension:VariablesExtension. It is not the most eloquent solution, but the wikipedia templating language is not exactly the most sophisticated language either. Which is by choice, I was surprised to find out. But, I wanted to show you what I came up with. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to comment.

• Here is an example searching all the deletion discussions (I think.. there are a lot of areas) User:Stmrlbs/SearchDeletionDiscussions

Search All Deletion Discussions with instructions (strikeout/fix stmrlbs|talk 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC))

• Here is the template User:Stmrlbs/Template/Search_prefixes

stmrlbs|talk 04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I realize you are on a wikibreak, but I thought I would let you know that I moved this to the wikipedia public template area:

Template:Search_prefixes. Hope to see you here again. stmrlbs|talk 21:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding parameters to templates

Hi,

I have an idea to improve a template, but have no idea where to start, to implement it.

{{NYCS-bull-small}} produces small bullets for New York City Subway services, for example Template:NYCS-bull-small. It is used on the rolling stock page to identify which trains operate on which services. Someone recently improved it with the capability to link to the service page.

Here's where the problem comes in. The Template:NYCS-bull-small bullet links to a disambiguation page listing all former and current shuttles. I kludged the output of the rolling stock page for the three current shuttle services. It looks silly, and I'd like to streamline the appearance.

How do I modify the template to accept the parameters of "42nd Street", "Franklin Avenue" and "Rockaway Park" to produce an Template:NYCS-bull-small bullet with the proper link to those shuttle's service page?

Acps110 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Acps110. I'm sorry I didn't tell you I was going to be away for a number of weeks. I'm back, though not spending as much time here as before, and perhaps only on weekends.

I fixed the template as you suggested. Good idea!

I don't quite understand how the if statements work. Something about having to distinguish between the null string, "false", zero or some other kind of empty result. Anyway, as I understand it, {{{2|x}}} means use parameter 2 or if it doesn't exist, use "x". {{{2|}}} means use parameter 2 or if it doesn't exist, use the null string. But for some reason which I forget, you then also have to use an if statement, which will take the null string as a false condition. Anyway, that's the pattern I use, an if statement with {{{2|}}} as the condition to test whether the user has specified a second parameter when calling it, and it works. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

COOL! Looks Great!

Thank you for the explanation on how you implemented that! My request was not intended to be earth-shattering; thank you for getting to it when you had time. I'll update the documentation to include the new feature. Acps110 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to try to remember to update the documentation.

Actually, I was quite pleased to see several messages waiting for me when I got back from my wikibreak. I like getting messages. I'm glad you like it! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Maintained tag

Hey Copper, hope life is well. Just a quick note that I added you to a maintained tag on the Che article as you and I are usually the first to respond. If you would rather me remove you, just let me know. As an aside, I miss running into you around the Wiki world :o) - hope you're not to busy.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 03:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, although, as I said above, I don't expect to be spending as much time here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

First Roumanian-American congregation

Thanks, and thanks for all your help with it. Nice to see you editing again! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

DIA EMAIL POSTED

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/

Sorry, I don't see such an email at that link. I see "New Energy Times Blog" and "Krivit and Marwan Report Published", etc. Is it somewhere on that page? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig, hope you don't mind me commenting. It was taken down. I emailed a copy to you, so that hopefully you can better see how much of a review process this document has gone through.

P.S. Think about it. If cold fusion had any remote possibility of working, would the DIA be releasing this publicly, so that foreign governments could read it and start putting serious money into clandestine energy weapons research? For real? It's laughable. Phil153 (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy of the email, Phil123, which I hadn't previously seen, but which has been superseded by later developments. The document from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency has been officially released as an unclassified document and is published on both the lenr-canr and New Energy Times websites. I don't care to speculate as to their reasons for releasing it, but it's a report which, as far as I can tell, summarizes information which was already publicly available (and thus makes an excellent secondary source for Wikipedia to cite). The report came out of a collaborative effort involving consultations with technology experts as well as researchers in the field, and was "Coordinated with DIA/DRI, CPT, DWO, DOE/IN, US Navy SPAWAR/Pacific and U.S. NSWC/Dahlgren, VA."

By the way, the report points out that other countries are already doing more cold fusion research than the U.S., so I'm not sure your argument holds up.

Of course I don't mind you commenting. I like getting talk page messages. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the field intimiately, but I think the more accurate statement is "other countries and companies have done more cold fusion research than the US, and found cold fusion useless." Most of this occurred in the 90s, and much of the funding has been discontinued. The dates are right there in this report.

There are no new authors here, it's the same fringe walled garden. Example: Mosier-Boss; McKubre, etc. To give you an idea of their credibility...McKubre supports and cites the work of Dardik (if you don't know who Dardik is, have a read of this). This is par for the course...even the originator of cold fusion, Fleischmann, is getting treated by Dardik. The brightest luminaries in cold fusion believe in, or at least use and support, makers of AIDS/cancer/panacea-cold fusion wave cures. Think about what that implies regarding gullibility, critical thinking skills, ability to detect fraud, and general carefulness.

Anyway, I'm ranting and I apologise. This is not an argument against exclusion, just an FYI. Have a nice day. Phil153 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by ad-hominem arguments. It's not up to us to judge the character of authors, but to report what appears in reliable published sources. Also, maybe it's just my lack of familiarity with the field, but I don't remember having seen the name Barnhart as an author of cold fusion publications before. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote were not arguments against inclusion, despite what Abd (erroneously) believes. This is your talk page, not talk:cold fusion. I was merely trying to engage you; your unwavering support of Abd and sympathy toward cold fusion is curious to me; despite being fringe friendly you are not like other CF proponents, and I was curious as to why you believe as you do. Anyway, your replies makes it clear that you are not interested in being open about that. That's fine...I apologise for taking your time...all the best! Phil153 (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy discussion and argument. If I've said something you disagree with, I'd be happy to discuss it. When you say "why you believe as you do," I don't know what beliefs you're talking about. I try to edit according to reliable published sources, not according to personal beliefs (which I generally don't discuss on-wiki), and people often jump to false conclusions about what my personal beliefs (if any) on a topic might be. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate

I appreciate your follow-up on my talk page. All the best to you as well. Debresser (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil notice

I think you "seem to suggest" is civil. The current presentation has strong bias. I addressed Jake's criticism directly with him, with his own prompting discussion text.

HIV belongs in the text, but not in the lead. It is not a significant healtlh issue basically unless you live in Africa.

No dates should be used (as is standard in the body), or all the association dates are needed (cite not just the AMA 1999 but most associations with their respective dates) along with the WHO/UNAIDS and CDC dates.

I will find religious advocacy statements. You don't understand, or disagree, that medical issues are over emphasized in the circumcision article?Zinbarg (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've replied on your talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So much to address. You're right about being more civil. Is my last proposed paragraph OK? It leaves the HIV benefit info in the lead. If you and/or Jake insist on dates for the WHO/UNAIDS and CDC publications, I'd like to put in the several association statements and their dates (mostly post gold standard HIV/circ studies) that each say do not recommend.Zinbarg (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete it?

I would like to remove the "medical propaganda" discussion I started. First, I looked more carefully, and it's nothing near 2/3 of the text. The whole text loads slowly because it's so full of stuff that's not actually readable. I do think it's wrong to seek medical justification for something sacred. What set me off is it sometimes makes the text unprofessional and dated. The medical camp is a relatively tiny fringe group with generally weak research. But, there are more important things for me to do. Can I delete the section from discussion?Zinbarg (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stephan Schulz

AfDM| page=Stephan Schulz|logdate=2009 December 10

I thought you might be interested in this vote. Vanity Pages for Admins really have no place on Wikipedia and it is high time to clear this detritus. ~ Rameses (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The above message appears to me to violate the WP:CANVASS guideline, especially the last sentence. I see from your userpage that you've apparently been blocked as a sockpuppet. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship

The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. --Tenmei (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, please allow me to share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I predict that you will find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, and more than you anticipate in the long term. --Tenmei (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod placed on Yes/old version

As technically redirects aren't applicable to the WP:PROD process, I deprodded this one... and sent it straight to RfD here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV section

(The discussion below appears to refer to the section User:Coppertwig#Neutral point of view.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Good quotes in the NPOV section of your user page. I agree completely that minority / fringe POVs should be represented as such, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated. Depth perception.. good analogy. For any controversial subject, I think the public is interested both mainstream and non-mainstream opinion, and the reasons behind the difference of opinion. stmrlbs|talk 04:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!

As I see it, "fringe" means a gray area, not an all-or-nothing categorization defined by Wikipedians to justify deletion of material that doesn't fit Wikipedians' concept of The Truth. An argument to delete some material as a "tiny-minority" POV should establish that the shortest reasonably feasible mention of the material in a particular article, in comparison to the overall size of the article, would give it undue weight in consideration of the proportion of its mention in reliable sources. Such arguments will vary from article to article, as some articles have room for more detailed examination of a subtopic than others. When I read an article, I like to see more than one POV presented, with enough information on the rationales for the POVs for me to begin to form my own opinion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You both make excellent points. Keep up the good work, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Coppertwig. I've often thought (after seeing some arguments go on forever) that perhaps there should be some kind of "standard format" for controversy on any topic - a section for "Mainstream Opinion" (with this title) and a section for "Minority Opinion" with subsections, what weight the minority opinion has (if this can be verified - and I realize this in itself is a battle ground) and references for both sides of the fence. Fringe implies something on the borders of the "main" body, but it also implies that fringe is a small percentage of the whole. That is not always true for "minority" opinion, and sometimes the minority weight grows with new information (or the release of previously suppressed information, as in the case of tobacco). You can see this in history that many times that Mainstream opinion is something fluid that is greatly influenced by current culture, economics, and media. Look at the history of smoking and lung cancer - a battle over 50 years between science and economics and national priorities - and not much to do with "truth". Eugenics was "mainstream" in the early 1900s, and the U.S. created a Eugenics office in 1910, headed by Dr. Harry Laughlin who was instrumental in setting racial standards for immigrants, and sterilation of "defectives"[1] - all supported by the science of that time. Even though I think Wikipedia should represent the current view - what is current mainstream and majority opinion, it should always strive to present the background and references for all points of view. stmrlbs|talk 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles are not supposed to be written from the POV of the majority mainstream opinion—they're supposed to be written from NPOV, which coincides with majority mainstream opinion only when there are no significant minority POVs in reliable sources. Having a standard format wouldn't help that much, because minority opinions range everywhere from tiny-minority opinions that don't fit into an article at all, to minority opinions that are supported by almost as many reliable sources as the majority opinion. Also, rather than having a mainstream section and then a criticism or alternative section, it's better to have a single section (or sections divided by logical subtopics) and present all POVs that are relevant when discussing any subtopic, sometimes even within the same sentence. That way if someone only reads part of an article, they don't get a biassed view; and we don't have endless arguments about which POV should come first. But yes: POVs are fluid, and what was fringe in the past could be mainstream in the future. They usually don't change suddenly. So the articles need to be able to change gradually, too. If a POV gets a tiny bit more support in RS than it did in the past, we shouldn't have to suddenly declare that it's no longer fringe and give it a big section where previously it was totally kept out of an article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Coppertwig. Perhaps we could have a whole new force of "RS weight patrollers". When an RS changed weight, a bot would pop up related articles, and stated weights would be changed. ;) Seriously, I have no problem with your method of presentation either. I just disagree with the attitude that I see sometimes with this type of presentation that mainstream opinion does not need to be cited or referenced as mainstream, because it is "the truth" and has been "proven". I think it always adds to an article to state the source of the opinion - or forgone conclusion. I think that presenting the many sides of so many topics is what makes wikipedia unique as a source and what attracts many people. stmrlbs|talk 22:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's NPOV that makes Wikipedia so great. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I responded to you on my talk page. Have a happy and healthy New Year. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Chabad on Wikipedia arbitration request

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Using court records

You wrote this: "if the only information we had about an author was in court documents, we might use those to help decide whether the author was a reliable source (without using the court documents themselves as a citation in the article)." on the RPOV noticeboard. can you explain how one might do what you propose? This could be really helpful to me. Thanks.

BTW: You need to remember that the AMA, et al was convicted in Federal Court in Wilk v. American Medical Association of a conspiracy to destroy Chiropractic. Since they continue to use Barrett's vituperation against Chiropractic in their journals, while, it would seem, from Court records supporting him financially, doesn't that call THEIR RPOV into qestion???. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I just meant by making an argument on the talk page of an article about whether someone is an expert or not. As I explained in my post, that can't be done in the situation mentioned, since there are more reliable sources than court documents available.

Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to present all sides of a controversy, not exclude one side as unreliable on the grounds that their position can be allegedly proven false. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good point Coppertwig. I have also replied to Drsjpdc on the RSN talk page. His misunderstanding of the ramifications of Judge Getzendanner's decision is explained there. The AMA was convicted for restraint of trade, not conspiracy, as he mistakenly states above. Criticism of chiropractic is still allowed and justified. Note that his references to the court documents involving Barrett are just parrotings of the libelous conspiracy theories of an editor who has been indef banned by the ArbCom. That banned editor has reported his own twisted and self-serving version of those documents. Why? Because he was arch quack Hulda Clark's spin doctor until her death, and Barrett had exposed her quackery. Drsjpdc is favoring him over Barrett who exposed her quackery. Very odd behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

from JAMA:

The court conducted a lengthy trial of this case in May and June of 1987 and on August 27,1987, issued a 101 page opinion finding that the American Medical Association ("AMA") and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws. Thereafter an opinion dated September 25, 1987 was substituted for the August 27,1987 opinion. The question now before the court is the form of injunctive relief that the court will order.

And here is the full statement. stmrlbs|talk 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article, where you can also find links to the full case: Wilk v. American Medical Association

A complete reading of the case is very educational. There are many statements in it which chiropractors routinely fail to mention, likely because they have never read the whole thing, or wish to ignore what they consider to be unjust or untrue statements made about chiropractic by the judge.

There is no question that the AMA engaged in a (legitimate and justified) conspiracy, but they broke the law when they engaged in an illegal boycott, for which they were properly punished. They should have tried educating the public, which is what skeptics do now using books, websites, journals, and interviews. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The AMA also lost on the patient care defense :

The court concluded that the AMA had a genuine concern for scientific methods in patient care, and that this concern was the dominant factor in motivating the AMA's conduct. However, the AMA failed to establish that throughout the entire period of the boycott, from 1966 to 1980, this concern was objectively reasonable. The court reached that conclusion on the basis of extensive testimony from both witnesses for the plaintiffs and the AMA that some forms of chiropractic treatment are effective and the fact that the AMA recognized that chiropractic began to change in the early 1970s. Since the boycott was not formally over until Principle 3 was eliminated in 1980, the court found that the AMA was unable to establish that during the entire period of the conspiracy its position was objectively reasonable. Finally, the court ruled that the AMA's concern for scientific method in patient care could have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition and that a nationwide conspiracy to eliminate a licensed profession was not justified by the concern for scientific method. On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the AMA had failed to establish the patient care defense.

But looking at the boycott itself, imo, the AMA trying to prevent medical doctors from teaching at chiropractic colleges, and preventing any joint research between doctors and chiropractors, and not allowing chiropractors access to hospital diagnostic services seemed to be more about stopping competition and communication, than preventing unscientific practices. stmrlbs|talk 08:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True enough. It was a mixed bag of competition, politics, scientific concerns, consumer protection, etc.. The AMA certainly isn't any more of an altruistic organization than the ACA. They're both political machines. The judge made it clear that the AMA went too far, indicating that its motives weren't completely pure. I don't think anyone can deny that. The position of the AMA cannot be understood without looking at the long history of opposition and enmity between the two professions, right from the beginning. At the time when the lawsuit was started, there was significant cause for concern, since there was little reform at the time. (Keep in mind that Homola was still banned from the profession until about 1993.) Those concerns are still legitimate, but to a lesser degree. Some reform efforts are succeeding in some schools, but unfortunately there are still some schools that are churning out subluxationist chiros right now. Chiropractic history is fascinating! If you want something really interesting to study, study the history of why the legal definition of chiropractic and the Medicare laws are all based on "correction of vertebral subluxations". There was some interesting trickery that occurred at that time. Barrett knew the parties who were involved and he tells the story here. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Drsjpdc asked a question about how to apply policy, and comments relating directly to that question are welcome. Although I'm usually very happy to receive a variety of types of messages here, my talk page is not an appropriate forum for general comments about chiropractic nor to argue one side or the other of the controversy mentioned in Drsjpdc's question. BullRangifer, note that my talk page is also not an appropriate forum for comments about the behaviour of editors other than myself. Banning of an editor doesn't imply banning of expression of ideas by other editors. Criticism of an editor, if it occurs at all, should be in an appropriate forum such as the user's talk page or other WP:DR fora, should be expressed as civilly as possible, involve objective criticisms related to policies or guidelines or the purpose of Wikipedia, and should be accompanied by evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Coppertwig. stmrlbs|talk 17:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Stmrlbs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry about that. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, BullRangifer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Coppertwig: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your note with reference to comments on Talk:New_Chronology_(Rohl)

Thanks Coppertwig. I intended no offence and have added a further statement to clarify my intention. I was simply shocked to find an admin engaging in such a degree of incivility. May I say that the readiness of anyone to interpret my comments as antagonistic is indicative of how over-heated the entire discussion has become. Oh and thanks for the welcome but I have been a member here since 2005, although I usually don't log in to contribute. :) All the best. Nigedo (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nigedo. Note that people tend to see comments directed at themselves as more uncivil than others see them, and to see comments written by themselves as more civil than others see them. We have to compensate for this effect. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with a user who maintains a user page attacking me?

Can you help out with this?

User:Tom Butler#A perfect quote.

It refers directly to me and I would like it taken down. Tom Butler does not like me, and so I'd like to get an outside, uninvolved user to advocate for its removal. Would you be willing?

Thanks,

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I might or might not be able to help. One problem is I'm not here as often these days.

Could you explain it a bit? (Use email if you prefer.) I see your name in a section heading mentioned in something like a link. I see a diff, but the diff seems irrelevant: it doesn't seem to lead to the quote. It's not clear to me whether Kww is the one making the comment or the one being commented about. Do you mean the part introduced with the word "comment"? Is that about you? Sorry to be slow.

Users should not have negative comments about other users in their userspace. See Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? point 10: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. ... Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova has agreed to help in this regard. Thanks for looking into it. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's been resolved to your satisfaction. (I wasn't clear which passage of text you were concerned about.) If not, you can let me know (being more specific about the text) and I may still be able to help. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Al-Durrah

Thanks for your note about this. The feedback is much appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point I'll find time to look at it in more detail. I see you've put a lot of work into it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 04:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Butler

I'm well aware of Tom Butler's user page. He doesn't quote me out of context, and he is as entitled to believe that I represent what is wrong with Wikipedia as I am to believe that he represents a fatal flaw in the system. He never did seem to get the point of what I was saying, which is a bit sad.—Kww(talk) 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider the possibility that Tom Butler understands your point but disagrees. If I remember right, your point was that some POVs have inherent validity, such as sides of a nationalistic dispute, even if one doesn't agree with them, but that other POVs such as that homeopathy really works lack such inherent validity according to you. I think there's no practically useful way of objectively defining such "inherent validity". Possibly you mean that nobody actually believes that homeopathy works, but that people only pretend to believe it. Whether anyone believes in a POV or not would be one way of objectively defining "inherent validity", but trying to use such a definition in practice would present intractable problems of evidence, straying from AGF and heated disputes. I think the best approach anyone has found so far is simply to apply the NPOV policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's part of it, and the one that I expect that he understands but disagrees with. The other point (and the one that I suspect that he doesn't grasp), is that using our real names, as he and I both do, doesn't let us use WP:NPA to defend our off-wiki actions. If I published a website, people would be free to discuss my qualifications to do so, whether I had ill-intent, and perhaps state that I was a fool or a charlatan. So long as they were doing so in the same way as they would discuss the authorship of any website, User:Kww hasn't got the right to complain that they have violated WP:NPA when they went after Kevin Wayne Williams. Similarly, SA can make any statement he wants about Tom Butler the website creator and his ability to make reliable statements about EVP, and Tom Butler the Wikipedia editor hasn't got grounds for complaint.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the context, but here's my opinion. If someone posts a website or publishes something, they can expect to be commented about, in general. On Wikipedia in particular, if there is a discussion about whether to use a website as a reference, then comments about the credibility of the author etc. are relevant and normal, within the constraints of BLP and other policies. That doesn't give a blanket freedom to comment about a person in any way one wants or in any context one wants to on Wikipedia. Civility and BLP still apply. Comments can be made which pertain to credibility, if relevant to the particular discussion (re using the website as a reference), if it's necessary to make the comments in order to make a relevant point, and if the comments are expressed in a reasonably civil manner (I would tend to lean towards "as civil as possible while still making the point"). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

testing templates

Thought you might be interested, as per previous discussions about templates. bugzilla:22135 stmrlbs|talk 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI report you may be interested in

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tom_Butler.27s_maintenance_of_an_attack_page_against_me.

Thanks for your help.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this seems to have been resolved. (link) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss or keep the Chabad editors case

Hi Coppertwig: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rfc - Blood Libel / Israel's Brutality

You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Nice to see you editing again. Jakew (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Jake. Nice to be noticed. Naturally, I expect you to check all my edits thoroughly for errors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Durrah

Hi CT, I've replied to you here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gardner's relation

Hello. Maybe you'd know how best to remedy the current orphaned status of Gardner's relation. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mike. I managed to add links from three other articles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing advice

Coppertwig -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.

With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:

A. I intended to ask for comments here about the use of formatting as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

B. Also, I wanted to invite PMDrive1061 to consider posting a comment at the active ArbCom thread.

Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.

Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?

Thank you for your helpful postings here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough.

The re-thinking rationale is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?

Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way. --Tenmei (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your "2nd try" is much better. It's shorter and clearer. It takes much less time to read and is less puzzling.

"Less is more" means "less is better". It really is, most of the time at least. You want to impart a complex set of interconnected ideas, but that is just not possible: after reading one of your messages, short or long, the reader will not have memorized or internalized all those concepts, but will remember only a brief summary. If your message is brief, the reader will remember an accurate representation of it. If your message is long, the reader will fail to see connections, possibly due to having forgotten the first part by the time they come to the end, and will form and remember an inaccurate summary which focusses on a minor detail or completely misunderstands your purpose. Also, long messages take up the reader's time.

I suggest you avoid complex formatting: it only adds to the complexity and puzzlement. Instead, use short messages and simple formatting such as ordinary paragraphs or bullet points and perhaps bold text for main points (but avoid bold text if it might be construed as aggressive). Saying "NO" comes across as aggressive: avoid capital letters or bold text etc. for that reason, and choose different words e.g. "I disagree", which comes across as softer. Avoid quoting if possible, which adds to complexity and length of your messages; instead, use diffs. I suggest quoting passages only if short (usually at most a sentence) and only if you're saying something about the passage in the same or following sentence of your message, (e.g. "I disagree with ...") and even then just a diff may often be better.

I suggest it's best if you don't answer the arbitrators' questions about how the mentoring will work; I think it's the proposed mentors who are supposed to answer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I plan to add nothing more to the currently open ArbCom thread. --Tenmei (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Another parser function problem

Hi,

I've got an unintended consequence problem here. Someone recently showed me Special:ExpandTemplates; I was playing around with it the other day.

If I put in {{NYCS Franklin-Botanic}}, I get the expected output of 2, ​3, ​4, ​5​, and S, with the proper link the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. However, if I put in {{NYCS Franklin-Botanic|time=bullets}}, the output is ​​​​ with the S bullet linking to the S services dab page. I think the problem stems from the implementation of the bullets in {{NYCS time 2}}.

Help! I can't make heads or tails of that page and where to insert your solution from {{NYCS-bull-small}}. Thanks, Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, if your solution from {{NYCS-bull-small}} is appropriate. Perhaps, the bullets should pull the correct link from the {{NYCS Franklin}} template. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, Tinlinkin fixed it after I wrote you this message. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad a solution was found. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

To take so long to reply to your question in circ discussion. I'd been on vacation.Zinbarg (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The tag poll

The poll tally favored keeping one of the three tags Coppertwitg. And it was there for a long time. The problems leading to that decision have not been fixed. I've revisited some issues recently. You know the tag rules; three known, discussed but not fixed issues of bias in content or presentation ie POV. I've detailed, discussed and tried to fix. Reverted by Jakew with often silly spurious comment.

As for the current discussion conclusion, please see this cut and paste:

• "Reading the lead with and without the reference to HIV I think the level of inclusion when mentioned gives the issue undue weight. This seems to underpin the discussions below about the sources. My feeling is that the relation to HIV prevention should be mentioned but in a softer form with the evidence being elaborated on in the text - having 1 full paragraph of 4 on what is really only section 6.4.1 is too much. I will think about better wording to see if you agree. |→ Spaully τ 23:10, 14 April 2010 (GMT)

Spaully has yet to present that repair suggestion.

I suggest you study the nature of introductions and reconsider HIV having it's own exagerated references ending lead paragraph! Silly POV.

As for comments about Jakew. He has treated me with disrespect. He has been a Wikipedia:Troll#Misuse_of_process. He is obsessed, judging from his Wiki contributions and literally constant presence in Circumcision. I found some very scary stuff about that guy in discussion history. One guy found strong evidence that he's a circumfetishist:

• "Jake, your name search returns 4,600 pages on Google. Seems you've been trolling parenting & children's web sites, newsgroups, etc. for a few years--becoming quite a well known circumfetishist. I'm not one bit fooled by this hypocritical charade; attempting to hide behind a masque of false neutrality. You're clearly using Wikipedia to further your own personal agenda. Your actions on Wikipedia confirm your bias. --[[User:Brian Hamilton|MrEguy].

But highlighting Jakew is fruitless. I need your help to make Circumcision neutral.Zinbarg (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)