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.

Watchlist my Notices page

Users may wish to put my page User:Coppertwig/Notices on their watchlist. I plan to post notices there occasionally about my activities and about things that may be of interest to Wikipedians. I plan to try to edit it much less often than my talk page gets edited, so that it will be convenient for people to have it on their watchlists. I've just posted the first version of the page, with descriptions of things I've recently been involved in or plan to get involved in, from RfC to MfD. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on adminship at Simple!

Yep, muon-catalyzed fusion is real, though as always low energy depends on context. Next up - tauon catalyzed fusion - even better at lowering the Coulomb barrier if we could just get the tau leptons to stick around. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

<chuckle> Thanks, and thanks for showing that you've read my Notices page! I was wondering whether anybody had Noticed it yet! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

New project

Hi. :) Given the work you've done on copyrights, especially at SCV, I wanted to let you know that I am launching a new copyright cleanup project (went through the proposal process at the council). It's located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Of course, I'd love to recruit members from people with whom I've collaborated on copyright issues before. Please consider joining if you'd like to help out, even occasionally. But more urgently, I'm hoping to get feedback on the project page. I'm trying to be clear and comprehensive, but I know very well that I often write much too long. If you have time to take a look and happen to see anywhere that I've gone astray, please let me know. Thanks for any input you can offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look! I've added it to my watchlist and plan to participate! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I was, of course, hoping you would, as I know you'll be a valuable participant! I really hope it works out, as I believe it's very necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm always delighted to get messages from you, and look forward to getting involved with the project. (Along with the numerous other things I'm involved in.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you're busy. :) I see you occasionally at various points of Wikipedia, but I was still kind of hoping you'd have time. :) Whatever you can offer would be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll see! I just signed up for potentially another major project here, too! g2g for now! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

←Nicely done! Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! Feel free to partially revert or further modify, as almost all the changes are minor and there are few of them I would feel strongly about. You've done a very good job writing the page! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It all looked good to me. :) You've said it more succinctly, and I appreciate that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Slightly. I tend to write lengthily too. That's one reason we get along. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Phimosis

Is the "some authors use the terms" really needed? It seems a bit redundant to me. Especially in the lead. If it has to be included, maybe it should go in the main article. Also "recommends" is a bit too tame. They are quite forceful about it (because it is damaging (creates scar tissue) and painful.) With "recommends" it makes it seem like the AAP are offering parents a choice. It is not just the AAP who state that it should not be forced back either. It is the majority view that it should not be forced back. There are other sources which say this. Tremello22 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for your note. It's a bit exasperating; I'm astonished he doesn't recognize that material has to actually reflect the sources, rather than his opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just a difference of opinion in how far you can go in paraphrasing/interpreting/summarizing. At one extreme, we could say that you can only quote the precise wording of the source. We don't usually go that far. At the other extreme, one reads something, gets the impression that it means something, and writes something that one feels has that meaning. (Here I begin to digress.) That was apparently what was done for example at psychokinesis when it said "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist...", which was not stated anywhere in the given source. (Talk:Psychokinesis/Archive 6#Scientists contend) If you read the source, you got a distinct impression that the source was generally dismissive of psychokinesis, but it was very hard to pin it down: you couldn't take any one quote that would support that idea well. To state that the source was dismissive of psychokinesis would be to report the evaluation or interpretation of a Wikipedian, which we don't do.

That article now says "There is no convincing scientific evidence that psychokinesis exists," a statement I'm reasonably satisfied with. As a scientist I was offended by the "scientists contend" statement since I feel that scientists don't usually make definitive statements like that, as scientists, about things that can't be proven; if it had been shown that a significant number of scientists did support such a statement, fine, but that was not demonstrated. A source is quoted in a footnote as saying "[M]ost scientists, both psychologists and physicists, agree that it has yet to be convincingly demonstrated." This sounds like a very reasonable statement. As a scientist I care about the difference between that statement, and "Scientists contend that psychokinesis does not really exist": they are not the same thing, and the latter statement has not (yet) been shown to be verifiable: likely because other scientists see the same distinction and don't tend to make such a statement in their professional capacity. You have to be careful about things like this to get your math right and to be able to do things like figure out a solution to the EPR paradox, as John Stewart Bell did. (end digression.)

Those who tend to stray further afield when paraphrasing than is accepted by most Wikipedians need to adjust their practice to conform to WP:CONSENSUS and compromise and to become more encyclopedic and precise. I made this adjustment myself during my time at Wikipedia: it's necessary in order to arrive at consensus with editors who have different POVs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good points. And thanks for your note about the FAC, and your thorough proof-read of it, they were much appreciated! Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! It's a very nice article! For some odd reason I enjoy proofreading; could be part of why I'm a Wikipedian! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tremello22

Hi Coppertwig. Re this note to Tremello22's talk, I just wanted to be sure that you were aware that Tremello is now User:Outliner09. Jakew (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I'm one minute ahead of you! [1] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn! I shall have to slink away in shame now. Jakew (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you make it very difficult for anyone trying to criticize you. We have to take our opportunities to be the one who's right, when we can. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Coppertwig. 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.

I have asked a question at the help desk but no help was given

At User talk:Moonriddengirl, you said "Feel free to ask me if you ever have questions about how Wikipedia works, etc.", therefore, I am asking a question here since I didn't get any help at the help desk. My question is at: Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages#All namespaces. -- IRP ☎ 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know about Special:LongPages. Come to think of it, I really ought to archive my talk page.

There are a couple of possible reasons why you didn't get an answer. One possible reason is that maybe there is no way to get such a list. In that case, most people probably thought "well, I don't know of a way, but someone else might", so they didn't answer. Another possible reason is that people had to follow a link to get to your question. Stating the question as clearly as possible may also help. Is Special:LongPages only mainspace pages? How do you know that? How do you know that the userpage you mentioned was purposely, as opposed to accidentally, made long in order to crash browsers? I would phrase the question something like this: "Is there any way to get a list of the longest pages in all namespaces, the way Special:LongPages does for mainspace? It would make it easier to find vandalism such as User:Shaun F/bla, which was a very long page that was made to crash browsers." I suggest waiting until your question is archived from the Help Desk page, then posting your question to WP:Village Pump (technical), putting the actual question on the Village Pump page so people don't have to follow a link. If you want to make sure discussion takes place in only one place, you can put a note at Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages with a link to the Village Pump discussion, although since the latter page is rarely edited I'm not sure that's necessary. If you do get an answer it would be good to put the answer, or a link to it, at Wikipedia talk:Special:LongPages for the benefit of others. If nobody gives you an answer at Village Pump (technical), you could either give up (figuring there probably is no such way), or if you think it's worthwhile, try to get someone to write a bot or program (perhaps using a dump of Wikipedia) or something to do it, or put in a request at Wikipedia:Bugzilla for the feature to be added. If you put in a Bugzilla request, if you're not experienced at filing bug reports it's probably a good idea to get help first from the people at Village Pump (technical), or from some random computer geek, or possibly from me though I'm kindof a beginner at it, on how to word the Bugzilla request. Thanks for helping Wikipedia by checking into this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. -- IRP ☎ 22:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.

(edit conflict; replying to deleted message re AES arrow) I had to follow the links to figure out what you meant, but that sounds like a good idea. However, I'm not an administrator, and anyway making that sort of change would require consensus. I suggest you discuss it with other editors at MediaWiki talk:Revertpage, and if you get consensus, then use an {{editprotected}} template to request that an administrator do it. I suggest that if you suggest it on that talk page and no one replies for about 3 days, then in my opinion it would then be reasonable to request it with the editprotected template. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Saltwater intrusion

It's been a while since you first created the Saltwater intrusion. It's an important article that fits into Peak water. You have probably learned a lot about Wikipedia since you wrote it. Also, since you wrote the article, it's probably one of your passions. I'm going to edit it through and in the process add more references. Could you take a second look at it and give me a few ideas on how you would improve it beyond that?  kgrr ^talk 17:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create the article; I believe I made only very minor edits to it. I might have a look anyway if I have time. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarek

User:SarekOfVulcan has taken to following me around everywhere I edit in the past few days, ever since I made an edit on a page he didn't like. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The "user contributions" link is freely available for anyone to click on. There are good reasons why someone might use it; or perhaps SarekOfVulcan is following links from your talk page or something. I suggest one of the following courses of action:

• Not responding to SarekOfVulcan, but taking care to avoid the behaviours the user has criticized you for. This may result in the user going away and leaving you alone. or
• Asking the user very politely and diplomatically how and why the user arrived at a number of pages you had been editing. There could be good reasons, and it may help you feel better to have those reasons explained and to discuss the situation calmly with the user. After having done that, a little later it may be a good idea to ask the user politely not to follow you to any more pages; however, this may depend on the user's reasons. or
• Asking me or someone else to help. If you provide me with diffs (e.g. one diff for each different article or other place the user seems to have followed you to, along with statements e.g. that the user has never previously edited the article) and if you ask me to intervene, I'll see if there's anything I can do that I think will help, probably asking the user on your behalf as I explained in the previous point, and trying to help each of you understand the other's position. and/or
• See WP:DR; but try not to escalate to more advanced steps of dispute resolution too soon; usually calm discussion with the user on user talk pages is the best way to resolve things.

I hope it works out well! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for the heads-up Copper, because "One should be careful when starting an edit war with folks who also have free electrons by the yottamole." is a paraphrase of the oft-assigned-to-Twain "Never pick a fight with anybody who buys ink by the barrel." I'm just a "little junior high kid" trying to survive in this world of cowboy anarchy. ;) --Sturmde (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well, it wasn't actually my intention to draw your attention to the comment I was replying to, but Mervyn Emrys seems to have requested that comments not be placed there, so I had to put my reply somewhere else. I considered putting it here on my talk page but then you might have seen the original and not seen my reply. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

New pages patrol competition!

I've announced a competition at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Competition! to encourage people to help clear the new page patrol backlog and to have fun while doing it. Come on, I need at least one other person to sign up. You can change the rules if you like. By the way, people are welcome to watch my talk page, and/or people may want to watchlist my Notices page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For all acts of generosity, whether or not they seem to help. They are still good karma for the 'pedia. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And thank you for helping with Norman Wengert! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious, just a question

Hi Coppertwig, I do have a question but feel free not to answer if you don't want to. I am curious, why haven't you applied for administratorship? You seem involved in a lot of areas and a lot of editors seem to trust you and come to you for advice and/or help plus you are very patient. I think you would be a good administrator from what I have seen. I don't always agree with you of course but even when I have disagreed we have done so agreeably which I think would be good for an administrator. I don't know why I am asking other than I've seen you around a lot lately and seen very positive comments from you on a variety of subjects. Just a thought, hope you are well, keep up the good work and happy editing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking. In fact, I have requested adminship on this project (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig) and plan to do so again when it's a convenient time for me. I'm a bureaucrat on Simple English Wikiquote and an admin on Simple English Wiktionary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If you would, would you hit my talk page when you apply again? I don't think it would be WP:Canvassing since I am asking you to, at least I hope not. ;) I would like to know so that I can participate the next time. I really do think that you would be a good administrator and lord knows this site needs more administrator. I would not be any good at this but I would love to help the project get more administrator to help. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but I don't think I'll do that; I try to follow WP:CANVASS according to a strict interpretation. However, you can watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig 2 (nonexistent page; click "create the page", then click "watch") and/or watchlist my Notices page. Many users check regularly the table of RfAs (displayed, for example, at the top of WT:Requests for adminship) to see if there are any they might want to participate in. These days, I usually check, don't see any names I recognize, and don't have time to participate, but I'm happy to see that we seem to be regularly getting new admins: we need them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind comment, Coppertwig. When I read that old Mel was an academic philosopher, the pique-headedness fit my model. Anyway, we've all had our days of dismay on the WP, no? (Less now that more kids have cellphones to snipe on) ;-> Salud Twang (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you're trying to understand how other users feel, but I think the term "pique-headedness" would likely be unwelcome. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Off-Wiki

Please contact me at Mervyn.Emrys@gmail.com so I may correspond with you off-wiki. I don't trust the wiki email system. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What, where, why

Hi Coppertwig -- I was just reading through your user page, and was struck by your section on a "what, where, why" method of content discussion. This is really well put, I think, and under-appreciated. Have you considered making it into an essay?

Since I did come here via the Arb pages, I might clarify I'm not sure this could be enforceable, or that everyone would necessarily agree about how to apply it. As a starting point, though, it seems like quite a useful point. Just a quick thought. Best, Mackan79 (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and suggestion! (re What, Where, Why) I would probably wait to see if I get feedback from others as well before deciding whether to make it an essay.

Something like that is not enforceable as such, but organizing one's arguments clearly makes it more likely that others will be convinced, as well as saving time for others. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse Mackan79's suggestion. :-) Jakew (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Arbcom evidence

Hi Coppertwig. I wanted to ask you about something from your submitted evidence that I'm sort of baffled by and assume must be a mistake. In the section on "Unwelcome statements about editors," you write the following:

• G-Dett: "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" [2] with 3 diffs, where Jayjg did not demand a specific verbal formulation, but (2nd diff; ironically), said "And finally, never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated."

I've read this over several times and cannot understand what's happened. Here are the three diffs: [3] [4] [5] In all of them Jay does demand a specific verbal formulation. Why are you saying that he didn't? At first I thought you'd just gotten confused, and clicked the wrong diffs – but that can't be, because you correctly quote a different part of diff 2, so you do appear to have read them.

Here is the original context of what I wrote, in case there's some larger point you're confused about that's throwing off your understanding of the diffs, of the nature and purpose of Jay's demand for specific verbal formulations, etc.:

Knowing that the material MeteorMaker is adding to the article is well-sourced and accurate, [Jay] begins taking stray comments and casual formulations of MeteorMaker's from talk-page discussion, edit summaries, etc., and applying the strictest interpretation of WP:NOR to them, as if they were statements added to the articles themselves. Hence when MM, in defending the sourced statement about "what is today the West Bank," says on the talk page that "Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area," Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation: "different epoch names for the same area." [6] [7] [8] MeteorMaker goes back to his excellent encyclopedia references (Britannica: "central region, ancient Palestine... it was bounded by Galilee to the north, Judaea to the south, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, and the Jordan River to the east. It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory"; Encarta: "in the area now known as the West Bank"; etc.). Jay then notes that these sources don't use exactly the same wording as MeteorMaker did in his casual comment on the talk page, and on the basis of the insignificant discrepancy Jay declares victory in the whole dispute: 'I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area." Thanks for proving my point.' [9] [10]

If you have any questions feel free to ask, but in the meantime can you please fix this part of your evidence? You're claiming that I've made false statements about the contents of diffs on an Arbcom evidence page (a pretty serious charge), and yet clearly I have not, as anyone who reads the diffs (which oddly, you didn't provide for the reader when you made your allegation against me) will see. Thanks Coppertwig.--G-Dett (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg includes precise quotes in his comments. However, nowhere in his comments does he state that he is asking for a source that includes those precise words. Rather, he appears to be asking for a source that supports the idea, whether that idea is expressed in those words or in different words. His quotes are apparently quotes of comments of Wikipedians, not quotes that are supposed to appear word-for-word in sources. You seem to be attributing to Jayjg something that he did not say and that I don't believe he meant. Why exactly do you think he was "demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation"? If he had been doing that, wouldn't the diffs contain something similar to "I demand a source containing exactly these words: ... ", rather than what the diffs actually show him saying? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, as I understand it, the distinction between

Which one of those sources says that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area?

and –

Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it (emphasis in Jay's original)

– is that the first is "asking for a source that supports the idea, whether that idea is expressed in those words or in different words," as you put it, and the second is asking for an exact quotation – or something very, very close to it. Another, simpler example: show me a source that says he's engaged in criminal activities is different from show me a source that says he's engaged in "criminal activities". This is the whole point of quotation marks, Coppertwig. You ask me why Jay wouldn't just say, "I demand a source containing exactly these words." Well, because thankfully, no one talks that way, not even Jayjg; and thanks to the marvelous invention of quotation marks, no one needs to.

If you still think Jay is only "asking for a source that supports the idea, whether that idea is expressed in those words or in different words," then why when MeteorMaker refers him to sources that support the idea, does Jayjg reject them with nothing more than the following statement? ::

I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point.

He doesn't say, "well, the Britannica quote doesn't really support what you're saying for reasons x, y, and z." Look at what he does say, Coppertwig. Look hard at it.

I'm going to wager that if you consider very carefully the following facts, really really think about them –

1. Jay goes on to say (directly after demanding that MM "quote them saying it") that Britannica's "Samaria...corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" is "nothing like" MeteorMaker's "different-epoch names for the same area"
2. MM never proposed adding anything about "different-epoch names for the same area" to any article; that was a casual phrase in a talk-page comment, plucked out by Jayjg for special scrutiny; what MM actually proposed was to say that "Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank"
3. MM's actual proposed phrasing (not the random phrase Jay keeps putting in direct quotes and demanding sources for) is, um, damn close to Britannica's phrasing: "used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank" = "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory"

– you'll begin to understand how you've been tricked.

If not, the following chronology might help: (i) MM introduces proposed wording, fully supported by Britannica, from which it differs in phrasing only slightly and in meaning not at all; (ii) Jay objects on oddly pedantic grounds ("pleonasm"), and donning his Humpty Dumpty mask, asks MM, "are you trying to distinguish it from what was yesterday the West Bank?"; (iii) under pseudo-socratic questioning from a giant egg who likes the word "pleonasm" but doesn't know what the idiomatic phrase "what is today" means, MM refers to "different-epoch names for the same area"; (iv) Humpty turns his attention away from "pleonasm" to this new phrase of MM's, putting it in direct quotes three times in a row and demanding sources for it; (v) MM points back again to Britannica and his other encyclopedic sources (which, again, fully supported his proposed wording); (vi) Humpty says too bad, I win: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point. Now, since you have declined to provide a single source which actually makes the claims you do, can we safely conclude that your use of pleonasms is at an end?

Don't worry Coppertwig, you're not the only one who's lost a dollar to this shell game.--G-Dett (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, we clearly have different ideas about the use of direct quotation when demanding sources for statements. I wonder if you'd do me a favor. Regarding the following statement of yours on the evidence page:

G-Dett: "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" [512] with 3 diffs, where Jayjg did not demand a specific verbal formulation...

Can you just provide those 3 diffs on the evidence page, instead of omitting them, so that Arbcom can decide for themselves if I've misrepresented them? Thanks.--G-Dett (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This gets to the real point, if I may say. At least from my perspective, Coppertwig is justified in thinking (possibly assuming) that Jayjg must have meant something more reasonable. On the other hand, Jayjg specifically asks for a direct quote in this comment, and directly quotes the words he wants to see. There is no "that," as in, "Show me where it states that '[insert proposition]'." Just, "Show me where it states, '[insert statement]." That's literally a request for the language as quoted. In this context it must be noted that if Jay only wanted to see the general idea, that what was called Samaria is now called the West Bank, then that is presumably what he could have requested. But as G-Dett points out, the source he explicitly rejects also offers this point (if not the specific language) in saying that Samaria "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" (note "corresponds roughly to," rather than "comprises" or "lies in" this modern area).

In other words, a person could reasonably think that Jayjg would have settled for less than a direct quote. I strongly question that, since several of the sources MM provided come extremely close (see "present-day northwest Jordan" and "in the area now known as the West Bank," in addition to "modern West Bank territory" quoted above). But then you must at least see why G-Dett took his comment as a demand for the exact phrase, which is literally what Jayjg requested. Getting to the thrust of G-Dett's comment, I think it must also be fair to say that Jayjg's repeated questions like this are unreasonably opaque as to what sourcing he would consider satisfactory; e.g., that repeated requests for specific quotes, rather than clarifying the point you want to see, can amount to stonewalling. Maybe that's debatable based on just this occasion, but for those of us who have been frustrated to the point of silliness by this type of thing for years,[11] the assessment is hard to avoid. My long-winded point, anyway, is to suggest that you could both be partially right on this without G-Dett's statement having been a misrepresentation. Mackan79 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For me, the reveal is in Jay's assumption that since MM's sources don't use MM's wording, then Jay doesn't even have to explain why they fail: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point.

I think one has to put oneself in MM's position to understand what's going on here. You propose a lede that hews very closely to (while stopping short of plagiarizing) Britannica (so Samaria, central region, ancient Palestine...corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory becomes Samaria [...] is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank), then find yourself roped into an archly pedantic and nonsensical discussion about what "what is today" means ("pleonasm," "are you trying to distinguish from what was yesterday the West Bank?", etc. etc.), only to then have a stray comment you newly make within that pedantic and nonsensical discussion ("different-epoch names for the same area") suddenly become the thing that has to be sourced (rather than your proposed lede).

And that switcheroo is the key thing. Whether Jay was demanding an exact verbal formulation or only a very close approximation was never the point. The point was that Jay frequently uses WP:NOR to eliminate well-sourced content by an act of substitution. He substitutes, that is, stray or casual comments of his opponent's (from edit summaries or talk pages) in place of his opponent's actual content proposals, and then makes the stray comment (rather than the proposed content) be the thing that must meet the requirements of WP:NOR. This works especially well if the wording of the proposed content sticks very close to the sources but the stray comment is rather different, because with attention shifted to the latter he can shift all burden of proof and assume his opponent's failure to be self-evident: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point. I refer to this system of surreptitious substitution as Jay's "shell game," for what I hope by now are obvious reasons.

This by the way represents not an exceptional transgression but rather Jay's default mode of argument in the present dispute. So MeteorMaker's sourced statement that Samaria is a term "used by Israel" for the northern West Bank is ignored, and his casual edit summary to the effect that the term is "not widely understood outside of Israel" becomes instead the focus, becomes indeed "MeteorMaker's theory" (even though he'd never once proposed it as article content) which Jay undertakes to prove is original research by, ironically, amassing his own primary sources. Those bogus battle lines are still the operative ones today.--G-Dett (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that I put the 3 diffs in the evidence. I've done that. I'm glad you're both continuing this discussion and I look forward to replying further as soon as I have time. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, you said, "This is the whole point of quotation marks, Coppertwig." I believe quotation marks have a number of different uses; this source lists 10, of which the third corresponds most closely in my opinion with the way Jayjg seems to me to be using quotation marks here.

G-Dett, you said, "Well, because thankfully, no one talks that way." Then wouldn't it be kinder not to represent their comments on the evidence page as if they had talked that way? You also said, "and thanks to the marvelous invention of quotation marks, no one needs to." Thanks to the invention of quotation marks, no one needs to accidentally misquote mischaracterize^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} what another editor has done; instead of saying "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" you can say "Jay said 'Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it.'"

In the 3 diffs mentioned above, Jayjg said:

• According to whom are "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"?
• And which reliable source says the term Samaria is "not used much any more"? Regarding what other online encyclopedias do, Wikipedia isn't other online encyclopedias. As a simple example, no other online encyclopedias have an Israel and the apartheid analogy article; in fact, none even discuss the topic. And finally, never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated.
• Sigh. Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it. And note, "corresponds roughly to the northern portion" is nothing like saying "different-epoch name for the same area".

In the first and second diffs, it's clear to me that Jayjg must be using an embedded quotation (in the sense described in the section "Embedding quotations" here) because the verbs ("are" and "is") are outside the quoted parts. The quotation marks are clearly intended to show that he's using the same words that another Wikipedian has used, but he's working those phrases in grammatically as part of his own sentence, not merely mentioning them as strings of words.

In the third diff, since the quoted part begins immediately after "states", it's not so clear, though the lack of a comma just before the first quotation mark is a clue that he's using the same style as in the previous diffs. When there is more than one possible interpretation of a comment, one of which is a reasonable request and is similar to what the person has said before, and the other of which you consider to be an action sufficiently reprehensible to deserve being brought into an arbitration case as evidence, which do you assume is what the person meant?

Jayjg seems to me to have been making the following points:

• "West Bank" and "northern portion of the West Bank" do not mean the same thing.
• "corresponds roughly to" and "same" do not mean the same thing.

These seem to me to be reasonable points that need to be recognized in this discussion. To write a good encyclopedia one needs to be precise, which involves understanding those sorts of basic distinctions. (In fact, I would say that if a source says "corresponds roughly to", that that tends to imply that the two things are not exactly the same. Note that "tends to imply" doesn't mean the same thing as "can be used as a reference to verify an assertion in an article that". Here my quotation marks indicate the use–mention distinction, unlike the way I think Jayjg is using them in the diffs mentioned above.)

The second of these two points applies not only to MM's "different-epoch names for the same area" but also to MM's proposed article wording "used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank". Jayjg may have felt that it was so obvious that "corresponds roughly to" is not the same thing as "is" that it didn't need to be stated explicitly; and you may have felt it was so obvious that "corresponds roughly to" has the same meaning (in your opinion, perhaps) as "is" that that didn't need to be stated explicitly either; but in these types of discussions it's worthwhile to state the basic things that may seem obvious to the people on one side or the other, in order to try to achieve communication.

G-Dett, please consider striking out these words in your comments: "you've been tricked", "donning his Humpty Dumpty mask", "giant egg", "doesn't know what the idiomatic phrase 'what is today' means" and "transgression".

Mackan79, you said, "On the other hand, Jayjg specifically asks for a direct quote in this comment". He asks someone to "quote" a source but, as I understand his comment, he doesn't specify what exact words are to be contained in that quote. You said "and directly quotes the words he wants to see." I don't know how you know what words he wants to see. You said, "There is no 'that'". Indirect quotation doesn't always use the word "that": for example, "I said I was going to go there the next day." You said, "Just, 'Show me where it states, "[insert statement].["]'" Ah, there is a possibly important difference! I see that in your representation, which I just quoted, which is presumably supposed to resemble what Jayjg said, there is a comma before the first quotation mark. Jayjg did not put a comma there (in the 3rd diff; and his words were different). E.g. Google book snippet: "... they become part of the grammar of the writer's own sentence, and so there is no comma (see Rules 2-8 and 2-11) and the first word of the quotation is ..." The Handbook of Good English By Edward D. Johnson [12] You said, "That's literally a request for the language as quoted." I disagree.

Mackan79, you said, "that what was called Samaria is now called the West Bank, then that is presumably what he could have requested. But as G-Dett points out, the source he explicitly rejects also offers this point (if not the specific language) in saying that Samaria "corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory". You seem to be asserting that "West Bank" and "northern portion of the West Bank" both mean the same thing. I'm sorry: I just don't follow that at all. Is that really what you mean? How could they possibly mean the same thing? One is clearly only a part of the other, not the whole thing. You also said "(note 'corresponds roughly to,' rather than 'comprises' or 'lies in' this modern area)." Yes, I had noticed that; but surely the conclusion therefore is that the source does not support the point Jayjg was asking for, since "corresponds roughly to" means something significantly different from "is"? Given that, I don't understand why you say "the source he explicitly rejects also offers this point".

You said, "several of the sources MM provided come extremely close": would you please save me time and give me quotes or links to them? Quotes of whole sentences of the sources, or enough of a sentence to see what they're saying, not just a phrase please. And no, I'm not asking for the quote to contain a certain specific string of words. Without seeing a whole sentence I have trouble imagining how a sentence containing the phrase "present-day northwest Jordan" could be asserting that "Samaria" means the same thing as "West Bank" or as "northern West Bank". "in the area now known as the West Bank" sounds as if it means one area is inside another, not that two areas are the same. And the "modern West Bank territory" quote also contains the words "roughly" and "portion", which also indicate that it is not stating that two terms are referring to regions with identical boundaries. You say that the sources "come extremely close"; from what I've seen, they do not; maybe there were some I didn't see, and I'd appreciate seeing quotes or links to quotes from them. In my opinion, "corresponds roughly to" is not extremely close in meaning to "same", but significantly different. You said, "But then you must at least see why G-Dett took his comment as a demand for the exact phrase" No, I can only speculate as to why G-Dett might have done this; from the comment above, it seems that it may be because of how G-Dett may understand the meaning of quotation marks. You said, "which is literally what Jayjg requested." I disagree; and your comment could be interpreted as meaning that Jayjg had used the words "the exact phrase" in making his request, which in the diffs provided he did not; it might be a good idea to refactor your comment to exclude this interpretation. You said, "I think it must also be fair to say that Jayjg's repeated questions like this are unreasonably opaque as to what sourcing he would consider satisfactory". He was asking for sources that adequately supported certain points. From what I've seen, the sources provided did not support those points in my opinion. Confusing "West Bank" with "northern West Bank" is not my idea of coming "extremely close": and for encyclopedic precision we need to support the exact idea (not necessarily the exact words), not merely come "extremely close". You could have explained why you thought those sources were adequate (e.g. stating explicitly that you believe that "roughly corresponds to" means something close enough to "is" that the difference between the two can be ignored, if that's what you meant); you could have asked Jayjg why he didn't think the sources supported the point; you could have asked other editors to join the discussion. So if there was a lack of progress in the discussion, I don't think it's fair to blame it entirely on Jayjg.

G-Dett, you said, "For me, the reveal is in Jay's assumption that since MM's sources don't use MM's wording, then Jay doesn't even have to explain why they fail: I note that not one of your sources says "Samaria and the West Bank" are "different-epoch names for the same area". Thanks for proving my point." When you say something on my talk page that directly contradicts my opinion as I've just explained it and you don't say "in my opinion" or anything to indicate that you recognize that I disagree with it, I get the feeling that you haven't been listening to me. You have again (in my opinion) misquoted Jayjg, mischaracterized Jayjg's position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} right after I've asked you (on the evidence page) not to do so and right after I've quoted Jayjg asking not to have things attributed to him that he hasn't explicitly stated. Please consider striking out your words. Please consider quoting Jayjg characterizing Jayjg's position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} using only direct quotes of his exact words, to avoid misquoting mischaracterizing^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))}. Again, here the fact that the verb "are" is outside the quotation marks is a clue that he's using embedded quotations.

G-Dett, you said, "He substitutes, ... and then makes the stray comment (rather than the proposed content) be the thing that must meet the requirements of WP:NOR." When someone is arguing in favour of some proposed content and makes a statement I disagree with as part of their argument, I'm likely to point out that I disagree with the statement, and make arguments against it. I see nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, I think it would be contrary to productive discussion to restrict people from doing so. I don't consider it a "transgression" at all, but normal discussion. If the other party feels that it's easier to find other arguments to support the actual proposed content than to continue to argue in support of the other statement, they can simply drop that line of argument; there would be no need to even reply to my comment in that case. They could just present other arguments in favour of the proposed content. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I think your closing admonitions to me are based on a misunderstanding of my point. When I write, "the reveal is in Jay's assumption that since MM's sources don't use MM's wording, then Jay doesn't even have to explain why they fail," the validity of this statement does not depend on you and I agreeing about what Jay intended when we wrote, Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it. Jay may very well be open to sources that phrase that idea slightly differently. The point is only that Jay does not – here or anywhere, in my experience of his editing – regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why he thinks a sourced statement fails to support proposed content (or in this case, fails to support a casual formulation in a talk-page metadiscussion of proposed content). He simply asserts that it does fail, that he's won, that you've proved his point, etc. For Jay, it is enough simply to say, "please see WP:NOR. You have provided no sources stating, 'X'," just as it enough for him to say he's been "strawmanned," without ever saying how. Regarding this last, by the way, there is considerable irony in your repeatedly and approvingly quoting Jay saying, "never attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated," as support for your claim that Jay does not demand precise verbal formulations, that he is open to equivalent phrasing and is prepared to discuss why a given phrasing is not, in his mind, equivalent.--G-Dett (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting post, Coppertwig, and I admit the missing comma didn't register with me. That said, I'm trying to reconcile right now how you could completely omit the rest of that sentence from The Handbook of Good English. I am just reading it, under a heading of "Quotation as part of the writer's own sentence":

When Samuel Johnson wrote that "language is the dress of thought," it was in reference to Abraham Cowley, not Aleister Crowley. When that is used to introduce the quoted words, they become part of the grammar of the writer's own sentence, and so there is no comma (see Rules 2-8 and 2-11) and the first word of the quotation is not capitalized even though Johnson began his own sentence with it.

I guess this must have been a mistake on your part, but how could you not see the first part of that sentence as relevant? That is exactly what I just got done saying, that absent the word that preceding Jayjg's quotation, the quoted phrase can't be read as the adopted conclusion to Jayjg's request, but must represent the specific language requested. I find it hard to believe following this that you quote, "they become part of the grammar of the writer's own sentence, and so there is no comma," without the immediately preceding start of the sentence: "When that is used to introduce the quoted words...." This isn't even to mention the very next sentence, which states that "...the word that should not be within the quotation marks; it is an essential part of the writer's sentence to introduce the quoted words...." Surely you must see this is exactly my point, that the word "that" here would have been "essential" for your reading, and yet isn't there? To argue that Jayjg missed the essential word for your interpretation, but also missed its correlative comma for the alternative interpretation is one thing, but to simply ignore the entire discussion about the essential word is hard for me to square.

From before looking into that, I'll summarize my somewhat more enthusiastic response below (admittedly for amusement purposes, mostly):

1. I'm hardly a grammarian, but your other source says that if Jayjg wanted to create an embedded quote, he'd need to "make sure that the sentence is still grammatically correct." But the sentence in question clearly wouldn't be. That would presumably have required a verb such as "are" (whether in brackets or taken from the quoted statement) where he places the ellipses.
2. In the post in question, you may also notice Jayjg didn't use a comma before the last quote, even though that also could not be an embedded quote since the quoted language clearly would not fit the "grammar of the writer's own sentence." This suggests an alternative scenario where Jayjg just wasn't bothering with commas.
3. You can suggest, certainly, that two earlier sentences should be considered in reading the third. But at least as reasonably, a person can read a restatement as clarifying what was said previously. Considering that in none of these does Jayjg actually fit the quotation into the grammar of his own sentence, and that in the final restatement he is missing what I think most people would consider an essential word for him to have been adopting and attributing a concept as you suggest, and some other points below, I question whether your method is the most intuitive.

As for the sources, my quotes came from MeteorMaker's response here, linking to the list of sources here. So the phrase, "It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" is from Brittanica, while the phrase, "in the area now known as the West Bank" comes from Encarta, and the phrase, "present-day northwest Jordan" comes from American Heritage. That said, it does seem to me you have this turned around, as no one has to my knowledge argued that "Samaria" is equivalent to "The West Bank." The argument here is, to the contrary, only that Samaria was part of what is now referred to the West Bank, and second that the area is no longer referred to as Samaria. The strict equivalence of their respective territories is irrelevant, as in fact is clear in the exchange under discussion. See first here, where MeteorMaker asks Jayjg to explain his objection to specific language stating in part that Samaria is "part of what is today the West Bank" (note "part of," not a strict equivalence). Here, Jayjg responds that the phrase "what is today" is a pleonasm, meaning that the phrase is only redundant and tautological. Thus, Jayjg doesn't contest that Samaria is in "what is today the West Bank"; rather, he says this is self-explanatory.[13] When MeteorMaker presses, this is what leads to Jayjg asking him to source "different epoch names."[14]

Having edited with Jayjg in this area, I'll say it's easy enough to get where he's going. Jayjg is making the point that either the phrase means nothing, or it means something that's unsourced. But this also gets to the whole problem, that Jayjg won't say what about the proposal itself is unsourced. Instead he calls it a "pleonasm," obviously a joke, as if he doesn't understand the issue under debate, and then waits for MeteorMaker to elaborate. Then, exactly as G-Dett suggests, Jay demands specific sources for MeteorMaker's explanation rather than the proposal itself. I raise the sources only to note that if he just wants to see the general proposition it is right there in front of him. When I say the other sources are "extremely close" to what MeteorMaker proposed, then, I mean two things: 1.) If "what is today" is a "pleonasm," then so, unavoidably, are the words "modern," "in the area now known as," and "present-day" in the three sources I quote above, but 2.) obviously none of these are "pleonasms", and are to the contrary expressing the very same idea as the proposed wording "what is today," functionally that the area is formerly known as Samaria, and now generally known by other names including most recently the West Bank.

Let me conclude by at least getting back to the question of your representation of G-Dett's comment (I do like What, Where, Why). On that my point is this: 1.) Quite clearly G-Dett's interpretation of Jayjg's comments is at the least within reason; I fully believe it's the correct one, although I can see how you arrived at yours. 2.) Considering the point of your comment was that people should represent others accurately and fairly, I think that if you apply that principle you may realize that to represent G-Dett's comment as flatly incorrect runs counter to the general argument you're justifiably making. Mackan79 (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The fascinating discussion about quotation styles is moot, because Jayjg has clarified what he actually meant. G-Dett, thank you for the longer quote from the "The Handbook of Good English"; I only saw a Google Books snippet, which is why I was only able to quote part of a sentence. Mackan79, I believe that G-Dett's assertion that "Jay then starts demanding sources for exactly that verbal formulation" is and was incorrect, and I don't see how saying that runs counter to any general argument I'm making; on the contrary, my main argument in this thread is that G-Dett had made an incorrect statement about Jayjg.

Mackan79, you said, "The strict equivalence of their respective territories is irrelevant": I disagree with this. A Wikipedia article should not state that two things are the same as each other if the source does not say that they are the same but only says "roughly corresponds to". Perhaps a word such as "approximately" could be added to the proposed content to convey this meaning.

Mackan79, I suggest you strike out "Thus, Jayjg doesn't contest that Samaria is in "what is today the West Bank"; rather, he says this is self-explanatory", or at least the "he says this is self-explanatory" part, as I don't see that supported by the diff you provided. (Stating that one sentence expresses an idea equally as well as, or better than, another sentence does not necessarily indicate to me agreement with the idea, nor does it indicate to me that the idea is "self-explanatory"; on the contrary, if it were "self-explanatory" I think one would be less likely to discuss its expression in a sentence.) Note that your comment comes immediately after a comment of mine in which I suggested to G-Dett "Please consider quoting Jayjg using only direct quotes of his exact words, to avoid misquoting." You can replace your struck-out words with an exact quote of what Jayjg said. I find it very annoying when people misquote me, and Jayjg's position has apparently been repeatedly misquoted mischaracterized^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} already in this discussion, so I think it's important to make sure any quotes are accurate. Since the option of quoting Jayjg's exact words is always available, now that I've pointed this out, there is no excuse for misquoting him mischaracterizing his position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))}. Please quote carefully, both of you.

Mackan79, when MeteorMaker said, "If the sentence ... contains a pleonasm like you claim, please indicate where in the sentence it is also stated that Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area", [15] it seems to me that Jayjg construed that as suggesting that the proposed article content expressed the idea (once) that "Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, I suggest you avoid using the phrase shell game, as I think it has a strong connotation of dishonesty. Instead, you could say "Jayjg focusses attention on something other than the proposed article content." I know this is more words to type, but I think it's worth it to avoid having people interpret it as implying dishonesty. When he does this, if you don't want to discuss what Jayjg is focussing attention on, you might want to say something like "I don't feel a need to provide sources to back up [statement B] since I'm not proposing adding that statement to the article. I'm proposing adding [statement A], and my arguments in support of it are ..." (without using statement B or a similar statement in those arguments) and if Jayjg continues to focus on statement B, you can then say something like "I see you haven't refuted my arguments in my comment of [date] in favour of statement A". I feel that each editor is free to focus on whatever points they wish within a discussion; other editors are free to find their overall arguments convincing, or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and sensible suggestion, Coppertwig. Please understand that the whole point of much of the evidence I've submitted is to demonstrate forms of editorial dishonesty that in my view have contributed more to the present impasse than any other single cause. This is one of the conduct issues presently before the arbitration committee.

I am of course familiar with the practice of embedding quotations. In my experience, one embeds direct quotations (instead of using free indirect discourse) when the quote itself is famous, memorable, unusually pithy or witty (as with all of the examples from the usage page you linked to above); or because in some other respect the exact phrasing is significant (for reasons of tone, for example).

At any rate I have struck the word "exact" from my submitted evidence, not because I think it's inaccurate but because it has become a red herring. The point is not that Jay is demanding a source saying exactly what MeteorMaker says in a casual talk-page comment, vs. demanding a source closely approximating what MeteorMaker says in a casual talk-page comment. The point is that he is applying the rigors of WP:NOR – however he construes those – to a casual talk-page comment, instead of to proposed content. In terms of MeteorMaker's proposed content, I do not see how –

...used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank.

differs in any significant way from

...corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory.

I understand that for you the problem is that MeteorMaker's wording does not sufficiently capture the "roughly" of Britannica's. Had you been active in that debate back in December and suggested to MeteorMaker that he include "roughly," I'm fairly certain he'd have readily assented. At any rate that certainly wasn't the problem at all for Jay. For Jay, the problem was that "what is today" was a "pleonasm." The phrase is idiomatically correct, non-redundant, and absolutely equivalent in this sort of context to modern:

The formation of the modern state of Syria had its beginnings in the Arab revolt that began in June 1916 when Sharif Husayn bin Ali, Emir of Mecca and patriarch of the Hashemites, the ruling family of what is today Jordan, launched a military campaign against the Ottoman Turkish rulers of the Arabian Peninsula and the Levant...The British mandate covered what is today Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories; Britain also received a mandate for what is today Iraq. The French mandate covered what is today Lebanon and Syria. (Leverett, Flynt Lawrence Inheriting Syria: Bashar's Trial by Fire. Brookings Institution Press, 2005, p.216)

After the Jews fled from their bondage in Egypt, they conquered the Land of Canaan and ruled Hebron, where Abraham was buried, and the highlands of what is today the West Bank for more than a thousand years. This is the same land — called Judea and Samaria by religious Jews — to which Abraham migrated with his flocks from Mesopotamia and where today Israelis have established settlements in an attempt to affirm the biblical connection. Darby, John, The effects of violence on peace processes. US Institute of Peace Press, 2001, p.87.

G-d knows what Jay meant by "pleonasm," and he wouldn't explain, other than to pose a nonsensical rhetorical question, "are you trying to distinguish it from what was yesterday the West Bank?" From there, he turned his attention to the casual phrase from MeteorMaker's talk-page comment, wrapped it repeatedly in direct quotation marks, and began demanding sources for it, instead of for the proposed content.

I am impressed, if a little bemused, by the level of analytical close reading you've brought to bear on a single sentence of Jayjg's. If Jay himself would bring even a fraction of that analytical attention and willingness to discuss (say, one one-hundredth) to bear on disputed source materials – instead of rejecting them out of hand because they don't state "X" (where X is a not proposed content but a casual talk-page phrase that Jay continually wraps in direct quotes) – we would not be having this discussion; indeed I'd wager we'd not be involved in any Arbcom case. --G-Dett (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

G-Dett, thanks for replying. You said, "The point is only that Jay does not ... regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why he thinks a sourced statement fails to support proposed content". Perhaps it's reasonable for those who want to support some article content to demonstrate that they have verified it. I don't remember seeing anyone in that discussion saying things like "this supports the assertion because ..." or "we can just ignore the word 'roughly' in the source because..." etc. One significant point is: when editors read the discussion, what will they be convinced of? Failing to state arguments may fail to convince people; but if one considers the point to be obvious, one may not feel one needs to state it. I encourage those on both sides of this discussion to state their positions in detail, clearly and more often.

G-Dett, you said, "...as support for your claim that Jay does not demand precise verbal formulations, that he is open to equivalent phrasing and is prepared to discuss why a given phrasing is not, in his mind, equivalent." I feel that you've misquoted me mischaracterized my position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} here. I would appreciate it if you would strike that out and replace it with a quote of my exact words. From now on, please be very careful not to misquote me mischaracterize my position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))}. One way to avoid misquoting me (as long as you don't take things out of context) is by quoting only my exact words. Here, I am asking for precise verbal formulations: I'm asking you to use my exact words when you represent what you think I've said. One exception to this is when you're asking me what I meant; then it's OK to paraphrase in a sentence like "Do you mean that ... ?" because that would not be asserting that I've said the equivalent of your paraphrase. It can be very useful to do this, to discover and clear up misunderstandings. I don't follow at all the point you were making here, since I think your point depends on assuming I said what you said that I said, rather than what I actually did say. I don't even know what I said that had you thinking I'd said that.

You said, "At any rate that certainly wasn't the problem at all for Jay." I'm not convinced of that; see my comments above. You said, "For Jay, the problem was that "what is today" was a "pleonasm."" Certainly Jayjg raised the issue of pleonasm, but I see no reason to think that that was the only problem he saw with the proposed wording.

You said, "I do not see how ... differs in any significant way from ... " Do you mean that you think you can just leave out the word "roughly" from a statement and consider the new statement not to differ significantly from the previous one? If not, can you explain? If so, I'm disappointed;^{(This comment was unnecessary. I'm sorry. 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC))} and I'll point out that, for example, if I say something containing the word "roughly" and someone asserts that I had said the statement with that word left out, I will very likely consider that I've been misquoted.

If you wish Jayjg to be more open to discussing things with you, a good first step to attempt to achieve this might be for you to strike out the words I suggested you strike out above, and to stop making those sorts of remarks about Jayjg, and to stop misquoting him mischaracterizing his position^{(23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC))} (e.g. using the technique I suggested above). Apologies might help, too; and the passage of time without doing those sorts of things again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I haven't once misquoted you or Jayjg on this page. I've always quoted you precisely; I'd appreciate if, as a gesture of good faith, you'd acknowledge that fact. Misquoting is not something one "feels" has happened; it's something that either has happened or has not. In this case it has not. What you mean to say is that I've misunderstood you, that you think I've misconstrued something you've said, that I've quoted you out of context, or something of that sort. In this case you feel that I've misconstrued you somehow when I refer to " your claim that Jay does not demand precise verbal formulations, that he is open to equivalent phrasing and is prepared to discuss why a given phrasing is not, in his mind, equivalent." You say my misconstruing here is so total that you cannot even understand what I'm talking about. Frankly, Coppertwig, if that's true, then you've expressed yourself very badly, and you should simply try again. As for your demand that I never paraphrase you but only quote you exactly, never gleaning anything from your utterances except for not only their exact phrasing but what you believe that exact phrasing to amount to, I can only politely refuse to accept such conditions for discussion. As for your apparent belief that such a request is reasonable and represents ordinary protocol for debate, I can only say that you are mistaken. I know what the Heresy of paraphrase is, having written the article myself; it's a very helpful, provocative, and even beautiful concept in assessing great works of literature (poetry, chiefly), but it does not apply to debate and dialectic, where summary and analysis of an opponent's position is not only acceptable but essential.

One thing I'm beginning to find puzzling about your style of discussion is this alternation between hyper-punctiliousness (when discussing statements made by you or Jay) and a sort of devil-may-care haphazardness when discussing statements made by me. Hence when you think I haven't understood you correctly you say I've "misquoted" you, even though that isn't true and you know it isn't true. When I criticize Jay's pattern of applying a strict interpretation of WP:NOR to random talk-page comments and edit summaries, instead of to actual content, you reply with an irrelevant truism: "When someone is arguing in favour of some proposed content and makes a statement I disagree with as part of their argument, I'm likely to point out that I disagree with the statement, and make arguments against it. I see nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, I think it would be contrary to productive discussion to restrict people from doing so." As if – by suggesting that the phrasing of talk-page explanations shouldn't be subject to a strict application of WP:NOR – I were suggesting that talk-page statements themselves shouldn't be disagreed with, or argued against. That really is absurd, Coppertwig. Were you doing your best to understand me and respond meaningfully? In another example, you quote me saying, "The point is only that Jay does not ... regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why he thinks a sourced statement fails to support proposed content," and you respond with another irrelevant truism/strawman argument: "Perhaps it's reasonable for those who want to support some article content to demonstrate that they have verified it." That totally evades the point. The point, again, is that when Jay decides the sources provided fail to "verify" the proposed content (or in this case, as you keep forgetting, not proposed content but a casual phrase plucked from a talk-page post), he does not regard it as incumbent upon him to explain why. He simply writes, I note that they do not state X, where X is an exact quote taken from a casual post by MeteorMaker. You also ask me, "Do you mean that you think you can just leave out the word "roughly" from a statement and consider the new statement not to differ significantly from the previous one?" What the heck, Coppertwig? No, I meant – as is absolutely clear from what I wrote – that no objection to "roughly" arose even once in the debate you and I are discussing; had any such objection arisen it could easily have been accommodated. That simply wasn't the source of the impasse. Jay's objection was to any reference to "what is today the West Bank." The problem for Jay (and the source of this entire dispute, incidentally) is not the distinction between an approximate or exact overlap of geographical areas; the problem for him is any content suggesting that Judea and Samaria are not standard modern toponyms.

I don't know if you wish to continue this discussion. But if you do, don't make unreasonable or overly precious demands about how I should discuss your statements, even as you food-process almost everything I say into strawman pap.--G-Dett (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said enough here, but let me just clarify about your request to strike. The reason I say Jayjg didn't contest the territorial equivalence isn't for the very general the reason you suggest, but because he repeatedly calls the phrase "what is today" a "pleonasm." That means, as far as I can read English, that the words go without saying. This is what I mean by "self-explanatory," and I honestly don't know how else to read it. If it's wrong you could certainly explain what else Jayjg means by repeatedly calling it a pleonasm. On a less literal level, of course, the phrase "what is today" is used to contrast what was from what now is, or at least to suggest that a term came into use after the previously discussed time period. This gets to the substantive disagreement, and is (I hope you won't contest) why Jayjg opposes inclusion of the phrase: Jayjg doesn't think Wikipedia should state that the relevant area is no longer called Samaria. This is the heart of the content dispute, so if we are disagreeing here I'm not actually sure any of the other discussion has been of much use, but I'd like to at least try to straighten out the basics so you'll see where these comments are coming from.

Also: quotes can be useful, but they can lead to confusion if you never try to explain what you think they mean. For my part it's pretty odd (if not actually annoying) to summarize my understanding of a comment, and you respond by asking me to strike a conclusion that I don't see you to have addressed -- as if this wasn't actually my conclusion. Why not I say what I think you're saying, and you say what you think I'm saying, we explain exactly where the other is mistaken, and somewhere in the middle we meet? This is just another way of approaching discussion, although a fairly common one in dispute resolution which accepts that people will often misunderstand each other unless they openly discuss the nature of their positions. Thanks in any case for the dialogue. Mackan79 (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mackan79, feel free to continue posting comments; this discussion is interesting and may even be making some sort of progress. It's good to clear up misunderstandings. I think you're referring to my comment above "Mackan79, I suggest you strike out 'Thus, Jayjg doesn't contest ...' ... less likely to discuss its expression in a sentence.)" I think by "conclusion" you mean the part beginning "Thus". I don't understand why you say I didn't address your conclusion, because the part of my comment in parentheses seems to me to be directly addressing it. There may be a misunderstanding here revolving around the word "pleonasm". Wiktionary calls it "Redundancy in wording", and that is what I understand it to mean. You seem to be interpreting it as an admission that the statement is true. As I understand the word "pleonasm", it has nothing to do with whether the statement is true or not, but about whether there are extra, unnecessary, superfluous words present. So I don't interpret Jayjg's use of the word "pleonasm" as a statement about whether the proposed content is accurate or not. Either the words "what is today" convey a meaning not present in the rest of the sentence, or they do not. If they do not, they should probably be deleted for brevity. If they do, then the question would be what exactly that additional meaning is and whether it is verifiable.

You said, "Jayjg doesn't think Wikipedia should state that the relevant area is no longer called Samaria." I'm not sure what you mean by "the relevant area"; there seems to have been some confusion at Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources between "West Bank" and "northern West Bank", and between the area indicated by "northern West Bank" and the similar, but not identical, area indicated by "Samaria". I don't presume to know what Jayjg thinks.

I'm thinking of two different useful ways to refer to other editors' comments in a discussion: one is to quote them accurately (e.g. word-for-word) in order to talk about or reply to a previous comment; another is to paraphrase in order to test whether one understands the comment correctly. It's not a good idea to mix the two! One can indicate a paraphrase with "It seems to me that ..." or "Is this what you mean: ... ?" But if one states explicitly that someone has said something, one's representation should be accurate: usually either word-for-word the same, or what the original writer would agree conveys the intended meaning. It can be difficult but worthwhile to paraphrase accurately the comments of people on the opposite side of a content dispute. It's sometimes helpful to explain why one is paraphrasing, admit that it may not be accurate but state that one is doing one's best; and when reading such a paraphrase it's good to AGF and assume that that really is the best the person can do to try to represent the comments. Otherwise, because of different concepts used by people with different POVs, it's too easy to assume the person is deliberately exaggerating in the paraphrase.

Instead of striking, you could insert something like "it seems to me that". You may also be interested in my comment at User talk:MeteorMaker#Toponym. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok, I can try a little further. If you'll allow me to risk being a little more direct: While I certainly wouldn't fault your attempts to accurately quote others, I can't agree that it is the only way to approach discussion. The article fisking should probably have a better discussion of criticism, but I do see the main point attributed to Andrew Orlowski, that quoting too much like this in a discussion can actually seem more argumentative than thoughtful, and more superficial than substantive. I don't think it's your intent, but in fact I do think your approach here has tended to skip a bit excessively between the trees, so to speak. Honestly, I also don't get the feeling you are really reading every comment for comprehension, extensive quotes notwithstanding. In some ways I must say you seem a bit over-confident in having found the best way to communicate, especially in a fairly complex area where you aren't particularly familiar, and with editors whom you seem only recently to have encountered. That you continue to foreclose the possibility of genuine obstruction (suggesting the issue is moot after asking Jayjg, suggesting that one only represent comments in a way "that the original writer would agree conveys the intended meaning") is one example of this. You can disagree that there has been obstruction, or you can explain why you don't think it's relevant to discuss, but to act like it isn't an option leaves an impression of not being heard.

As far as the rest, in truth I don't see how you can stand by your original claim. Your argument, as far as I can see, is that Jayjg was only requesting the sourcing of a concept, and only quoting in order to directly adopt and attribute MeteorMaker's words. But this is disproved by the sources you've brought to the table, both of which make the fairly intuitive point that to adopt someone's words, you have to incorporate them into your own. Which gets to the real point: if someone asks for something in quotes, and the quoted passage is not embedded into their sentence, and moreover they ask you to quote someone saying that with the word "quote" in bold, then I would sure think I was being asked to provide the direct quote. Your argument in response, that not using a comma shows he was embedding the phrase, is a little like saying a hamburger must be a taco because they left off the pickles, during a world-wide pickle shortage. Or like saying a Sundae must be a milk shake since they left off the chopped peanuts during a salmonella outbreak. Anyway, you can say it, but I don't see how you can claim in good faith that it's the only reasonable way to read the sentence, as you seem to. Mackan79 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'm not claiming that that's the only reasonable way to read the sentence. This ties in with something you said above, that G-Dett and I could both be partially right. I've explained what the sentence seemed to me to mean; I didn't claim that everyone would interpret it the same way. I didn't foreclose the possibility of genuine obstruction, as you say; but, if one is to accuse someone of obstruction, one should be ready to present evidence of such, and a statement which might be interpreted in two ways, one of which is not obstruction, does not constitute evidence of obstruction in my opinion. I understand that the discussion was frustrating, but I think it was frustrating for people on both sides, and that people on both sides could have said more to explain their position.

You said, "I can't agree that it is the only way to approach discussion." I believe that avoiding misquoting others is essential. There may be many ways of carrying on a discussion without misquoting others. You seem to be telling me that I should make more of an effort to demonstrate that I've understood the main points that others have been trying to convey. I'll try to do that, and am trying to do that in this reply.

I'm not sure whether I follow your argument: you seem to be arguing based on a grammatical lacuna in Jayjg's sentence that he must not have meant what he later stated that he had meant. I can counter that argument by pointing out that the sentence would be equally ungrammatical if interpreted as a direct quote, since a statement must include a main verb; however, I think it's best to assume that people sometimes make grammatical errors and that people are able to explain what they meant. Try to see how this situation might look from Jayjg's point of view.

I'm not claiming that it was unreasonable to interpret the sentence differently; however, now that Jayjg has clarified, I think in this situation it would now be unreasonable to claim that it wasn't intended to mean what Jayjg himself says it meant. I'm not sure whether that's what you're trying to do. In other words: if the discussion reached an impasse, it may have been caused by a misunderstanding, rather than by a fault of any one individual. I still claim that it doesn't constitute evidence of obstruction by Jayjg. In future, people can try to avoid misunderstandings by more often stating clearly their own position and by saying things like "what you seem to be asking for is ... "

If one feels one has to paraphrase what someone said in order to transform it into convincing evidence of wrongdoing, then maybe what the person actually said isn't that bad. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't answer for Mackan, but I'm quite certain no one's "arguing based on a grammatical lacuna in Jayjg's sentence that he must not have meant what he later stated that he had meant." The point is rather that Jay repackaged a substantive disagreement (about whether Samaria is a standard, widely accepted modern toponym) as a stylistic disagreement (about whether three words implying that it isn't constitute a "pleonasm"), and then when that pseudo-stylistic proxy dispute elicited a casual, ad hoc clarification from MeteorMaker ("Samaria and the West Bank are different-epoch names for the same area"), Jay measured the phrasing of that wordier explanation by a strict interpretation of WP:NOR, as if it were the proposed content. What Jay wouldn't do is (a) say forthrightly that his objection was not to alleged redundancy, but rather to any implication that Samaria is not a standard modern term; and (b) explain why he thought the given sources failed to support MeteorMaker's proposed phrasing (i.e. why he thought "modern" ≠ "what is today").

Your issue with "roughly" is a red herring. MeteorMaker's wording was this:

Samaria...is a term used for the mountainous northern part of what is today the West Bank

versus Jay's wording:

Samaria...is a term used for the mountainous northern part of the West Bank.[16][17]

No one at that point gave a damn about "roughly." We're talking about disruptive argumentation and deliberate impasse, and "roughly" simply didn't enter into it. Indeed an anon editor first added the "roughly" clause to the lead at the end of January, a full month after the thread we're discussing. There was no objection from MeteorMaker when he edited the article the next day; indeed there's been no objection from anyone to this day. Red herring, red herring, red herring.

Meanwhile, that the "pleonasm" objection was in bad faith seems to me incontestable. The truth of this charge of bad faith – pace your remarks to Mackan above – does not depend on any assumption that Jay is admitting the accuracy of the contested phrase ("what is today"). It doesn't matter whether he thinks it's accurate or inaccurate. All that matters is that he thinks it's relevant, that he thinks it carries meaning and content of some kind. Pleonasm means redundancy, and the test is, exactly as you say: "Either the words 'what is today' convey a meaning not present in the rest of the sentence, or they do not. If they do not, they should probably be deleted for brevity." Clearly Jay is not deleting for brevity; he's deleting because those three words add a meaning he doesn't want the article to convey. To say that they're redundant, that they add no meaning, was in bad faith.

You are right that the exchange must have been frustrating for both sides. But there is a difference between frustration and impasse. Frustration here was the ordinary and inevitable result of the fact that MeteorMaker wanted the article to convey Samaria's datedness, and Jay wanted it to convey that Samaria is not a standard modern toponym. MeteorMaker was willing to discuss in detail why he thought the best sources for this sort of thing (the three major encyclopedias Wikipedia recommends turning to to resolve disputes about names) supported his general position as well as his precise wording. Jay, by contrast, was not willing to discuss or debate that core issue openly. Impasse, which leads to Arbcom cases – as opposed to frustration, which leads to lengthy, exhausting, but ultimately fruitful consensus-building processes – was precisely the result of this refusal on Jay's part.--G-Dett (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about "pleonasm" being in bad faith. By saying "except for polemic purposes", Jayjg was quite open here about why he wished to delete the phrase "what is today": [18] and in the exchange ending with Jayjg's last comment here ("Which of your sources says "Samaria is the ancient toponym, the West Bank is the modern toponym"? I give you one final opportunity to quote them making this claim") MeteorMaker mentions "pleonasm" twice, while Jayjg in his last comment refocusses the discussion back to the question of whether there is a source stating that Samaria is the ancient toponym and West Bank the modern toponym.

I disagree with you about "roughly"; it still appears to me that Jayjg's main points were as I stated. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig, thank you for your many replies. I don't follow you at all with regards to Jay's good faith about "pleonasm." Yes, he wrote "except for polemic purposes" once, amid dozens of talk-page posts and article-reverts spuriously citing "pleonasm," but that's just it: the "polemical" issue he alludes to obliquely here was precisely what he refused to discuss forthrightly, while pretending (disruptively, dishonestly, and passive-aggressively) to give a damn about three allegedly redundant words.

We are probably approaching the limits of what we can learn from each other, but I do have two final questions – no hurry in answering them, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

1. When you say you "disagree with [me] about 'roughly'," can you be more specific? You disagree with me saying it's a red herring as regards Jay and MM's argument in December? If that's what you mean, what do you make of the fact that (a) they never talked about it at all in that argument; (b) no such dispute is reflected in their protracted edit-warring on the article itself; (c) Jay's proposed version on the talk page says "is," not "corresponds roughly," exactly like MeteorMaker's; (d) when an anonymous editor introduced the "corresponds roughly" clause in late January, not a soul objected or even mentioned it?
2. Is it your general position that Jay's behavior in the thread we've been discussing demonstrates an intellectually serious, good-faith attempt to address the core dispute with MeteorMaker regarding whether sources treat Samaria as a modern toponym?

Thanks again for all your time. I note that you're periodically pulling piquant phrases from my posts here and adding to your allegations against me on the evidence page. Next time you're over there, I wonder if you might bear in mind that "discriminate between" and "discriminate against" are two entirely different idiomatic phrases in English, one with a positive connotation and the other with a negative connotation, and that there is no serious question whatsoever which was intended in Jay's many insinuating posts about MeteorMaker.--G-Dett (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

At Talk:Samaria/Discussion of sources I see the signs of what seems to be understandable human emotion – as I said, the discussion seems to have been frustrating for both sides – but you haven't convinced me that there's any indication of bad faith. In my view, someone doesn't have to keep repeating something they've already said earlier in the discussion in order to be considered honest. By the way, in your comment "your demand that ... ", further above, you've again made an incorrect statement about what I had said. Please stop doing that. Perhaps you missed the part where I had said, "One exception to this is ... ". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss the clause wherein you give me permission to paraphrase you provided I submit it first for your approval – I just omitted it because it seemed so irrelevant. Brevity being the soul of paraphrase.

At any rate thanks again for all your comments. I'd actually just stopped by here to commend you for your proposal, but given that I'm about zero for twenty in correctly understanding anything you say, I've probably gotten the gist of that wrong as well.--G-Dett (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that you had to submit things for my approval before paraphrasing me. That wasn't what I meant. It's fine with me if you paraphrase me at any time, provided you don't claim that I've said what's contained in your paraphrase; for example, you might say "here's a paraphrase of what Coppertwig said"; or, providing your paraphrase is something that I would agree is an accurate representation of what I said. (There may be ways of determining that without asking me.) Another option is just not saying where you got the ideas: not attributing them to me (you can do that, I think, because I multi-license under public domain). You're also free to quote me at any time: however, if you do so, please be sure to quote accurately: I think that's a reasonable request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, as you know very well but have yet to admit, I've never "misquoted" you. If you wish to express your subjective opinion that I've misunderstood or mischaracterized your positions, you're free to do that. If you continue to say or imply that I've "misquoted" you, then there really will be no common ground of respect between us, period. That's a red line for me.--G-Dett (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to get your message, G-Dett. There's at least one message from you above that I haven't replied to in full. I might or might not (and feel free to let me know if you'd like me to) but I would just like to say in answer to your question in your earlier message that I am indeed really trying to understand what you're saying. I know that sometimes when people use words and concepts differently, it can be easy to think things like "I don't see how they could possibly really think that". It can be hard to even discover where the misunderstandings are so that they can get cleared up.

I think it might help if we discuss the definitions of the words "misquote" and "mischaracterize". I assume (but maybe I shouldn't?) that we are both using the same meaning of "misunderstand".

Wiktionary defines "misquote" as "To incorrectly recite a quote" and "To incorrectly record a quote". When I use the word, I'm not saying anything about whether it was intentional or not: it can be accidental incorrectness, i.e. a mistake. I use the word to apply to both direct quotation and indirect quotation.

Wiktionary defines "mischaracterize" as "To characterize falsely or mistakenly", and "characterize" as "To depict someone or something a particular way (usually negative.)" (first definition). I don't like using words with "usually negative" or "usually positive" tacked onto the definition, and would tend to ignore that part of the definition, so I would prefer the definition "To depict someone or something a particular way"; for brevity I would just call it "To describe".

I'm wondering whether maybe you consider that when you say things like "your demand that...", you don't consider that to be a quote, but a characterization or description. That could be a reason why you might think it's OK for me to say you mischaracterized my position but not OK for me to say you misquoted me. I call it an indirect quote, although I can see that since the word "demand" is being used as a noun rather than as a verb, one could perhaps argue that grammatically it isn't.

Maybe you're making a distinction between indirect quotation and characterization (description).

What I mean is: I would like you to avoid saying things like "your demand that" followed by something that I wouldn't consider to be an accurate representation of anything I've demanded. Similarly for "your claim that", "your assumption that", etc. But it's OK with me if you say things like "what seems to me to be your demand that", etc., so you're still free to paraphrase. Does that sound reasonable, or do we still seem to have a dispute? I've changed a bunch of instances of the word "misquote" in the discussion above to "mischaracterize": let me know if that helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Misquotation" means getting the words between quotation marks wrong. It doesn't refer to faulty or disputable paraphrase, or what you call "indirect quotes." Thanks for refactoring; I apologize if I seemed unduly irritated.--G-Dett (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem: your reaction was quite understandable given that definition of the word. That wasn't what I meant when I said "misquote". I apologize for not following my own advice and clarifying the definition of "misquote" earlier, which might have saved a lot of time and trouble. I should have known to do that. As I sometimes say, one benefit of my giving people advice is that sometimes I follow it myself (whether or not anyone else does). And I apologize for saying things using the word "misquote" which could easily be interpreted as accusations of things you didn't actually do.

I would now like to change the heading "G-Dett has misquoted Jayjg" on the workshop page. Would it be an improvement if I change it to "G-Dett has mischaracterized what Jayjg said"? You might want to suggest different wording. (I realize you still may not agree with the statement, though, and I might not necessarily accept wording you suggest.) I assume this part is OK since it doesn't use the word "misquote": "G-Dett has stated that Jayjg said things, which were inaccurate representations of what Jayjg actually said". I'm not sure whether I should change the heading "G-Dett cautioned about quoting", perhaps to "G-Dett cautioned about assertions about Jayjg's position". I'm also going to reply to your comment on the workshop page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mischaracterize" is fine with me (at least in terms of word choice ;)). Thanks for your courtesy Coppertwig. We have very different prose styles, you and I; I suppose we were destined to misunderstand one another a little.--G-Dett (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning the process of straightening out the misunderstanding by suggesting the word "mischaracterize" a few comments back, and thank you for graciously accepting my apology. Actually, I think what started us back on the right track was when you said something very nice about the draft guidelines I had written. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse the intrusive note.

I had great difficulty in understanding the section on the Evidence Page, but when I noted the query about what diff I used or perhaps where I made some accusation (?); I thought I'd better provide the original diff of evidence. Please remove it if it is not what you were looking for. Regards Nishidani (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry my evidence was difficult to understand. Feel free to ask questions about it. Thank you for providing the diff, and for telling me that you had done so.

In that diff [19], you say, "the overwhelming evidence presented so far that Samaria is an Israeli-POV." I don't think there's any evidence that "Samaria is an Israeli-POV" (and no, I'm not asking for a source with that exact verbal formulation). I think there may be evidence that the term "Samaria" has been used by Isrealis to promote a POV. However, I don't think it's been established that people who are not particularly using the term for that purpose have stopped using the term for general purposes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt my head in; will butt it out pronto. There are in fact a number of sources noting the decline in use of Judea and Samaria among neutral and/or mainstream sources. Some of these are pro-Israel sources, explicitly lamenting the relative disappearance of the terms. Meanwhile, none of the three main encyclopedias Wikipedia uses to resolve naming disputes (Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia) define Samaria as a modern region in their entries on the term. The last edition of Britannica to define Samaria as a modern region was the 1961 edition.--G-Dett (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, apart from extensive reading and examination of sources, which I think show how academics the world over define it as an Israeli POV, I didn't even trust my own natural intuitions on this, and pestered people, in casual conversations, over two months on this. Very few, all Christians, had any but the vaguest notion of precisely where Samaria was, except for some sense that it was biblical. That for most people, outside of the specific community which thinks this usage natural (which it is for them), 'Samaria' is not a familiar toponym, and certainly not one that rings a bell about a specific modern area, seems to me obvious. This may be very hard to accept, from people reared in a culture where this, and Judah and the two terms combined, are an integral part of education, but I advise those who doubt it to ask around. I don't think my impression is aleatory. I once said, in a concession to the guys who are absolutely certain their minority position is right, that they simply may not be aware of what 'goyim' are, and are not used to, and that the misunderstanding may in some sense reflect a cultural incomprehension. Regards Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "define it as an Israeli POV". I don't see how a name can be a point of view, although it may represent a POV or be used by people who have a particular POV. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do the people you talked to know where "the Glebe" is? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I just had another look at this. Re this message where you add a diff with a question mark: I'm puzzled as to why you have a question mark there. I quote you as saying "the second diff she cites", and I provide a diff showing you saying that. I would like to know what diff you meant when you said that. Have you forgotten which diff it was? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"No evidence for "deliberately""

Hi Coppertwig.

There's in fact plenty of evidence for "deliberately" if you know where to look (else, you could simply have asked me). For details, I direct you to this section. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As I state in my evidence, I think it's best not to post that sort of statement without providing diffs as evidence at the time of posting it. I also think it's very difficult to prove things about a person's state of mind. In your diffs, I see no evidence of knowingly posting false information. It may be that you and Jaakobou disagree on interpretations of the facts. Making wrong guesses about a person's state of mind can be very common when one is on the opposite side of a content dispute; misunderstandings are common because often people are conceptualizing things differently: what is obvious to one may not even occur to the other as a possible concept. Incidentally, one of the links you give in that evidence section is not a diff link. The instructions at the top of the evidence page specify what types of links are or are not appropriate; I'm not sure whether that type is, and it's harder to figure out what you're trying to indicate if a link goes to a whole thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Check for yourself if you can find any substance (I cannot) in any of the three accusations I characterized as false. He has had his mistakes pointed out to him and declined to retract or substantiate them, ergo deliberate. The link to the AE case is not a diff for three reasons: The whole (short) case is relevant for the context, link-heavy text is more difficult to read as diffs, and I don't know where to find diffs for archived AE cases. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You say he has had his mistakes pointed out to him, but I see no reason to think he's not continuing to disagree with those points. People often disagree about things. I'm sorry, I don't have time to investigate whole threads and feel no need to here: the fact remains that you posted a statement without posting at the same time diffs that supported either the quote, or the allegation of deliberateness. [20] Maybe you think it's OK to do that; maybe it doesn't explicitly violate a policy or guideline; but I think it's OK for me to point out that that is what you've done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter of agreement or disagreement, when somebody (in his evidence section in an ArbComm case!) makes the statement "x then falsely claimed that their sanction was removed" and supports it with a diff where clearly no such claim is made, that somebody is acting in bad faith if he chooses to stand by his accusation despite having had his error pointed out to him. The only way I can see the adverb "deliberately" as inappropriate is if he didn't have time/felt no need to investigate the diff, but I think you agree that if that is the case, he shouldn't have made the accusation in the first place. MeteorMaker (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

In my evidence section in the arbcom case, I quoted you as saying "deliberately" without diffs. One point I'm making is that it's better not to accuse people of things without providing diffs at the time that you make the accusation. If you provide to me diffs that demonstrate that the user stood by their accusation in spite of having their error pointed out to them, there is a possibility that I'll then decide to delete the quote from my evidence section, although I still might not: one reason being that the point about providing diffs at the time of making the accusation still applies, whether or not you agree that it's important to do that. Another difficulty is that I think it's difficult to provide convincing evidence of a person's state of mind. I'm not convinced there was any bad faith involved, and might remain unconvinced even on seeing the diffs I just asked for. Lots of people are reluctant to admit to error; that doesn't necessarily mean they deliberately erred. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re how to find diffs: For example, suppose you want to find the diff for Jaakobou's statement of 02:19 24 February. Usually the diff you want will have the same time as the person's signature; not always, since they might edit their comment later, but in that case you can usually find it by searching later in the contributions, page history or whatever. Anyway, what I would do is go to either Jaakobou's contribs, or the page history of Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Usually, the page history is not moved when a page is moved to an archive, so the history is still at the original page. I would go to the WP:AE page and click "history". Then I would click "earlier 50". This changes the url to a type of url that has a date-time in it (as a string of numbers all run together, starting with the year, in the format yearmonthdayhourminutesecond e.g. 20090405235900 I'm not sure about the meaning of the last few numbers, whether they're seconds or what. Anyway, what I do next is I edit the url to put in the date-time I'm interested in, and go to that url. It will jump to the part of the page history close to the date-time I want. Sometimes I have to click "earlier 50" again to get the exact diff I want. The same trick with the date can be used on the person's contribs, so if you can't figure out where the original page history is, you can always find the diff in the contribs if you know who posted it. (Go to their user page or user talk page and click "User contributions" in the links at the left of the page.) I hope that helps. I'm sorry for the delay in providing you with this information. I almost did get distracted and forget again, after I just said on the evidence talk page that I was going to help you with this; that would have looked bad! See also Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I've been lurking on your talk page the last couple of days re ArbCom. I must say I have enjoyed following your train of thought and responses. You are meticulous in your logic and very clear, imo. It actually has made for "fun" reading, both the arguments and the counter-arguments. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome! Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad to know I've got talk page watchers! And I'm glad you're enjoying it! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Draft_guidelines_for_placename_usage

I will be vulgar: FUCK YEAH!!!--Cerejota (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, thanks. I hope the people who have already commented on the draft guidelines will comment on the changes that I've made, and that many people will comment on and contribute to editing the draft guidelines. When I came back from a couple of days wikibreak I was very pleased with the response. I'm about to do some additional edits, mostly to re-organize, though with some substantive change as well; all subject to reverting if there is no consensus for such changes, of course. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: AF syntax

You would be correct there. The only thing is that I don't think !in works, so it's !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) instead. Thanks for catching that! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

*eyes glaze over* Hoo boy. I don't think I have time to take a look at too many of these just now, but I'll try to remember to keep poking at them when I get the chance. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Filter 5: The logic here is correct. This filter is intended to prevent user from attempting to rename themselves by moving their userpage. This creates a bunch of userpages that have to be deleted under U2, and confuses the hell out of the newbie when they can't log in under the new name. This filter is intended to stop that and give advice on how to properly request a rename, although it hasn't been fully activated yet.
• Filter 30: Fixed as suggested.
• Filters 34, 46, 50: It looks odd to me too, but according to Wernda = is equivalent to ==, and no syntax errors occur with it.
• Filter 50: Not fixing that myself as I'm not the best with regexen, but I'll suggest it in the notes.
• Filter 53: Fixed as suggested, but the filter is still disabled.
• Filter 59: The recent contributors thing fixed as suggested, and again I'm uncertain on the regex, but will suggest it.
• Filter 61: We usually don't use new_wikitext or old_wikitext because they're slower than molasses and hang up the wiki. Added_lines should work, but again, I'll need to run those by others.

Thanks again for your help! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong?

Another user has accused me of doing something wrong (see User talk:IRP#Template talk:Grading scheme and Revision history of Template talk:Grading scheme) when I reverted one of his or her edits as it was a reversion one of my edits without explanation in the edit summary. The user was complaining that my edit was inappropriate and juvenile. Did I really do something wrong? I reverted per Wikipedia:Explain reverts. -- IRP ☎ 18:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Grading scheme

No, the templates which I am requesting an edit for are all protected. Their talk pages all redirect to Template talk:Grading scheme (don't ask me why, they just do). PC78 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained my revert here. I don't believe I am at risk of being blocked (what policy are you citing here?), and blanking my comment – even if you though I had made a mistake – was inappropriate. Reverting my revert as you did was rather juvenile. PC78 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See this post. -- IRP ☎ 18:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As already stated, I did explain my revert. WP:REVEXP is not a policy, nor even a guideline. PC78 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. OK, everybody just calm down, please? There's really basically no problem here, I think. It's just a matter of a talk page comment. Have a cup of tea. IRP, please let PC78 edit their own talk page comment. If you think it needs to be deleted or changed, just explain nicely to PC78 the reasons, and let PC78 do it; and if PC78 doesn't want to, it's probably best to just leave it. PC78, you probably noticed but just in case you didn't, IRP has pointed out that the page is not fully protected. I think it would be helpful for you to either remove the editprotected template, or explain nicely to IRP why you prefer to keep it there. I don't think anybody did anything terribly wrong here. In future though, IRP, it's almost always best to let other users edit their own comments: see WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. If you were very concerned that the editprotected template shouldn't be there, you could have just deleted the template and left the rest of the comment there, or replaced {{editprotected}} with {{tl|editprotected}} which nullifies the template. IRP, you're right that users are encouraged to provide meaningful edit summaries, especially when reverting. However, when users don't follow policies, guidelines or suggestions, it's best not to over-react. People are encouraged to be bold. It's not necessary to revert an edit just because someone didn't provide an edit summary. The best approach would be to just ignore it, or else to politely ask the user why they reverted. Just don't worry, everything's fine. I hope this helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a breach of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to revert legitimate edits without explanation? Doing so is treating an edit as vandalism. -- IRP ☎ 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's one of those borderline cases. WP:REVEXP doesn't have a guideline template at the top of the page. It isn't a policy or guideline; it's just a help page. It's still a good idea to follow the instructions there. Basically, we're supposed to follow basic principles: trying to get along with people and stuff like that. If you know about a rule, it's usually best to follow it unless you have a good reason not to and are confident that it won't bother people if you don't. Basic principles are shown by policies like WP:IAR, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. A lot of it is just getting along with people. I guess you were offended when you felt that your edit was being treated as vandalism. But look at it from the other person's point of view: how do you think they felt when their comment was deleted? Anyway, we don't punish people for just not putting an edit summary in one edit. We don't punish at all, actually: see WP:Blocking policy#Purpose and goal. Even if people do violate policies or guidelines, it's usually best to either ignore it, or talk to them nicely about it. Often they'll have a good reason for violating; or they might not have known the policy or guideline. Or they might have thought nobody would mind, and you can explain to them gently why you do mind. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link

Thanks. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking in

Hi Coppertwig, I'm sorry I haven't been actively commenting on your proposal. I'm just stopping by here to reaffirm that I support it, especially in its revised form. Great work, very patient and thorough.--G-Dett (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw your comment on the workshop page and had a good laugh about zesty vs. pasty language. You will be my tutor, and I will learn to use whole quiverfuls of metaphors as hammers to drive home points delicately flavoured with essence of wit. More later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Me mentor you! It ain't my style gonna solve this thing. But it might be yours.--G-Dett (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe I'll refrain from using the stretcher analogy, then. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

{{db-author}}?

I created {{Outdent}} figuring that it would be useful, however, absolutely nobody is using it. Should I request deletion of it? -- IRP ☎ 21:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, nobody's using it? I just did. :-) Seriously: I think it's just that nobody knows about it. Wait, don't delete it! I might want to start using it. When people see other people using it, they might start using it.

There's a possibility that in the next couple of days I might edit the template so that you can write {{outdent|::::::::::}} and it will put the right number of underscores to match up the amount of indentation to go with the number of colons given. I'm not sure how the size of an underscore matches up with indentation:

one colon, three underscores

___

two colons, 7 underscores

_______

three colons, 1) underscores

__________

four colons, 14 underscores

______________

five colons, 17 underscores

_________________

six colons, 21 underscores

_____________________ ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have made an edit to the template, but I think it still needs improvement. -- IRP ☎ 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It happened before you expected it. I have added features to the template. See the source of the template and my sandbox where I tested it in. -- IRP ☎ 03:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you missed the message above. I'm just letting you know that the template is finished. -- IRP ☎ 20:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's great! However, I suggest a default, when no argument is given, which is similar to your original version or to the equivalent of about 8 or 10 colons. Hmm, you may have one or two too many underscores for the number of colons, the way this message displays.☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I set it to where it creates an error message if no argument is specified. -- IRP ☎ 00:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea! It's far more convenient if it gives a reasonable default. Some people may choose to use it without any argument every time, because it's easier to type.

The code may be neater if you use a switch statement rather than all those ifeq's, but maybe that doesn't matter. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've set a default of 10. -- IRP ☎ 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider

JzG's personal attacks continue up through his RFA. See:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Outside_view_by_Ikip where he calls Abd "autistic" and Dan a "borderline troll". I am compiling more edit history diffs since the last AfD, based on JzG's edit history, I am sure their will be dozens of more personal attacks. I am contacting AbD also.

If you still don't want to change your !vote, I would appreciate you refactoring out (deleting) the entire section, if you still disagree with my conclusions:

1. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC) While the purpose of this RfC is to address use of tools while involved, I also encourage JzG to follow the civility policy. During this RfC, JzG said this. Withdrawing my endorsement, per Abd, with apologies to JzG. 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (Thanks, Abd: another example of your leadership in consensus-building. 00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you Ikip (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I disagreed with your conclusions. I've added an explanation to my withdrawal which I hope addresses that.

I'm thinking about it, but for now I'm still thinking that the RfC is about use of tools while involved. You can, if you wish, start a separate RfC about other behavioural issues; I would suggest waiting until some time after this RfC has concluded, and I would suggest focussing only on conduct after the closure of this RfC: one hopes that JzG may already have gotten your message and that there would be no such problems, making such an additional RfC unnecessary. It's complicated, because it's not entirely clear whether the RfC can be restricted to a narrow set of questions.

If you would like to support expression of community consensus on a variety of issues in this RfC, you might consider supporting the reverting of this edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. I appreciate your hard work and efforts to be amblicable and civil to everyone, and be a diplomat that editors can look up to and trust. Are you an admin, you should be. Ikip (talk)

I've further edited my withdrawal statement. I'm not an admin, but thank you very much for saying so! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

distastefullness

Hi Coppertwig, I just saw your recent addition to the Workshop page. I would like to note that there are a number of examples showing Jayjg accusing MM of 'distasteful' ethnic discrimination. In a few minutes I pulled up I'll stop noting your distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin, Please stop categorizing sources by alleged ethnicity or national origin, it's inappropriate and distasteful, your attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin is distasteful and inappropriate. I can find more if you wish. Nableezy (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you: I've seen plenty. My point is that MeteorMaker has misquoted^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} Jayjg, who apparently never used the phrase "distasteful ethnic discrimination". If you find a diff of Jayjg using that particular phrase, please let me know. Diffs such as you've provided we have plenty of already. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder how you see "distasteful ethnic discrimination" is not equivalent to "distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin". "Distasteful ethnic discrimination" seems to be a rather faithful reproduction, slightly modified sure, but the same exact meaning. Nableezy (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

never mind, I see this now, though it leaves me thoroughly confused. The meanings of the two are exactly the same and to call MM out for not writing the entire phrase is a bit of a head-scracher for me. Nableezy (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Now Nableezy, if you don't see the difference between (absurd, as it happens of course) allegations phrased as "distasteful ethnic discrimination" and those couched as "distasteful attempts to discriminate against sources based on their [alleged] ethnic origin", then you've not spent enough time on a Wikipedia talk page. Jayjg will explain how to wikilawyer such obscure subtleties, and how to quote rules in favour of or against one or other position. Coppertwig, I thought you knew better. --Nickhh (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The two phrases do not appear to me to have the same meaning, and certainly not the same connotations, and I have no particular reason to think that they appear to Jayjg to have the same meaning. As I said, misquoting another editor adds heat to and subtracts light from a discussion. If MeteorMaker wishes to assert that Jayjg said something "equivalent to", or "having the same meaning as", some phrase, that might be OK; but to say "he claims", use quotation marks, and then supply a phrase that the person didn't use is unacceptable in my view.^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} (Note: the first two pairs of quotation marks are to indicate the use-mention distinction; the last is a quote of MeteorMaker.) Nickhh, what standards do you use when quoting from sources? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have not spent much time here, but for why I say they are equivalent: "Distasteful and inappropriate" can without any complaint be pared down to "distasteful", anything that is both "distasteful" and "inappropriate" is also "distasteful". "Discrimination" is equivalent to "attempt to discriminate", if somebody says I am attempting to discriminate against a group they are accusing me of discrimination. And finally "on alleged ethnic or national origin" is including either discriminating based on alleged ethnicity or based on national origin, here he accuses him of both. The only possible issue that could be made is in the missing "alleged". Is that where you see the two phrases differ or am I missing something? Nableezy (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

mmm.... knowing nothing about the underlying conflict, the condensed phrase does seem to be a reasonable summary of the longer statements. While I agree that quotation marks should be used with caution, they do not always indicate exact quotation in relatively informal writing; I can easily imagine the quoted phrase as a good-faith rendering from memory of the original. So if there is some offense on MM's part here, it would be minor and technical. I have not noticed any argument that, if "distasteful ethnic discrimination" was offensive, then the longer phrase was not. I don't see qualifications in the longer phrase that modify possible offensive connotations of the words in the shorter. On the other hand, what a tangled web! I'm tip-toeing away now.... --Abd (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Abd, for your thoughts, much of which I agree with and much of which I had already thought of but hadn't expressed. However, I really think this is not just minor and technical. To me, the connotations at least of the two phrases are quite different, and perhaps the meaning. If I were Jayjg I would be quite annoyed at having such a phrase attributed to me which I didn't say (especially since it's being used as a basis for an accusation of saying something he allegedly very much ought not to have said). Such annoyance in itself can detract significantly from progress. I'm trying to untangle this discussion, and the way I see forward is to clarify meanings and remove unnecessary annoyances. Anyone can misquote by accident: when it's pointed out, one should correct it. If the quotation marks were not intended to indicate direct quotation of Jayjg but something else (what?), I think MeteorMaker should say so.

What if this were a quote from a source? What if the source actually said "It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" and an editor said of this, using quotation marks, "This source says 'Samaria is now called "northern West Bank"'"? Once could argue that the two phrases are equivalent. One could argue that they are not. What if someone else said, "Hey, you've used quotation marks, but the words you've given are not the same as the words in the source!" and the other person replied "If you honestly think it's inappropriate to condense "It corresponds roughly to the northern portion of the modern West Bank territory" to "This source says 'Samaria is now called "northern West Bank"', kindly indicate in what way the meaning has been changed"? [21] What if the other editors didn't have access to the original source, or didn't bother checking it because they trusted the person who was presenting a quote? That's not the way to build an encyclopedia; and accusing Jayjg of "extremely bad faith assumptions",[22] lying, [23] etc. for using a phrase^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} which he didn't use is not the way to collaborate with other editors. I've asked MeteorMaker to assume good faith and to try to understand why Jayjg said what he said; [24] seeming to be^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} stating that he said something different, and which in my opinion would be more difficult to understand or justify, is a step in the opposite direction and a step which there is no good reason for taking.

... and furthermore, Abd! Accusing someone, on the talk page of an Evidence page of an open arbitration case, of saying something^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} (in quotation marks) which one characterizes as "extremely bad faith assumptions" or that the person "lied", is not the sort of informal discussion where one can get away with mere approximate quotation (if one can anywhere), especially if one continues to insist on it after a diff of the actual phrase has been asked for.

... Nevertheless, Abd, I'm delighted to see you participating in this discussion, and your comment was helpful. I hope you won't tiptoe away too fast. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. Sophistry aside, what do you make of the fact that Jayjg accused me of:

• "categorizing sources by alleged ethnicity or national origin", which he called "inappropriate and distasteful" [25]
• Suggesting WP should "discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnicity or national origin", which he called "distasteful at best" [26][27][28][29] [30][31]
• "bring[ing] up the alleged ethnicity or national origins of the various authors, as means of approving or disapproving them" [32]
• "hav[ing] repeatedly tried to dismiss sources published outside Israel because of their alleged ethnicity or national origin" [33]
• "trying to disqualify sources on spurious grounds, including their alleged ethnicity and national origin", which he called "distasteful" [34]
• Attempting to "discriminate based on ethnicity or national origin", which he called "rather distasteful" [35]
• Making "distasteful attempts to disqualify sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin" [36]
• "Discriminat[ing] against sources based on alleged ethnicity or national origin", which he called "inappropriate" [37]
• Making "attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin", which he called "distasteful and inappropriate." [38](*4) [39]
• Making "distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin" [40]
• Making "continual distasteful and inappropriate attempts to disqualify sources based on ethnicity or national origin" [41]
• "Trying to disqualify sources based on alleged ethnic or national origin", which he called "distasteful and inappropriate" [42]

In your opinion, can such accusations (that furthermore have never been substantiated with diffs, and continued despite numerous clarifications and admonishments to stop) be made in good faith? MeteorMaker (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Coppertwig, first if you tire of conversing with me let me know and I will drop it. But the biggest problem I have with this argument is that it goes against what you argued previously on whether or not Jay demanded an exact quote from a source on 'different epoch-names'. Then you argue that while Jayjg says 'Sigh. Which one of those sources states "Samaria and the West Bank... different-epoch names for the same area"? Please quote them saying it' (emphasis in original) he is not asking for a direct quote, despite the use of the quotes and the demand that MM 'qoute' them saying it. I do not understand how you can say that Jay's use of quotation marks and the explicit demand for a quote to not be demanding that exact quotation, but here MM's quote must somehow be an exact quotation. The disparity in the positions is confusing. And if you wouldn't mind enlightening me on why MM's 'quote' and what Jay actually said carry either different meanings or connotations it would be appreciated. Nableezy (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. I look forward to replying to both of you more fully later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Count me among those who sees no substantive difference, absolutely none whatsoever, between Jay's repeated accusations ("distasteful and inappropriate attempts to discriminate against sources based on their alleged ethnic or national origin") and MeteorMaker's summary of same ("distasteful ethnic discrimination").

In the spirit of WP:AGF, but in the absence of any clarification from you, I'm brainstorming for the possible reasons you have for thinking there's a semantic difference between these two things. The only clue I've managed to dig up is from a subsection of your evidence post, where you point out that "discriminate can mean make distinctions between." Coppertwig, if English isn't your first language, let me say right now that you write it with consistent fluency and occasional eloquence, so please don't be insulted by this, but there does seem to be an idiomatic misunderstanding going on here. The issue here isn't different meanings of "discriminate," which always means to make distinctions between things. The issue here is the difference between the idiomatic phrases "discriminate between" on the one hand, and "discriminate against" on the other. In English usage, the former has positive connotations, suggesting a capacity for sound, subtle, nimble and nuanced judgments and distinctions. It has the same set of connotations as saying so-and-so is "wise and discriminating," has "discriminating tastes," etc. The latter phrase, however – "discriminate against" – has negative connotations. The word "discriminate" within the phrase "discriminated against" goes on meaning the same thing – i.e., make distinctions – but in this case the distinctions are crude, unsubtle, rigid and bigoted; they usually involve rough classifications of people by age, race, ethnicity, "type," etc. We know which of these things Jay meant when he repeatedly attacked MeteorMaker, because he used the phrase discriminate against (not discriminate between), and because he went on repeatedly to specify that the sort of discrimination MM was guilty of was ethnic discrimination – "distasteful" ethnic discrimination, to be exact.

I hope this clarifies things. For the record, I agree with you as a matter of style that in indicative sentences, the implication of quotation marks is that a verbatim statement is being attributed; just as in interrogative sentences (of the who-has-stated-quote-"X"-unquote? variety), the implication of quotation marks is that a verbatim statement is being requested. We seem to be coming round to the same position on this, I see, which is good. I would only stress here that where no substantive misunderstanding or mischaracterization arises, this is a point of style only, and excessive focus on it amounts to pedantry.--G-Dett (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a long comment here at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Workshop#On bigotry (and accusations of). It answers MeteorMaker's question in the affirmative.

Nableezy, quotation marks can mean different things at different times. In the next few minutes, I'm not going to shout out loud "At least the sun is still shining!" My use of quotation marks in that sentence doesn't represent anyone saying those exact words in the past, nor is it a request for someone to say those words in the future. The meaning of the quotation marks is controlled by the meaning of the rest of the words in the sentence. I would say those quotation marks are indicating the use-mention distinction.

In the case of the diff you ask about, Nableezy, there Jayjg's quotation marks indicate a precise, verbatim quotation of an earlier comment by MeteorMaker here. The main difference is that Jayjg's quote is correct: that is, MeteorMaker did actually post those exact words, whereas MeteorMaker's quote is incorrect^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))}: as far as anyone has been able to find, Jayjg did not post the exact phrase that MeteorMaker placed within quotation marks. Jayjg's use of quotation marks is also, I think, an example of "embedded quotation", but I'm not sure we need to get into that; you can read the above thread #Your Arbcom evidence or search for the phrase "embedded quotation" in it if you're interested.

MeteorMaker, if you agree with G-Dett that there is essentially no difference in meaning between the two phrases, (or even if you do see any difference in meaning), then I invite you to edit the evidence page to replace your condensation with what Jayjg actually said in each case.

G-Dett, thank you very much for the very nice compliment you gave me in an earlier section of this page. While our earlier discussion did provide a significant measure of enjoyment and education, I'm afraid that time constraints compel me to try to avoid slipping into another discussion of that length unnecessarily, and therefore I decline your invitation to discuss my interpretation of the two phrases. What I think they mean is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion: I'm neither one of the ones who originated the phrases, nor one of the ones who was offended by them.

MeteorMaker can remove any need for discussion of the relative meanings of the terms simply by refactoring the quotes.

Here we have a breakdown in communication and collaboration. Some people are not working together in a friendly way. I'm proposing ways to improve the situation: for example, to avoid doing things that are likely to irritate [43] the other person, such as seeming to be^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} misquoting them. No reason whatsoever has been given for not avoiding misquotation or for not acknowledging or fixing the misquotations that MeteorMaker has done.^{(17:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC))} When one has the opportunity to improve the situation and no apparent reason not to ... well? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(Tip-toes back in). There is a semantic problem here. If I use quotes, does it mean that I'm making an exact quotation? Quotes are used for various things, and exact quotation is only one of them. MeteorMaker synthesized a brief summary of Jayjg's words, and it seems to have been a fair summary, though certainly Jayjg could question that. Has he? In an article, using quotes this way would be thoroughly reprehensible, in formal writing quotations are intended to be exact; with elided words indicated with ellipses. But MeteorMaker wasn't writing formally, he was just making a point in a discussion. He provided, if I'm correct, diffs which substantially confirmed what he'd said, not the exact words, but the sense of it, and the exact words were used, but with other words in between, albeit words that did not shift the meaning. Has MeteorMaker claimed that his quotation was exact? I don't see that. He's claimed that it was the sense of what Jayjg had written, and that seems reasonable. I'm not taking side here, I'm only addressing a semantic point, and, I must ask, what is the purpose of the communication taking place here, and originally? Misquotation is, indeed, a common problem, and offensive, but this would be marginal as "misquotation." It certainly was not "exact quote." Was it represented as such? Coppertwig, you seem to be claiming that the very use of quotation marks was such a representation, and in an article context, I'd agree. But in more informal discussion, I would not. I do agree that if the words quoted deceptively presented the original text, and were not a fair summary of them, it would be a problem. But I do not agree that it is intrinsically a problem, that MeteorMaker should be censured or blamed for the "inaccurate" quote. Now, I put "inaccurate" in quotation marks. Does that mean that I was quoting someone? I was quoting myself the second time, but the first? Maybe, maybe not. I'm representing the sense of what I remember of what was written, there was a quote and it was claimed -- and proven -- that it wasn't exact in that the words of the quote had other words in between them in the original. Is that "inaccurate"? Maybe. Communication is always ambiguous, and if we seize on the ambiguities and struggle over them, we may miss the whole point. What's the real conflict here? Somehow I'm suspicious that MeteorMaker's putative misquote isn't the cause, and that argument over it is wasted time. Are the parties seeking consensus, or are they seeking to win? The two goals aren't very compatible.

Have clear statements of each position been made? One exercise I've used is to ask the parties to work on a consensus document that expresses the controversy, neutrally. If I can't agree with you on what you are saying, there is little hope to go further in agreement on what we might decide. Sometimes I've seen it done that each party states the other party's position, trying to be true to it, but in their own words. Then the described party makes corrections, which the original stater then incorporates. The point is to make sure that the issues are completely clear, that the basis each party has for their position is clear, and that any necessary evidence is shared and reviewed. It can be quite time-consuming, that's what is known about real consensus process. It typically involves breaking down the conflict into, first, areas of agreement and areas of disagreement, solidifying and making explicit the agreements, then looking at areas of disagreement, breaking them down into the smallest possible issues, finding agreement where possible and identifying the precise basis of disagreement. *Usually*, if the people involved are not paranoid (literally, not colloquially), agreement can be found when the basis of disagreement has been sufficiently explored. It can break down when people are not willing to state the basis for their beliefs, but, at least, it can become possible to identify that this is what is going on. Socrates showed that sometimes people really don't want to be asked why they believe things. But if finding consensus is our goal, and that is absolutely necessary for Wikipedia, we have to do it, and we should be willing to examine our own ideas just as closely as we might the ideas of someone we imagine we disagree with.

How many times have I seen someone say "I disagree with you," when I know they don't have the foggiest idea what I've been saying? I'm quite sure they couldn't repeat it! Now, if someone says that they disagree with me, and I say to them, "Fah! You don't understand what I'm saying at all," and they then repeat it to me, accurately, and explain it to me using the explanations that I believe, and then they say, "And I still don't agree with you, and I might be able to show you why, if I can ask you some questions." I'm in a pickle. The easy solution: arrange for the person to be condemned to death as very dangerous, corrupting the youth, etc. Well, that's actually not truly easy, because societies that do that, like the Athens of Socrates, collapse because they cannot adapt to new circumstances. What's truly easier, once one knows the trick, is to start listening, and consider those damn questions. On the other hand, in most real disputes, both sides have not been listening well enough, not just one. Oh, the trick: WP:DGAF. Besides, it's more fun to learn new stuff than to be confirmed in what I already know, or think I know. People imagine that being wrong is humiliating. Sure, it can seem that way. In fact, though, it's fun.

One of the tricks my girls' violin teacher uses is to ask the kids to play a piece wrong. If you can do it wrong, you are more likely to be able to do it right. We learn much more by being wrong, we learn practically nothing by being right. So, long term choice: You can be wrong and smart, or right and stupid. I'm amazed how many people make the second choice, it's one of the things I really don't understand yet, except that "stupid" must have some kind of survival function, individually or collectively, at least under some circumstances.

Ahem. Feel free to collapse this, or do whatever with it. I do get carried away. --Abd (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That was very helpful, Abd. Thank you. Being open-minded is a constant exercise in discovering new dimensions one wasn't previously aware of and along which one can open doors and move into new territory. I try to be open-minded and sometimes fall into the trap of believing that I am (a thought which tends to lead to laziness about trying to become aware of more of those new dimensions, and thereby to stagnation). Here you've helped me to AGF and to open my mind to a POV I hadn't previously considered tenable. This, along with MeteorMaker's clarification, has led to my withdrawal of a proposed finding of fact [44], modification of a proposed remedy [45] and refactoring of talk page comments [46], all with the effect of withdrawing my accusation of misquotation. Although with hindsight I see that I could have approached this in a less disruptive, less time-consuming, more AGF way, I'm pleased with the result nevertheless. I think it was important to clarify the meaning of those quotation marks, and that has happened. Hopefully, having gotten that out of the way we'll be able to focus better on the more substantive issues.

I'm coming out of this discussion with positive feelings and a more cooperative attitude than I started with. I'm happy about how this has turned out. I'm sorry, though, if it's been the opposite for some other participants: I'm afraid my actions may have generated some hard feelings.

Perhaps I should have stated at the beginning: my accusation of misquotation was not for the purpose of harassing or trapping MeteorMaker. It was for the purpose of giving MeteorMaker a strong message that it's important to avoid certain behaviour which I saw (perhaps incorrectly) as contributing to an atmosphere in which it was very difficult to collaborate; and that message was for the purpose of influencing MeteorMaker to change behaviour, thereby allowing the atmosphere to improve.

Thanks also for your suggestions of techniques to use. Those are very good ideas (and in fact I've used similar techniques in the past, with excellent results) and I think I'll propose something like that at WT:IPCOLL. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion to MeteorMaker: You could write it like this: "distasteful" "ethnic[]" "discriminat[ion]" (if you don't want to write "what I paraphrase as" or other words to indicate that it isn't a continuous verbatim quote). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I had not fully realized the potential for misunderstanding even in seemingly straightforward application of common stylistic devices. My reciprocal advice to you would be to try to clarify misunderstandings (eg by using the user's talk page) before you run and create proposals of actions against other editors in an ongoing ArbCom case. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try harder in future. Note that in this case both of us did try to clarify the misunderstanding using the talk page before I posted the finding of fact, but we didn't succeed. In particular, this comment of yours was a very good attempt to clear up the misunderstanding, and if I had read it several times slowly and thought about it carefully I might have responded in a better way. I may have been distracted by your moving my comment, which I didn't like, and I may also have been a bit confused because we've been having almost the same discussions on different parts of the page at the same time, which may be my fault. So I over-reacted, although it didn't seem to me at the time to be an over-reaction. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the user talk page (corrected above). Re the moving of your post, I apologize if it was inappropriate and you may move it back if you like. I felt it was out of sequence, having been added above Nish's earlier comment to the same post, and foresaw a long exchange that would have pushed it down to where it would have appeared positively disembodied. Since your comment was clearly addressed at me and not Nish (first word: "MeteorMaker"), I saw no potential for confusion in moving it down one position.

Let me add that even though you didn't completely retract your proposed remedy for this non-problem, I'm impressed with your readiness to admit a mistake and ability to adapt your views to reality — if everybody were like you, the original J&S question would have been solved in perhaps a couple of days. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice, MM. Coppertwig and I are just like everyone else: we think the world would be a better place if people thought and acted like us. Or, at least, we are *capable* of thinking that. I'm quite sure, in the end, though, that I don't want this, I want people to be free and to disagree when they disagree and agree when they agree, because, then, the sum of us is greater than any one of us. A world of clones would be not only dull, it would be unstable and unable to adapt. Neither Coppertwig nor I can settle differences alone; when at least one involved editor is willing to try a new approach, recognizing the damage approaching from what wasn't working, I've seen it work; and other editors will usually come along. It gets much more difficult when there are many editors, heavily entrenched in struggling with each other, and I can't point to so many successes. In this case, I can say, right now, you and Coppertwig certainly have a better relationship than you might have had if not for the willingness to listen and consider and communicate. You could have been trading salvos over trivialities before ArbComm, and, let me assure you, it irritates them and they will have a tendency to say, "a pox on both your houses." That is, to me, success. WP:DR works, if followed carefully, but too many times critical steps are skipped. In the end, it takes all sides signing on to consensus, when one party is simply refusing, it becomes pretty obvious; most sensible editors will cave at that point, knowing that they were heard and their position simply not accepted in spite of it, sometimes they may even accept a consensus that has sufficiently considered their position and become a defender of it. After all, it could have been worse. --Abd (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

just a suggestion

no offense, but was it really necessary to copy and paste the same statement 8 times on the evidence talk page? maybe you could try rephrasing your objections, or rebutting the statements that the other editor makes. usually you seem to be a very civil editor, but i felt that this was a bit unnecessarily adversarial. just a suggestion. :) untwirl(talk) 16:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if it was disruptive. Perhaps Tznkai's opinion could be asked on that. However, the same false allegation was repeated some number (8?) of times on different parts of the page, and I feel it's important that anyone reading only part of the page be alerted to the falsity of the allegation. I tried to keep my note short; it's considerably shorter than many of the comments it's in reply to. I placed the note immediately after each of the repetitions of the allegation, to maximize the chance that it would be noticed by anyone reading such allegation. Perhaps you would like to ask MeteorMaker to delete or refactor some of the repeated allegations; if some or all of the repetitions of the allegation are removed, then I'll consider removing the corresponding notices. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

well, if you don't want to remove them i'm certainly not going to pester you about it. i was only making the observation because in the past you have taken a more measured approach. was your concern that the arbs might not notice that you objected to the quotes being used? as long as its noted in your evidence i'm sure they will see it. correct usage of quotes seems to be quite a sticking point in this case in several instances. otherwise, i see a chance that the repetitive pasting might instigate more drama into those threads, some of which were a month old. i've only been watching these pages for a little while but that seemed out of character for you. untwirl(talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One aspect of my character you may not be aware of is that when I see a statement I believe is false, I have a very strong tendency to reply to it, explaining why I disagree. I may appear soft a lot of the time, but I have a firm side too. Avi has said of me, "Coppertwig has that rare synergy of the mettle to enforce our rules with sanctions, and the diplomacy to explain, and often prevent the need for, the applications of those sanctions." [47] So perhaps it's not out of character for me. On the other hand, I'm not in the best of health at the moment and it's possible that I might later think it over more fully and regret the edit, as sometimes happens too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I put a note about this at User talk:Tznkai#Explaining repetitive edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"When making an accusation it's particularly important to quote accurately"

I'm sure it's just an oversight, but when you refactored your unfounded accusations of misquotation on my part, you seem to have missed this section, which still reads:

"I don't remember anyone else misquoting someone in this discussion, let alone continuing to insist on the misquotation after it's been pointed out. And as Tundrabuggy pointed out, when making an accusation it's particularly important to quote accurately."

I would appreciate if you looked into this. Given the fact that the remedy proposition was based on a misunderstanding, it would be appropriate to strike it in its entirety, like you did with your proposed finding of fact. [48]

Thanks in advance. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. You've checkmated me. I concede. Leaving such a comment standing while the comment itself called on people to be careful when making accusations was strange-loopy of me. I've struck it. (Sorry about that. I had forgotten about that comment; thanks for pointing it out.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Solutions

I have removed this section as there is no consensus to do this and its not what we do at RFC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK, that's fine. I was just trying to be helpful, as it had been asked for on the talk page and somebody there gave the impression that it's usually done. I'm not that familiar with RfC. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

enabling banned users

Could you please stop enabling users that have been specifically banned from that specific talk page? He was banned for POV pushing and disruption, not to mention going purposefully against WP:V and WP:RS in order to push his own opinions, and now you are restoring his comments because they are "interesting"? No, please, don't do that. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember right now if you knew about Jed's ban, I think that you did but I'm too tired to look it up now so I'm leaving some links:

• AN thread asking for a ban
• notification of ban in talk page
• Arbcom clarificaton on the ban

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not Jed Rothwell is considered banned, I was not editing on his behalf, but quoting his comment because I find it interesting and would like it to be in the talk page archives for future reference. It also provides context for the comments which follow it. I have no idea whether he cares whether his comments continue to appear on the page or not. The whole discussion was inside a collapse box. These are talk page comments, not edits to an article. I see Jed Rothwell's refraining from editing the article as an effort to avoid an appearance of COI; I believe his talk page comments are intended by him to contribute to improving the article, although I find that particular comment interesting regardless of what his motivations were for posting it. There's no requirement that anyone else find them interesting. Wikipedia is not censored.

In any case, this matter is moot, because the discussion in question has been moved by Abd to userspace, with a link to it from Talk:Cold fusion for the convenience of those who find it interesting.

I'm not convinced that Jed Rothwell is banned. I think banning users should involve at least as much process as deleting articles. AIV is like CSD, but this would be a case for AfD-like process, i.e. closure by an uninvolved admin. The arbitration request was rejected as improper process; that doesn't constitute confirmation of a ban. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Coppertwig. The AN report was not noticed to the editor, as I recall (User talk:JedRothwell has been deleted, I think maybe we should ask for that back, it could be relevant). The report was highly biased, nobody there seems to realize that the editor has a COI and is voluntarily restricting himself to Talk, has been under long-term incivility attack, etc. Those who might have had reason to realize the value of this editor's contributions were probably completely unaware of the AN report, which wasn't closed with any conclusion. (I've seen this before, discussions on noticeboards with no neutral close; considering them as conclusive is a Bad Idea, because then we have an alleged community decision with nobody responsible for it; I did, in fact, get blocked last August over questioning exactly this kind of non-decision; in the end, the decision was reversed, though after a lot of fuss, it would have been much cleaner if the admin who later took responsibility for the decision, retroactively had been more careful, but he was somewhat impaired at the time by off-wiki problems.)

A ban notification on the Talk page of an article is utterly ineffective. As I recall, there are some signs that Rothwell was unaware of that notification, and he would be expected to disregard it in any case, since the one notifying him was the same editor who had been, long-term, grossly uncivil toward him, etc. One more reason for admins who are involved to rigorously abstain from use of tools (and threat of tool usage, which is what a ban is, is by consensus covered under recusal guidelines).

And it is thoroughly amusing to see a rejected RfAr/Clarification used as proof of a ban, when there was ample expression of opinion there that the ban was done by an involved administrator, and in the vote to close and reject, at least one arbitrator was very explicit that no decision on the ban was being made.

So what we have, in fact, is a collection of opinions supporting a ban, but no ban. This was raised before by GoRight, and properly so, but I never "litigated" it because the ban is generally moot. Except here, and the problem here isn't the ban, it is the willingness of a certain faction to edit war over discussion, without seeking consensus, which is appalling. I'm not taking this to AN/I, but I certainly could, as could anyone. (Not a suggestion!). Right now, there is entirely too much disruption already, and the train is on track to bring much of this before ArbComm, so, pending ... let's work on articles and specific, productive issues. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I realized in retrospect that my edit was not as appropriate as I thought at the time I made it. Later it was replaced by a link, and I still think it's reasonable to have a link on the article page to where the discussion has been moved to in userspace, but I refrained from reverting the removal of the link in order to avoid edit warring. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

request

Coppertwig, the article entitled James G. Lindsay which was written by user:Wikifan was nominated for deletion by user:Nableezy. I think it is appropriate to list this at articles of interest in relation to Project Israel and Project Palestine, but not sure how to do this. Could you help? Thanks in advance. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! I went to WP:ISRAEL, followed the links at the bottom to the Israel and Palestine-related deletion sorting lists, and followed the instructions there to add it. Happy to be able to help. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so very much. Not only did you do it, you taught me how to do it too. "Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime..." Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Not only that ... I learned how to do it at the same time!! And now I've added those deletion sorting lists to my watchlist, too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to assume good faith

Re your allegation of WP:AGF breaches [49], I couldn't figure out this line: "Given a choice between assuming that Jayjg understood that "West Bank" was being used as a short form for "Northern West Bank" and assuming good faith, MeteorMaker chooses the former [50]" Could you clarify by rephrasing it and perhaps also find a less confusing diff? MeteorMaker (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Page move war

I'm surprised that page doesn't already exist. I would assume that it does not exist for a reason. If I create it, do you believe that it would be nominated for deletion? It is currently located at User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/Wikipedia:Page move war. -- IRP ☎ 21:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know!

Do you think it should eventually be a policy, or a guideline, or an essay?

Maybe it would be better to make it a subsection of another page.

Perhaps it should have more instructions for ordinary users who might be involved in such move wars. It seems aimed only at administrators. Also, it could say something about discussing the matter with the users and persuading them to stop, etc.; and it could say something about where to ask for page protection (WP:RFPP), etc. in case non-admins are reading it.

I suggest that you put a note on the talk page stating that you invite others to edit it while it's still in your userspace, then put a notice at Wikipedia talk:Edit war telling people about it and inviting them to edit it and to discuss it on its talk page, while it's still in your userspace. That way, when (if) it's eventually moved to Wikipedia space, it may be more complete and any problems with it may have been worked out.

If you move it to Wikipedia space right away, I suggest putting an essay tag ({{essay}} on it (or perhaps a proposed policy or guideline tag {{proposed}}). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to the Wikipedia: space and posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:Edit war. -- IRP ☎ 00:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

page protection

Coppertwig, would you protect Charities accused of ties to terrorism until we can settle an issue that is causing constant edit-warring there? Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

note: an rfc is ongoing and the issue has also been take to the BLP noticeboard, with 2 uninvolved editors finding no BLP issue so far. Nableezy (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

and coppertwig is not an admin and the place to do this is WP:RFPP Nableezy (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nableezy is right. I replied on your talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, twig. I also appreciate the comments you made at my talk page. I thought you were an admin. I am not so up on administrative things (wiki-lawyering etc) as I should be, nor do I have the time I'd like to deal with such stuff. Edit-warring is such a drag! Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Coppertwig. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page move war.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- IRP ☎ 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Coppertwig. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page move war.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI

Hi Coppertwig. I've mentioned you here, since one of the diffs I cited was addressed to you. Jakew (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome statements about editors

Hi Coppertwig,

On re-reading your evidence section, [51] I find that you have yet not stricken your allegation of misquoting, which has been correctly withdrawn elsewhere. Appreciate if you could fix that pronto. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Also, it appears somewhat disingenous to claim "No evidence he said that" when he did say that no less than 20 times, and the evidence has been presented in extenso three times already. Hope to see this corrected soon. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry about that. I've changed it to "With quotation marks. No evidence he used that exact phrase." If you refactor (or have already refactored) your statements that I'm quoting, please let me know and I may change it further. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello, we haven't talked in a while. Daniel.M (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

providing summaries of Abd's comments

(sorry for not replying before) Regarding your comment here. You adding a summary below every post made by Abd would cause the total text even longer.... Other editors disagreed for several reasons in the RfC's talk page.

Looking at, for example, the comments in this section, Abd even replied to your second summary, making the total text even longer (comment + summary, +reply to summary which adds new arguments), and I found that your summary missed a few nuances of what Abd said. There is also that, when Abd acts, he will act on the basis of what he said in his post and not on the basis of your summary, so I'll have to read Abd's post anyways to search for the lost nuances.

So, no, I'm afraid that I don't find your summarizing to be helpful. It would be great if it worked, but, regretfully, the few summaries you made seemed to be adding noise to the discussion instead of reducing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig is welcome, if he thinks it appropriate, to collapse my original comment with an appropriate header. If I don't like it, I can revert it. Every summary I've seen has been accurate. Sure, the summary may miss a few nuances. However, if I wrote briefly as some seem to want, those nuances may be missed as well. It looks to me, Enric, like you are making up ways to disagree. How about working on article content, instead of tussling over Talk page content? If you miss some nuance, you won't be responsible, this is a wiki and just about anything can be fixed. I find it odd, do you object to an abstract at the beginning of an academic paper because it makes the thing longer? --Abd (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Enric, if I understand the situation, the problem is that you feel compelled to read Abd's posts in their entirety because Abd may act on the basis of those posts, but you don't like to spend the time to read them; that if Abd were to post something shorter, missing nuances, you would be satisfied to read that, but you don't want to read only a shorter summary if a longer version is also posted to the article talk page, even within a collapse box, because Abd could later claim that some detail had been discussed and could therefore be acted on. Is that an accurate description of the problem? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's it. There are also problems with the flow of conversation being broken by walls of text, and with the discouragement other editors that don't have my patience or time. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd, re "making up ways to disagree": I understand that it's uncomfortable to be criticized and that this makes it harder to be open to understanding the position of the person criticizing. However, I think you're jumping to conclusions about Enric's motivations, and I would like to encourage you to AGF and to make an effort to understand, which may take some thoughtful discussion back and forth.

Enric: I would think the use of collapse boxes would prevent the flow of conversation from being broken; they may also help to avoid discouraging editors, who could more easily skip the longer forms of the messages.

Abd said "You have no obligation to read what I write, nobody does, unless I put it into the article" [52]. If I understand right, you think that even if one of Abd's comments has been summarized and put into a collapse box, that Abd might use the details of what's within the collapse box (but which is not represented in the summary) as a justification for doing something (editing the article?) in a way that Abd would not do if the longer version of the comment didn't appear on the talk page at all.

But Abd could edit the article even without saying anything on the talk page first.

Whether some information did or did not appear on the talk page at a particular time is not usually relevant. Content decisions should be based on discussion of what makes the best article, not on discussion of who said what when. But if Abd does make an argument that something is justified on the basis that some information had been on display inside a collapse box, you could reasonably refute that on the grounds that such information was not represented in the summary and that no one is required or expected to read the contents of the collapse boxes.

I hope that helps. If not, maybe you could elaborate on the kind of situation you're concerned might arise. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd would be reverted and forced to discuss his edits in the talk page, so that's not a problem. If his comments are not going to be either read or taken into account for editing the article, then why should he write them in the first place.

And, of course, I doubt that Abd will accept being reverted on the conditions you describe, and summarizing doesn't solve the problems of fringe pushing, endless repetitions, etc. Well, summarize what you want, but I don't think that you are doing anything other than compounding the problem. Summarizing his arguments won't work when those arguments are flawed, or when they are repeated after having been shown as flawed somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I am going to butt in here with my own concerns about Abd's postings. I like to read what the editors write but with Abd the postings are so long, then add difs to go to so one can see what is being said can be an all day journey unfortunately. I tried to catch up, for example, the RFC that was going on and by the time I got through all of the writings and popped into the different locations like arbcom and ANI, I was too late to give my outside opinions on things. There has to be a way for Abd to cut down on the amount of words used so that editors like myself can absorb the information and comment in a reasonable amount of time. I read somewhere, don't remember right now where, that it is too time consuming for Abd to write more concise comments. Well I think other editors time is just as important and since there is a big arb case going on about all of this, I think outsiders are really needed at this point. You may summarize what s/he says but of course you too can miss things that may be of importance to others. I would really love it if Abd would just take the time to write what is needed and leave off some of the cruft at times. My comments are not meant to attack Abd, so my apologies if I sound like I am. I too have medical problems, which makes me a lot slower than most editors here. Though I am slower, I do try to read all the difs and comments and try to come to my own opinions on things. When Abd is involved in an issue, I have great difficulty following in a timely manner. From what I have seen so far in this case about User:JzG, is that a lot of the editors commenting, both pro and con, are deeply involved and know the situation well. I don't and as far as I can remember never had any communication with this editor Cold fusion or User:Abd. In closing, I guess what I am asking is there a way for Abd to reduce comments for clarity and easier ability for others to read? I am trying to read up on the latest arb case and decide if I have anything of use to add to the discussion but at this point the discussions are extreme esp. with a lot of the case seeming to be old and stale. Thanks for listening, I'll butt out now, apologies again if I sound rude in anyway. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Abd can shorten his comments, but because of his particular form of ADHD it takes him a very large amount of time and effort to do so. In fact, even when his comments are long, he has often already expended a lot of effort shortening them from even longer comments. I can also shorten Abd's comments, which also takes me some time and effort but much less, and I'm usually happy to do so on request; in fact, the act of summarizing helps me to understand the material myself. I just posted summaries of two of Abd's comments at Talk:Cold fusion, putting his original comments within collapse boxes. I'm not sure whether your posting a message to me at this particular time was prompted by that, or whether the timing was coincidental. You seem to be interested primarily in the Abd and JzG arbcom case rather than Cold fusion. If you would be a little more specific about which comments of Abd's you're having trouble understanding (e.g. his comments on which page? Project page or talk page?), or which ones it would be most useful to summarize or explain, I can probably summarize them for you. You don't necessarily have to specify a particular list of comments. Also feel free to ask me questions.

Here's a general summary of the Abd–JzG arbcom case and events leading up to it, as I see it; I may be leaving out whole areas, as I haven't read everything in the case yet, and this summary is from my perspective as an involved editor, though I've tried to include descriptions of other views.

Abd was concerned that JzG might be using admin tools in issues related to content disputes in which JzG was involved. Abd decided to investigate the Cold fusion article as an example of JzG's possible use of tools while involved, which was how Abd got interested in cold fusion. Abd started an RfC about whether JzG was using tools while involved. On the RfC, some users endorsed statements that JzG was using tools while involved; larger numbers (about double or more) of users endorsed statements generally supportive of JzG and suggesting that in such situations JzG "palm it off onto another admin" for appearances ("while I agree generally with Fritpoll's advice to Guy on how to avoid future complaints of thus type"). Statements endorsed by a large number of users also criticized Abd's behaviour as wasteful drama, that Abd shouldn't be repeatedly criticizing JzG's behaviour by doing things like starting the RfC.

Jehochman then started the arbitration case as being about two things (as I understand it): JzG's possible use of tools while involved, and Abd's behaviour.

Abd alleges that JzG was involved in editing the cold fusion article, pushing an anti-fringe POV; and carried out a number of admin actions related to the topic.

JzG alleges that his actions were supported by consensus, but admitted that he is "maybe ... not the best person" [53] to carry out those actions.

Abd is criticized for writing comments that are too long, and for raising the same issues multiple times. Abd says he's following normal procedures for escalating dispute resolution.

One of the issues is blacklisting. JzG used his admin tools to add newenergytimes and lenr-canr.org to the blacklist; that's one of the actions Abd alleges to be a use of tools while involved (and I agree). This then gets into the broader issue of how the blacklisting is to be used: what is the definition of linkspamming? Can blacklisting be used to block good-faith edits by established editors because some people believe such edits violate content policies? I think it's important that content policies be enforced by consensus among multiple editors, not by decisions taken by a more limited group such as administrators, and that the blacklist should be used only to handle linkspamming and only when necesssary. Blacklisting, like blocking and page-protecting, is in my opinion to be avoided as a limitation on free wiki-editing, and judgement is needed as to which remedy is needed in a particular case and whether any remedy beyond just reverting is needed

Well, I hope that doesn't just add to the mass of material for you to read! Let me know if I can help further. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't gone to the Cold fusion article, at least not yet. I have been to the arbitration and the third RFC. My problem is that I would like to see difs that are recent (within the past month, maybe two months) instead of the laundry list that goes back to last year. (Also JzG has recused himself from any administrator actions which is important I think). I see others showing difs that most of Abd's difs have already been handled in one way or another. To me, this is starting to look more like revenge or something. Now I don't know the history between these two editors but it seems very obvious that there is a lot of history going on. I also read a lot of this as if an apology or something to that affect is being asked for and not being given. I too don't think administrators should abuse there tools but what I am reading is at least back when this all first started, JzG was acting as an uninvolved administrator trying to help clear out problems. Now I don't know if this is true or not since I have a lot more reading to do. I have seen other editors request Abd not to post items that were originally posted by banned editors saying he takes responsibility for the edits. I'm sorry but I don't think this is right. Banned editors are banned, so others shouldn't be taken up their cause and this is what I feel might be happening. I will continue to read what is going on and if I can make any suggestions I will, if not I will just watch and see what happens. I just wish that this drama fest would end already since it's taking time away from some really good editors (not talking about myself :) ) Thanks for your explanation above though. If you are going to check things out then I might suggest you look at the history of difs on the editors who have commented at the cases,the RFC's and WP:FTN (it's also been on ANI, AE just to name a couple of places these discussions have gone to.) to see some of the comments that have been made in the past month or two. A lot of what I am aware of is from postings across multiple boards and editors talk pages prior to the case being submitted. I am trying to keep an open mind about everything and assume good faith. I would like to add so that I am open about things, is that I used to watch Abd's talk page when he had problems at ANI and did a controlled RFC on himself on his talk page. I am uninvolved and probably don't know a lot of the history going on which is making it a little more difficult to analyze things. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) PS: I do have your on my watchlist. ;)

Re "Also JzG has recused himself from any administrator actions which is important I think": I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'd like to see a diff.

Re "To me, this is starting to look more like revenge or something": To me, absolutely not. I see no sign that Abd has anything but consensus, NPOV and the best interests of the project at heart. Abd has repeatedly made clear that he prefers that JzG not lose his admin bit. A win-win solution is the best outcome. Abd delayed on starting the RfC in order to give JzG a chance to change course.

Some of the admin actions have not been "handled", as far as I know: neither reversed, nor supported by consensus arrived at in a community discussion. The most recent example of use of tools while involved that I'm aware of is the blocking of the IP editor who participated in the RfC.

Just because you would make different choices than Abd doesn't mean it's "revenge". Abd is concerned about admin recusal, and considers it sufficiently important to continue to follow dispute resolution under the current circumstances. If an admin refrains from miusing admin tools during the course of an RfC and arbitration case, is that enough to begin trusting them again? Opinions can differ on that. Part of it might depend on how much effort it would be to monitor the admin's actions after the processes close, and who would be available to do that work. It seems reasonable to me to require the person to state that they understand that their actions violated policy and that they won't do it again. An apology as such is not being asked for.

I may not have time to read a lot of discussions, but if you give me links to some of the discussions you're mentioning I might look at some of them. Don't feel you have to; I hardly have time to read the arbitration case itself. I'm not sure what you mean by the history of diffs. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If a banned editor posts something, it can be reverted; but if another editor takes responsibility for the material and re-posts it, because they have reason to believe it's good material and not because the banned editor wants it posted, then that edit is acceptable. This is standard practice. For example: ScienceApologist is working on a draft article at Wikisource. It's destined for Wikipedia; Wikisource is letting him use userspace there for the draft. Although ScienceApologist is currently banned from English Wikipedia, when the article is ready, there's no reason that any editor can't just copy it to Wikipedia, provided they have reason to believe that it's good material. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

[54] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval, if I understand the above discussion properly, and this diff, what mainly concerns you about Abd's comments is that Abd repeats arguments that you believe have already been refuted. However, in the diff I just gave, you are also repeating arguments. Disagreement can continue. People are not necessarily convinced when they read arguments. Maybe we can explore where exactly the disagreement originates: what is it about the arguments that some people find unconvincing. It might help to start an Archive guide and/or FAQ as I'm doing for the Circumcision article (Talk:Circumcision/Archive guide (guide to the talk page archives) and Talk:Circumcision/FAQ (beginnings of a FAQ. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Purposes in participating in Judea – Samaria arbitration case

I'm participating in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria for the purpose of trying to help achieve the following goals.

• Clear up misunderstandings; establish clear communication.
• Find ways to solve any outstanding problems in order to avoid the need for sanctions that would impede anyone from editing (although, sanctions if necessary).
• Reach consensus on content disputes that all participants are willing to accept
• Participants to understand each others' point of view (whether or not they agree with it) and to feel that the other participants understand their point of view.
• Participants to respect each other, and to feel that they are respected
• Participants to modify their behaviour so as to avoid irritating other participants

I also explain my role here and here.

As part of this effort, I've proposed draft guidelines for placename usage, which are under discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'll probably be on wikibreak until Thursday or Friday (which will be May 1). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta

Thanks for your sweet note Coppertwig, I'll do my best not to wake your family.--G-Dett (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw you should know that I'm a BIG fan of Rube Goldberg.--G-Dett (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I love those types of things.

There used to be a thingy in Mainz. It had about 5 or 7 big wheels, each attached on an axle that was somewhat off-centre. Each wheel was a different size, and each one was attached to the next larger one. Now and then, a motor would lift the largest wheel and then let it go. All the wheels would then spin around chaotically, eventually settling down to slower rocking movements. I loved to just watch it. Many years later when I was planning to go to Mainz again, I emailed the city to ask where the thingy was; I couldn't remember how to find it. But I got an email saying that it had been "built down" and that if I had any more questions I could contact the "Department of Monumental Affairs". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence in Abd-JzG arbitration case

I noted your statement that you intend to present evidence later in the Abd-JzG arbitration case. I think an arbitrator plans to draft a decision in that case fairly soon, so could you advise when you expect to post your evidence? Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, in light of which, I will probably post evidence today. I was waiting to see if JzG would reply to my message on his talk page, but he hasn't been editing. I'll be on wikibreak Monday to Thursday, so if I don't find time to post it today, it will likely be Thursday or Friday. I don't expect you to necessarily wait for me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Coppertwig's Day!

Coppertwig has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Coppertwig's Day! For being one of our kindest and most sensible editors, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Coppertwig! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

May 1 was your day, I was away. --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 13:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Very nice of you! When's Newyorkbrad's day going to be? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not for many months – I'm saving the extremely obvious ones for last. :) --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL!! That's great! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for this edit, correcting a longstanding WP:NPOV violation in circumcision. Blackworm (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad you consider it to correct a violation. I'm sorry I didn't do it a long time ago. Thanks also to Jakew, for saying the proposed changes looked reasonable. [55] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC on University of Maine "flagship university"

Hi Coppertwig! Thought you might like to know Sarek has started an RfC about "flagship university" on Talk:University of Maine. And the article on "flagship universities" on which you posted so much good material on the subject appears to have disappeared, possibly merged with something else. Nobody can find your stuff (at least I can't). Gets rerouted to "flagship.". Do you suppose that's a coincidence? Thanks for elevating the discussion somewhat. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. The page Talk:Flagship university seems to be there now, anyway. If I have time I might put messages on the various university pages that mention "flagship" to invite people to participate in the discussion. Ideally discussion should be in one place. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My comments were general in nature, not specific or directed to any editor, and were consistent with comments on the same page by the former Chancellor of the University of California. Yet, so far, I don't see that reason has entered much into the flagship discussion. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Flagship university has been redirected to another page, but the talk page is still there. General comments may often be more acceptable than comments directed at a specific individual, but the important thing is how people are likely to feel when they read the comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Coppertwig's Day!

User:Coppertwig has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Coppertwig's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Coppertwig! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A fine choice, Rlevse. :) --Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 18:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject User Rehab

Thank You For Joining

National Mentoring Month Logo

This user is a participant of the WikiProject User Rehab

Feel free to place this anywhere on your user page. To edit this box for improvement, Click here

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Hi, have noticed you've taken a very active interest in SA's featured drive for the optics article. As you're probably aware, I've been mentoring SA throughout this period. That includes planning and coordinating work, most of which necessarily occurs offsite due to SA's editing status. It's appeared for some time now that you've been attempting to move forward the same things we've already been on top of. Your enthusiasm is flattering. In order to get things happening smoothly, please touch bases about your questions and concerns. Durova^Charge! 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Coppertwig, please stop wasting my time. I think it's great that you and Abd are member's of each other's fan clubs and that you both agree on so many unexpected things. However, please do not post anything like this on my talk page again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have taken up your time. If I'd guessed you felt that way I wouldn't have bothered you. The section I wrote on Abd's userspace essay was inspired by (or is, in a sense, a reply to) a comment of yours, which has been copied to the talk page of the essay. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that you and Abd form a sort of tag-team. You yourself actually seem to have a fairly extreme point of view. At the same time you are very, very polite. However what you placed on my talk page could be regarded as highly manipulative baiting. Can you possibly understand that? You know how to be ultra-polite as far as civil POV-pushing is concerned and are doing your best to make sure Abd is strictly observing the rules of civil POV-pushing. I have no idea why you have now chosen to attach yourself to his ludicrous essay. I regard the content of this essay as paranoid and completely irrational. Instead of irritating other wikipedians (I hope this was not your intent), why not spend more time adding uncontentious and uncontroversial encyclopedic content to mainstream articles in wikipedia. Is that really so hard? ☺ Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I realized after I got your response that my invitations (which I gave to several users) could be seen in a negative light. I would have acted differently if I'd realized that earlier. I'm not sure whether I understand what you mean by manipulative in this context: maybe it has something to do with the fact that the essay is in Abd's userspace and therefore to some extent under his control? I was hoping to open up discussion, in an attempt to improve peoples' understanding of each others' positions. Perhaps unintentionally I achieved the opposite. I'm sorry.

What do I seem to you to have an extreme point of view about?

The articles need not only uncontentious and uncontroversial material, but also controversial material presented in a neutral and balanced manner according to NPOV policy: "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."

It would be interesting to hear about what you disagree with in the essay and why. The reason I added to the essay was that your comment got me thinking, and I thought up the section of the essay which I think explores some deep and longstanding rifts in the community, and which I hope can be a stepping-stone towards healing those rifts.

When people one agrees with agree with each other, it's easy to call that "consensus"; and when people one disagrees with agree with each other, it's easy to call that a "tag team". If there are any specific aspects of my behaviour, other than sometimes agreeing with Abd, that you find problematic, please specify what they are. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your behaviour on the talk page of cold fusion is far more troubling than that. You do seem to have formed a tag-team with Abd. The fact that Abd is in correspondence with a banned user (JedRothwell, whom Abd describes as prickly but almost always right) and Steven B. Krivit is extremely serious. It suggests that both you and he have a conflict of interest. As a professional research scientist myself I know that books published by both OUP and World Scientific are of variable quality, particularly those from WS. Your insistence on backing up Abd almost everywhere on WP and in particular about these sources is exceedingly problematic. If it continues to go on like this, it might be necessary to prepare a more formal report. I have no idea why you are both trying to push cold fusion as an "emerging science". The game of using Abd's mindless essay as yet another tool, Abd's off-wiki machinations and his flooding of the article's talk page - all these are an abuse of this encyclopedia. There is no point in trying to include speculative and unestablished science in an encyclopedia. Alarm bells should have have rung when the OUP review, edited by a journalist rather than a research scientist, is now being discussed at length. Abd has an openly hostile attitude to criticism of his editing methods and suggestions. He has made personal attacks on Verbal, which you have tried to moderate. I have no idea why you are so intent on passing off fringe POV-pushing/advocacy as neutral editing. Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you continue stirring the pot with references to me like this [56], a formal complaint will be made: I had no involvement at all in Abd's revert war. Neither you nor Abd should spend your time disparaging other editors in this way. You seem to be determined to create a bad atmosphere. Your shenanigans are not in the slightest bit helpful. What counts against you and your friend Abd are your very poor namespace editing records. You seem now to be attempting to disrupt the encyclopedia. Remember, Coppertwig, it's you that seems to be fringe POV-pushing/advocating cold fusion, in particular the point of view of Rothwell and Krivit. Steven B. Krivit's journal New Energy Times records interactions between this journalist and the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson which could never be published in a reputable non-fringe journal. I think he also referred to Bob Park there as not being a scientist, although he seems to pay a huge amount of attention to Park's What's new column and any positive spin that can be put on comments there on cold fusion. I have made it clear that I do not intend ever to edit Cold fusion; I have corrected biographical details about Martin Fleischmann with sources, just because he happened to have been a family friend in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Mathsci (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I had no idea you wouldn't have wanted to be quoted like that. I often use diffs of comments by Wikipedians for various purposes and rarely either ask the person's permission before quoting or even inform them that I've quoted them. The purpose of my quote was not in any way to disparage you, but only to explain why I was humourously referring to myself as a member of Abd's "fan club": more of a disparagement of myself, I think. I don't see how you see it as disparaging, but I've deleted it from my comment. I might reply further to your above comments later. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I posted an apology here. I don't know what you think I have an extreme point of view about. I'm not calling cold fusion an "emerging" science: that would seem to me to be predicting the future, which we don't do on Wikipedia. Since you bring up the idea of "emerging science", which I don't think I had discussed, here's my opinion: if a reliable source states that it's an emerging science, perhaps we can (per WP:ASF, report facts about opinions) say that this source has stated that it's an emerging science, (if that's a notable statement, and also balance that with opposing views) but I don't think we could state as a fact in the article that it's an emerging science. Predictions about the future can't be verifiable. I disagree with you about not including speculative and unestablished science: if it's notable, I think it should be included, just as we also include notable information about fictional topics, religion etc. We report not only facts, but also facts about opinions. With something like cold fusion, we have something about which there is no universal agreement as to the explanation: reports of excess heat, and there are various opinions, for example that it may be caused by experimental error. We report all significant POVs about that. At articles like Flat earth even tiny-minority POVs are described.

Use of essays to explore opinions about how Wikipedia works is totally normal. If you disagree with anything in the essay (User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing) you're welcome to discuss it. I don't think I have any conflict of interest with regard to the cold fusion article, and I'm not aware of any behaviour of mine that fits the definition of tag-teaming.

I don't know what the "OUP review" is.

Thanks for the reminder about mainspace edits. I'm trying to increase them, and will do so more in future. However, I'm planning to go on wikibreak for a few weeks shortly. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: invitation

Hi Coppertwig,

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I think the text is pretty good, and am unsure how I could improve it further. My only concern is that the text seems to assert a contrast between the views of some WPians and the views of "balanced WPians", which could be perceived as offensive to some. Maybe "a moderate approach" would be a better choice of words. Hope this helps. Jakew (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've just nominated an article you've worked on, Make It to the Sun for deletion.Borock (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Mervyn Emrys RFC/U

I just opened an RFC/U on Mervyn Emrys here. I thought you might have a significantly different perspective on the situation than me, since you've agreed with him more than I have... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion mediation

Greetings! You recently expressed concerns over certain statements regarding consensus at User talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion. I have since responded to your most recent statement. Would you mind having another look? While the nature and necessity of the mediation may dramatically change due to the recent unprotecting of the article and the topic banning of Hipocrite and Abd, I would like to, at the very least, make sure all of the involved editors are satisfied in case the mediation is continued (either now or at a later date). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your message. I saw the change you made, and appreciate the thought you put into that decision. I continue to be interested in participating. Thanks for the work you're doing on this, Cryptic C62. All the best. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FV

Your recent edit may have failed verification. You wrote. Some chiropractors are opposed to vaccination, one of the most cost-effective forms of prevention against infectious disease. This is not the same ref from the main chiropractic page. QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what the ref says. "The chiropractic profession has crusaded against one of the most effective public health measures of all time¬vaccination¬and many of its members publicly scoff at the germ theory of disease. Even today some chiropractors are openly opposed to vaccination. Some practice "muscle testing"¬for example, manually, subjectively appraising the muscle strength of a patient with a vitamin pill in his or her hand as a means of diagnosing nutritional deficiencies." QuackGuru (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you changed it in the lead from sound to solid. QuackGuru (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the wording at the chiropractic article. I don't think it's verifiable that it's not based on sound science; only verifiable that a researcher has stated that it's not based on sound science. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the ref again that is being used. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Although not problem free is not in the main page. See Chiropractic#Public health. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ernst (2008) says "The core concepts of chiropractic, subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science." and "None of these theories are, however, supported by sound evidence." However, those are Ernst's opinion; they are not Wikipedia's opinion. Wikipedia doesn't state opinions. Look at the Circumcision page: it's full of statements like "The American Medical Association state that circumcision, properly performed, protects against the development of phimosis". It attributes statements to the sources. It doesn't just say "Circumcision, properly performed, protects against the development of phimosis", because "properly" implies an opinion, and whether it protects against the condition is more difficult to verify than whether the American Medical Association has stated that it protects against the condition.

Maybe "not problem free" should be at the main page too; but anyway I thought this page was to be longer. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Links for convenience: this discussion is about Chiropractic controversy and criticism and also mentions Chiropractic. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to add simon says quotes all over the article. This was discussed extensively at the main page.

That would be a violation of WEIGHT to add the minority opinion about not problem free. Generally considered is weasel wording. You seem to like adding unnecessary attribution and weasel wording. This degraded the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the ref we can use the word sound. QuackGuru (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You failed to add simon says quotes at the main article and now you are trying to add them to another similar article. I hope you now realize what you are doing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a minority opinion. The source says that most health authorities agree on it. Why do you say it's a minority opinion? The solution to weasel wording is to attribute things to particular sources ... not to have Wikipedia assert opinions or unverified statements as if they're facts. Prose attributions are not unnecessary; they're necessary for encyclopedic accuracy.

The source does not say "Wikipedia can use the word 'sound'". It expresses an opinion, and we can report that that source expresses that opinion.

What I'm doing: I'm suggesting wording on the talk page. I've also suggested it at Chiropractic. I see nothing wrong with that. Prose attribution has been added to some sentences of the Chiropractic article at my suggestion, has been supported by other editors and has stayed there longterm.

Your opposition to prose attribution doesn't seem to me to be based on policy or guideline.

If essentially the same wording has been proposed previously, then I apologize for accusing you of ignoring previous discussions, then doing so myself. If you wish you may help me out by giving me a link to the previous discussion. Searching the archives isn't that easy. There's a discussion here where two editors say that we should attribute that as an opinion; maybe I'm missing it but I don't see arguments against that particular point in that discussion. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The solution to weasel wording is to avoid unnecessary attribution. It is a minor opinion when "The chiropractic profession has crusaded against one of the most effective public health measures of all time¬vaccination¬and many of its members publicly scoff at the germ theory of disease." Adding weasel wording or unnecessary attribution is absurd in my opinion. There was extensive discussion about simon says quotes and it was rejected. Now you may try it on another page but I disagree with weasel words and simon says nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a quote from another source? One solution would be to compare more than one source to find out how much weight to give the bit about "problems". Can you give me a link to that source?

We disagree about how best to handle weasel word situations, and we disagree about what weasel words are. WP:WEASEL says "either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed". This supports my contention that when there is a footnote, then they aren't weasel words. Weasel words are unattributed statements like "It is widely believed that..."; but when there's a footnote, along with a statement like "It has been reported that...", then it is attributed, so it's not a weasel word. You consider some things to be weasel words even when there is a footnote with an attribution to a source. It also says "Although this is an improvement, since it no longer states the opinion as fact ..." This supports my contention that simply removing weasel words makes things worse. You generally support taking statements from sources and repeating them as if Wikipedia agrees with those statements. While I sometimes see that as appropriate, at other times I see the statements as expressions of opinion or as coming from particular POVs. Wikipedia doesn't endorse particular POVs by asserting things as if they're fact, unless they're solidly verifiable fact. The mere fact that a source states something doesn't necessarily make it a fact. I see no policy or guideline that recommends against the use of prose attribution. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though the article runs afoul of WP:NPOV quite systemically. Consider this line from NPOV: The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. and Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. 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. Unomi (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Unomi. Which article are you talking about? Do you think it's taking a side, and if so, which side? Could you quote parts that you consider to be quotes from a heated dispute? In other words, could you please elaborate so that I can understand what point you're trying to make? I'm interested: I just really don't follow what you're trying to say. Sorry. Wait: let me guess. Are you talking about the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article, and do you think it takes an anti-chiropractic POV? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to Chiropractic_controversy_and_criticism, and while I hesitate to say that it takes sides, it has passages that stray from encyclopedic phrasing. This is also somewhat compounded by the fact that many items seem to be summarized twice. I have made a few edits which start to address the issues as I see them. Unomi (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The page is a stub. The way to handle weasel words is to inform the editor to not add weasel words. This stub is similar to Aspartame controversy. QuackGuru (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The ref says 62% dentists but it was changed to something irrelevant to the health care profession. QuackGuru (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatrists are health care professionals, please refer to the primary source and count the number of 'health care professions', its either psychiatry or HMO managers ;) Unomi (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig is commenting on vaccination and now this happened. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(<<outdent) QuackGuru, do you understand that my position is that if there's a footnote with a source, then it isn't weasel words? Do you think it's still weasel words even when there's a source in a footnote? If so, why do you think that? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which ref are you discussing. Here is a Ehreth 2003 (PMID 12531324) ref on vaccination. I understand the mainstream view. Are you trying to stir things up at the article. I understand editors were pretending there was original research in chiropractic. It was my position that all the editors who were pretending should of been indef-blocked until they admitted they were pretending and explain why they did it. QuackGuru (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

After Coppertwig commented about vaccination, the refs in the section don't seem to be in the right place. The long quote does not have an encyclopedic feel. We should strive to write our own sentences and not write articles with a bunch of quotes. QuackGuru (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, for the next couple of days would you please post your comments about article content on the article talk pages, so that I can choose to participate in the discussion or not depending on time available. You're still welcome to post messages here about my behaviour or other relevant issues. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't see the comments by Coppertwig to be honest. Yes, I commented out the line that the ref was attached to, but couldn't comment out the ref itself without moving the ref definition around, I figured you probably wanted to retain the ref so simply moved it a bit. BTW this source contains a graphic which shows that psychiatrists are included in the 7 health care professions. I am watching the articles talk page now for further discussion. Unomi (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that some of my comments were dishonest, Unomi? Would you please give diff links to the comments of mine that you think were dishonest, and explain why you think they were dishonest? There may be a misunderstanding. "Dishonest" is not the same thing as merely "disagreeing". Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he means any impropriety on your part, there is merely a comma missing: "I didn't see the comments by Coppertwig, to be honest". In other words "I missed them for some reason". Verbal chat

Thank you, Verbal. Hi Coppertwig, I did not intend to imply that you were dishonest. It was, as Verbal correctly surmised, one of my many grammatical oversights. :) ,,, Unomi (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to QuackGuru: no, I was not trying to stir things up; on the contrary, when I posted last to Talk:Chiropractic I was hoping it wouldn't lead to a big discussion, which I don't have time for anyway. Re editors who invoked WP:SYN: please assume good faith and try to arrive at consensus rather than just trying to get those you disagree with indef-blocked. I really don't think they were "pretending": why would they? They were expressing reasonable opinions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no evidence of original research presented. Editors claimed OR but it was not based on Wikipedia policy. It is a known that spinal manipulation is strongly assocuiated with chiropractic. When SP is direct related to chiropractic it was not OR. They were expressing what is called wikilawyering. They were pretending in order to say no consensus to get the material out of the article. There could of been some trolls too. There never was a neutral chiropractor editing the chiropractic article. Almost all of them were intentially dishonest too. I don't assume blind faith. Part of the problem were admins who should of also been blocked for allowing the lawyers and there enablers too continue. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Unomi: Oh, I see. I thought maybe I was misreading it; that interpretation didn't occur to me but now it looks obvious. Thanks for straightening that out, Verbal. :-) QuackGuru: my talk page is not an appropriate place to make accusations against editors other than myself. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If there were any editors who thought there was OR they should of also been blocked or banned for not understanding policy. If an editor is clueless that is there problem not mine. We are grown ups here. We are not here to coddle editors. When SM is the primary technique by chiropractors reported in secondary sources and in the media it could not possibly be OR. Any editor who was claiming there was OR when it is extremely clear it was not needs to understand that Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue to waste the time of other editors. What you added was not about back pain. Where did you get the idea to add this. Not some researchers but some editors were contending SM research was not the same as chiropractic SM research. Your proposal was never a compromise. Your proposal would of deleted almost all the sources in effectiveness and safetey sections. You alleged "Accepting this compromise will require some concessions from both sides of the dispute. I urge editors to seriously consider it". You also alleged "An essential element of this compromise is that information can be provided from general spinal manipulation studies which don't mention chiropractic, but only if such studies have been cited by other reliable sources as sources of conclusions about chiropractic". Your suggestion is not part of Original research. You were making up your own policy. There would not of been "concessions from both sides". The purpose of the page was to identify the problems editors who continued to claim OR. As long as the reference is strongly associated with chiropractic it passes OR to include in the chiropractic page. I don't have to provide studies that have been cited by other reliable sources as sources of conclusions about chiropractic. That would go way beyond OR. See WP:OR. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. General SM is directly related to chiropractic and the sources directly support the information presented. Yo wrote in your edit summary Is there consensus for merging the other way? when there was no such consensus but you tried to steer the discussion that way. Why would you allege consensus the other way when the evidence shows consensus to merge into the chiropractic education page. I know why Levine2112 wrote merge chiropractic education into doctor of chiropractic. Levine2112 discussed merging it the other way as a delay tactic to prevent the merge. You alleged your "own position on the merge is neutral" but when you read your edit summary stating Is there consensus for merging the other way? your position was steering the discussion to merge the other way which is not a neutral position but making a statement to support a merge the other way supporting Levine2112's position. QuackGuru (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

question about parsing in a template

Coppertwig, I notice you are a member of this category. I was wondering if you could answer a question for me about something I'm trying to do with a template? rainman made a mod to the search function that allows multiple prefixes with one search. This allows searching of differently named parts of wikipedia in one search. I set up a little searchbox here to allow a search of "Votes for deletion", "Articles for deletion", and "Miscellany for deletion". In looking around, I realize there are more sections to do with deletion of articles, and I would like to set up a search somewhere to search all areas related to deletion. However, in the template, I would like to add an option to list the prefixes. The prefix parameter is specified like this: prefix=section01|section02|section03|section04 and so on. For instance, in this search, the prefix is specified like this: prefix=Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|WP:Miscellany for deletion. How do I parse this into the separate sections so that I can list them? is there an easy way to do this without having to treat it as a string and delimit on "|"? I was looking at the help:array writeups, and the examples they point to no longer exist. It also seems to talk more about setting up an array with a number for each possible value and doing substitution picking up only one value in that array depending on an input value. I just want to split up the prefix sections so that I can list them in the search box in addition to setting up the search. I thought it would be better to display what sections are being searched. I was trying to do something like this: x=1; A: If prefix(x) does not exist, exit, else list prefix(x), x=x+1, go to A. Or something along those lines. But, I can't figure out how to do it in a wiki template, at least with the documentation I've found. There doesn't seem to be a way to have an array as one input parameter (that I've been able to find)- i.e., a way to define prefix parameter as an array - . Do you have any suggestions? I would very much appreciate any help you could give me. Or perhaps you could just point me to an example where it is done, then I can figure it out. Thanks. --stmrlbs|talk 09:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

you can try the search here:

Search all the Deletion archives

I have it set up right now just to search the deletion archives. Try searching for "Courtland County" or a user's name (that brings up a lot of different sections)--stmrlbs|talk 09:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy, but will try to find time to look into this today or tomorrow. Not sure if I'll know how! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Whenever you have time. --stmrlbs|talk 05:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I sort-of understand your question. I'm not sure if I can help. I tried your search box, and it does list the prefixes: searching for Obama, it says "Results 1 - 20 of 378 for Obama prefix:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|WP:Miscellany for deletion". I suppose that's part of the built-in search feature. Where do you want to list the prefixes?

Last I was aware little or no parsing of strings in available parser functions. I found some ways to parse strings at one point, but I'm not sure if I remember where they are, and they were clunky and limited. You could use a trick to take substrings from the end but not from the beginning of a string, or something. Oh, here it is: Template:Str sub; maybe it's advanced since then. (Have they installed an extension to allow parsing of strings yet?)

I'm surprised you're able to pass in a string containing pipe characters. Why isn't it caught by the thing that parses the arguments to the template? If you did parse it as a string using the pipe characters as delimiters, how would you do that? (Maybe you know some things I don't.)

Anyway: I may or may not be able to figure out a way to do what you want, but I would need a bit of a clearer explanation of what result you're trying to achieve. Oh, wait: you mean you want to list the prefixes in the display before the person types in the search terms? And you don't want to list them with pipe characters, but in some nicer-looking format? Is that it? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you got it. And, in the meantime, I was thinking that eventually, it would be nice if the prefixes were displayed with checkboxes, so a person could pick which areas to search. But.. right now, I would just like to display what the template is searching - which would be variable, depending on what areas the person setting up the template specified.

As far as having a pipe in the string... have you noticed that prefix seems to be a positional parameter? That prefix: has to be last to work? This was not in the documentation - but after you bust a few times, you figure it out. I added this to the Search documentation [57] I think the software uses this positioning of prefix to allow pipes because it knows there are no other parameters following. There also is the requirement that the name is in the article form, not the URL form. That is something I had to change in the Search Archives template to get it to work. I will ask rainman why it was done this way. In the meantime, I will look at Template:Str sub and this, Category:String_manipulation_templates --stmrlbs|talk 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, here I've listed the prefixes being searched for (by typing them in separately). Is that the sort of thing you want to do? Do you need to be able to do it as a variable, and if so, why? (I may be leaving in less than an hour and perhaps back on Wednesday.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I see that this is a busy time for you. So, if you don't have time for this, no problem. But, I will go ahead and try to explain what I was trying to do. I would like to create the template so that a person can set up a search of as many separate areas as needed - the areas of their choosing. I did this in the template I have on my user space for discussions on a article up for deletion (which is how this whole thing came about). Right now, this template is fine to search the deletion discussions. But I would like to set up a template anyone can use to set up a search of areas they want to search for whatever reasons - and have the template display those areas as part of the search box. That's it in a nutshell. --stmrlbs|talk 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand what you're trying to do. I think that isn't really about parserfunctions as such but "inputbox" which I guess is one of those thingies that look like html tags but aren't because they're processed by the Mediawiki preprocessor (or something). I don't really know that much about those sorts of things, or what order things are processed in. Just as a guess, I'm wondering whether slathering lots of "subst:"s all over the place might help (as is done on my signature page User:Coppertwig/Signature) but maybe they're involved in the wrong stage of the processing to be any help. Also, you might have to limit it to a finite number of arguments and list them all, e.g. "{{{arg1}}}|{{{arg2}}}|..." in which case it would only work for a number of arguments up to as many as you typed in before you got tired. Some things have to be done that way. I'm sorry I haven't been of more help! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Coppertwig.  :) --stmrlbs|talk 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't know if this would have any chance of working, but I was thinking of putting the opening inputbox tag in one template, and the closing one in another template, and subst-ing them both into a third template, with stuff in between like {{{1}}}|{{{2}}}... to form the prefix information and also the other information you want to form. And possibly using one final "subst" when actually using the whole template. If I knew more about the order in which things are processed, I might be able to guess whether that would work. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Hi, Have you got any ideas about what to do about this terminology after the lack of interest in my first attempt? Apart from the row on terminology at Talk:Israel, there has also been one at Golan Heights with, to my mind, a ridiculous conclusion with the term "dusputed" used only by the right wing of Zionism being placed on one used by the vast preponderance of reliable sources. (I think I'll also ask the ARB who has been keeping an eye on the other discussion.)--Peter cohen (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I already made a suggestion. Also, I suggest putting notices on some article talk pages. I've been busy, sorry. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagships

Good plan. Please keep me posted. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At least two of them were reverted. When I have time, I'll ask them whether it's objective and verifiable and if so what it means. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby

If you think Scibaby has been unjustly banned,[58] you are of course welcome to take up his case. The admin noticeboard is probably the best place to do so (rather than WP:ANI, as doesn't seem to be an emergency). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Scibaby. I was speaking about bans in general. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. For non-urgent matters WP:AN tends to be a bit less of a noisefest than WP:ANI (it could hardly be more of a noisefest). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So I've heard; though it's also been said that there's not much difference between the two. Thanks for your suggestion, anyway. All the best! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence in Abd-WMC

Thank you for your evidence in the Abd-William M. Connolley case. As I read through it, I was unsure whether in some instances you were referring to "bans" (meaning sitebans from the whole of Wikipedia), as opposed to "topic bans." If you could look your comments over with that in mind, it might be helpful. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where are you

on Avi's assumptions of bad faith? Do you care? Apparently not. Blackworm (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Blackworm. Please note that I've been editing Wikipedia much less often these days than I did previously, (due to RL), and spending much less time here; even before, I couldn't do everything. I've put a message on Avi's talk page. I try to respond in some way to certain types of comments whenever I notice them, but an exception is if someone else has already commented on them, then I often don't. In this case I did. I could have decided not to, because you had already commented in response to the comments themselves, and especially because you had commented here. I prefer to notice things like that myself. If they're pointed out to me I might just reply on my talk page or something. Things that might appear to you to be ABF might not necessarily appear that way to me, or might not be obvious to me and I might miss them. I do care.

I appreciate the way you acknowledge your own POV here. I try to remember to say things like "this phrase appears to me to be neutral" rather than "this phrase is neutral", to acknowledge that I have a particular POV, not a magical ability to recognize neutrality. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

COIN thread re Circumcision

To save space at the COIN noticeboard, I'm putting some replies here to comments at WP:COIN#Circumcision.

• Blackworm said "An attempt to calm an edit war" -- how hilarious" [59] It's not clear whether this means you don't believe that it was an attempt to calm an edit war, or that it was ineffective as such.
• Blackworm said in the same diff, "("psychological is medical!" (paraphr.)) " Thank you, Blackworm, for complying with my request to label paraphrases as such; I appreciate it.
• Avi said, "Now the claim is I *am* Jake?"[60] I don't see anything that looks to me like such a claim in Blackworm's post; I think he just means that you and Jake always agree with each other.
• Blackworm said, "Please strike or refactor your statement that I claim you to be Jakew, as it is unfounded." [61] That wasn't a statement: it was followed by a question mark, so clearly it was a question and doesn't need to be struck; thank you for answering the question.

☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm and Gary, in reply to comments of yours at the COIN thread: I'm sorry if I misrepresented or mischaracterized anything. Please quote what I said which you think misrepresents or mischaracterizes something, and explain why you think so. I may want to refactor. Gary, I think it might be a misunderstanding: I don't remember saying that you were in a content dispute. I gave a link to a comment by Tremello; maybe you thought I was referring to a comment by you. In any case, I'm under the impression that there's a general, long-term content dispute about the circumcision page in general; that's what I was thinking of. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, re [62]: I never intended to attack you nor to aid any attack against you. I'm sorry if some of my actions have been perceived by you as attacks. My intention was to ask you to change your behaviour so that others would not be subjected (unnecessarily or unduly) to unwelcome comments or implications about themselves. My goal is to have nobody attacking each other. I'm truly sorry for any discomfort my edits may cause you.

Re putting "Note" in bold: it would waste time if everyone were to compete with each other to preface their comments with "Note! Read this first!" etc. Similarly, it would be pointless if everyone competed to put "Very very strong support/oppose" in discussions. However, that's not happening. What actually happens is that relatively rarely, someone writes "strong support" or "Note:" etc. My intention is to indicate that I consider that comment of mine to be much more important than other comments of mine, and I hereby^{(00:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC))} invite people to slightly downgrade the attention they pay to other comments of mine to compensate. I considered it important because it was pointing out what I consider to be an inaccuracy in someone else's comment. What I sometimes do in such cases is put my comment immediately after the comment I'm attempting to correct; in this case I put my comment further down in the thread, since some people don't like having comments added above their own. I don't begin comments with "Note:" often. More often, perhaps (but perhaps still rarely) I put small parts of my posts in bold type, so that if people choose to read only part of my post, they'll read what I consider to be most important or a reasonable summary of the post, rather than some random part. Perhaps that's more productive than adding "Note:", which takes up space without adding any real information. I had no intention of implying that any comments by others were less important than mine and I'm sorry the word and font I used gave that impression. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary, in further reply re [63]: you haven't told me what I said that you believe misrepresents the situation. I'm not trying to get you or anyone blocked or banned. My goal, besides writing an informative, well-organized, NPOV etc. article, is to influence everyone to discuss article content rather than editors, respect each others' right to have an opinion, and collaborate. Bringing up COI concerns on Jake's talk page and then at COIN was probably reasonable and appropriate and I'm not criticizing you for that. My concern is the totality of all the remarks by all editors about an alleged COI, especially on the article talk page and also on other user talk pages. I appreciate your recognition in your post of the effect this may have on Jake, and hope that regardless of how the thread is eventually resolved, that we can go back to discussing content without ongoing repetitions of such allegations except appropriate WP:DR if particular circumcstances require it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Blackworm's question at Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision: The context is this edit: [64] As far as I know, the edit did not "remove" the phrase "and benefits" from a quote already existing in the article, but instead added a quote to the article, using an ellipsis to indicate words which were not included in the selected text.

I didn't say Wikipedia "should" have replaced "and benefits" with an ellipsis. I said that to do so was reasonable in the context. When I think a version of the article is reasonable, it doesn't necessarily follow that I think we "should" use that version. Rather, there may be multiple possible versions that I would consider reasonable. I think that for us to have a reasonable chance of finding a version of the article that we can all accept, it helps a lot for each person to be willing to accept a number of different variations.

The reason I think it's reasonable in the context is that that part of the paragraph is discussing risks. The previous sentence is 'The British Medical Association (2006) stated that "... it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks"'. Jake felt that this gave an incomplete picture of the BMA's position, and added another quote from the BMA, also about risks or harms. Since Jake wanted a quote about risks or harms, and since that part of the paragraph was about risks or harms, Jake selected a quote about risks or harms by leaving out the part about benefits, which was irrelevant in that context. It's fine if you don't agree with me, but that's my opinion; you can try to convince me otherwise, but I'm not sure whether that's necessasry since I may be willing to accept other versions too anyway. Regards, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Special barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For showing superior knowledge of policy and guideline, and for remaining sufficiently detached and objective to see what parts are applicable. For having a big heart, and thinking of the effect on others of certain Wikiprocesses. And for making a compelling, eloquent argument for all this. Last, but not least, for tolerating this — somewhat dubious — grammar. I humbly award you this, the Special Barnstar. Jakew (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment about Jake

Hello Coppertwig. Thankyou for alerting me to your use of my comment to make a point on the COI. I stand by what I said. By the way, the modern definition of egregious is "extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant". I presume you were using the word in the rarely used archaic sense? Tremello22 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that "egregious" means (etymologically) "outside the herd". Wiktionary says "Exceptional, conspicuous, outstanding, most usually in a negative fashion." I don't consider that meaning archaic. It doesn't say always in a negative fashion. I like to use words to mean specific things without having a judgement of "good" or "bad" mandatorily tacked on. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Infantilism RfC reference

It was included in text linked to in the comment that followed the RfC: [65] but it wasn't obvious - this is the source:

• Money, John: Love Maps - Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transpostition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity, New York, Prometheus Books, 1986

No page number was attributed. Mish (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The inadequacies of {{unsigned}}

I used {{unsigned}} here, but then I realised it isn't adequate as it doesn't include a datestamp. I think this is important because the threading would otherwise imply that it was present before Mish's comments were made, potentially changing the meaning of his/her comments. Could you substitute your real signature, please? Thanks, Jakew (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

See {{unsigned2}} -- Avi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Unsigned allowes a datestamp too, but #2 allows a copy off of the page history. -- Avi (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks, Avi! And thanks Coppertwig! Jakew (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Anyway, the signature can always be typed in by hand or something. I usually use unsigned and copy just the date-time from the page history. I hadn't noticed it's supposed to be subst-ed. Anyway, this time I put in a signature using three tildes and a date-time from the page history (no template needed). Is the only advantage of unsigned2 that the order of the arguments is different, so that you can copy both at once from the page history and insert a pipe between them, or is there more to it than that? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Extension:VariablesExtension

Coppertwig, do you by any chance know why Extension:VariablesExtension and especially loops haven't been installed on this wiki? --stmrlbs|talk 07:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

never mind.. I found this. [66] Wow.. I thought I just couldn't find it.. I never thought that they wouldn't have a simple looping (and dowhile) ability for the templates here. Can't believe it. A first for me. --stmrlbs|talk 08:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's because it would take up CPU (and possibly allow infinite loops). But maybe they could allow loops with a limit on how many times the loop is executed. I've wanted to use loops at times. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, usually there is either a check for a max loop number, or it is automatically taken care of by a timeout interrupt. I looked and looked, and thought it was funny I couldn't find anything on looping; but it is hard to find a lot of things on Wikipedia - so I didn't think much about it. So, when I found loops, I thought, "I knew it had to be somewhere!  ::: Then.. I find it isn't installed here. arg! I've worked with a lot of different programming languages and this is the first time I've seen one where they inhibited looping capability. It really is.. limiting. Like trying to write a template with your hands tied behind your back. But, I see someone created Template:Loop. It is not really a loop, but generates x number of iterations of whatever. So, I will see if I can use this.

Well, they are discussing it, so maybe they will put some kind of looping capability in. I hope so. --stmrlbs|talk 03:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the loop template!! For substrings, see Template:Str sub. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is another loop template: Template:For loop. Unfortunately, I can't pass a parameter for the number of times. I was trying to figure out a way to process the parameter first into a number (making it convert before using #IFEXPR (something I've done in other languages with similar ways of processing templates/macros) - but I can't figure out how to do it with this. The documentation is rather sparse in areas, so I end up just trying things to see how it works. Or sometimes I will find something interesting, then I see "doesn't work anymore with the new software"! Arg. So, I'm getting to the point I might just hard code it. But the "for loop" is pretty nice. --stmrlbs|talk 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

added 1 diff

I added 1 diff to my evidence, to address the comment you made. I found it at your evidence at Abd and JzG case.

P.D.: next time, for this stuff, consider first leaving a message at the talk page of the user, I think that this sort of fills the evidence page with comments about errors, then corrections of those errors, and then corrections of the comments to point at the correct error. Or maybe putting a message in the talk page of the evidence page. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't consider your claim about what Abd said to be supported. ("Abd says that he can't make shorter comments because he has ADHD...") Consider only quoting Abd verbatim. If necessary, you can use a NPOV section heading which merely names the section without making a claim. In the diff you provided, Abd also said "there are two types of communication: polemic and discussion." Therefore his statement which you quote doesn't appear to me to apply to all "comments" he would make, but only to one of the types, i.e. "discussion". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, Coppertwig. Many editors are accustomed to polemic as the standard for "discussion." They are irritated by real discussion, in fact, because they will constantly be looking for "the point," and since there may be no strong point, but only an attempt to discover one, they can't understand it and will think that the discussion is pointless, evasive, wandering, etc. Others will see the point of it, which is exploration, not promotion of conclusion. --Abd (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

@Coppertwig. Abd says that his long discussions are all discussions, and those are the ones that he can't shorten due to AHDH. If his polemic is already brief then he doesn't need to shorten it, and it just shows that he can be brief when he wants.

As for exploring the topic and stuff, see WP:NOTFORUM and go to an off-wiki discussion forum where that sort of discussion is encouraged, and don't fill article talk pages with stuff unrelated to improving the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. "When he wants." But it's not just "wants," it's also the time it takes to do so. I have limited time. In discussion, the question is "with whom am I discussing?" I'm discussing in public with editors who are willing to read long posts and consider them, with editors who have an open mind and will take the time to think about the issues. And not necessarily with those whose minds are made up. I don't waste time editing down "discussion," because it would be utterly chilling, and produce no useful effect commensurate with the effort it takes. When I am ready to interact with those who need polemic, I write polemic. Which takes far more time per word, maybe ten times as much more more. I already, by the way, probably eliminate a third or more of what I write, even in discussion, it is not mere stream-of-consciousness as some think. It's designed to be clear, and not necessarily compact, and when I'm compact, people frequently misunderstand it, much of your laundry list in the RfAr is based on ABF of short comments or comments taken out of context.... can't win, sometimes.

Enric, your position is one which is, if sustained, guaranteed to freeze the community into polarized positions, with recurrent disruption and bans and blocks and, in fact, articles that aren't NPOV, they only look like NPOV to those who don't understand what true NPOV is, who don't understand the issues and who see no problem with article text that is, in fact, biased, because the bias matches their own. I'm not demanding, at all, that you participate in useless debate. Indeed, you should not. But let those who want to discuss, discuss. And those who don't, don't. Follow dispute resolution instead of just warning and then popping off to a noticeboard to try to get editors blocked or banned who don't follow your demands. I'll say it again. You have utterly no obligation to read long posts on Talk Cold fusion and if you are offended by them, you have options much simpler and much less disruptive than trying to ban the editor for "dominating the Talk page." Have I ever edit warred, in substance, over a collapse?

All my discussion is aimed toward seeking consensus on the article, it's just more indirect than you understand. --Abd (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That sort of discussion does not belong to article talk pages, which should be limited to discussing improvements to the articles. You are refusing to accept that simple fact. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Bans should be clear

I've just read your proposal. I'm confused. Do you believe that my ban of Abd was in any way unclear? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, WMC, Coppertwig will answer, but it was both clear and unclear. It was clear to me based on an understanding of our prior interaction; it was clear at AN/I because editors who had already concluded I should be banned supplied their own reasons. However, when independent editors asked for reasons for the ban, you pointed to WP:TRIFECTA, which provides no reason, only IAR -- which is a principle, not a specific reason for a specific action. And then you denied that IAR was your justification, and claimed that your TRIFECTA response was just dealing with trolling. So if it's asserted that your reason was "unclear," perhaps you might look at why. It's all largely moot, in fact, because the real core of the case is that, whether you were involved or not, then, you became involved in a dispute with me, and not a moot one, or ArbComm would not have taken the case, yet you continue to insist that you have the right to maintain the ban and block me based on your personal judgments of my overall editing behavior. And that is driving off the cliff, while your friends cheer and egg you on. Don't say you were not warned. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it was unclear, as expressed by GoRight here: "It is unclear whether WMC was involved personally with Abd prior to his taking administrative action. It is unclear whether a individual administrator has the authority to create such bans sans and specific community discussion on the point. It is unclear whether WMC has the ongoing authority to continue to assert the ban beyond the community "sanctioned" one month discussed at AN/I", and, as Abd's comment above reminds me, it was unclear what behaviour the ban was supposed to address, or what behaviour Abd would have had to change to end the ban. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, it is quite clear. If Abd stops his unwanted meddling in wikipolitics and administrative policy, stops confronting administrative recusal failure proper blocks and bans of POV-pushers, and is re-educated by working in the fields only edits noncontroversial articles like good obedient slaves editors, the wikigod WMC will generously consider being lenient. In fact, even with controversial articles, if Abd starts revert warring on behalf of the cabal majority POV NPOV, and trolls for return incivility by personally attacking global warming skeptics calling POV-pushers what they are, he might even get a barnstar.

(The name Abd means "slave," and I've done plenty of work in the fields (minor work, I'm not a general-purpose article creator and am not much for creating more than stubs even when I'm expert in a topic), but, as a literally senior editor, I see myself more useful facilitating the work of others, such as by undoing the blacklisting of lyrikline.org, so that a good external link (or source, lyrikline.org is reliable source) can be added to hundreds of articles, and I've done a few of these additions as I had time. That's a job not finished, and that I might be able to help with even if blocked here, because it's been whitelisted here due to my efforts, was previously whitelisted at de.wikipedia, and what remains is a crazy meta blacklisting.) My major task as I see it is helping develop better process so we can ban fewer editors and focus on efficiently developing broader consensus, thus increasing our true neutrality and reducing, perhaps greatly, disruption and the treatment of Wikipedia as a battlefield. --Abd (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Cold fusion talk posts by Kirk shanahan

Per discussion at Talk:Cold fusion#PAWAR neutrons but not charged particles?, Kirk shanahan has commented, as he often does. The claim that he's been driven away by me is preposterous. Shanahan is a veteran internet POV warrior, been at it since the early 1990s, he's not about to be driven away by disagreement, and instead he responds with habitual incivility (But not in this post, he's not specifically uncivil in it). He's the best thing we have so far as a skeptical expert, and it would indeed be a loss if he left, but his lengthy posts and arguments are not to be accepted as valid without careful verification, he's highly POV, as many COI editors can be expected to be. Below is the original with my comments. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on posts of Kirk Shanahan to Talk:Cold fusion re neutron detection

Please note that the term 'ultra-low momentum' is applied to the neutrons postulated by Widom and Larsen (W-L). This means they are extremely reactive, very very high cross section for reaction in the solid state. That means that essentially none will escape at all, and this fact is noted in the W-L article cited above. That means that the 'neutrons' supposedly observed by the SPAWAR group _disprove_ the W-L theory. Further, the W-L theory does not say anything specific about charged particle generation, it predicts transmutations in the solid state which may lead to tritium and He formation in some cases. However, they point out they are not excluding anything by making that prediction. In other words if someone can come up with a nuclear decay chain initiated by a neutron capture event that would emit charged particles, they would love it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Half truth. The slow neutrons proposed by Widom-Larsen are, indeed, not confirmed or denied at all by the SPAWAR work. The detected neutrons are at very low levels and could not be from the primary reaction. They are proposed as being from secondary reactions, not from the primary reaction. Mosier-Boss suggests Be-8 fusion per Takahashi, in the Naturw. paper January 2009, so they certainly don't disprove W-L theory, which is about the primary reaction that could produce hot alphas, as with the Be-8 theory, and the hot alphas would then cause some level of secondary reactions. If fusion is taking place in the cells, we expect some hot reaction products, which are, in fact, detected (charged particles), and, then, an expected level of secondary reaction products (including neutrons). I'm not familiar enough with W-L theory to suggest a decay chain, and I'm personally skeptical of W-L theory, but that's just my opinion. The theory is notable, that's what matters to us. We don't have to accept it! and reply by Navy Physics Geek And the stated criteria that all three of the works in question (neutron detection, charged particle detection, and congruent theory) have been discussed in other peer-reviewed literature has been met for half a year now. I should point out that EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C and JOURNAL OF PHYSICS B are two of the most reputable physics journals. Navy Physics Geek (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC) He's right, though I'm not sure about the impact factor of those journals, I haven't researched it. They are peer-reviewed, for sure, so review of other work in them can qualify as "peer-reviewed secondary source." My view is that impact factor and other measures of "reputation" are not relevant until we encounter conflict of sources, and I'm not aware of a conflict with regard to whatever we would currently report from those sources. Recent comments about the state of the field today or recently do not contradict comments that may have been made ten to twenty years ago as to the state of the field then, and it's preposterous to consider this, but this is exactly what's been done at cold fusion; because there was some negative work published in Nature (journal) in 1989-1990, it's been claimed that recent sources "contradict" these "very reputable" publications. That's synthesis, and bad synthesis to boot. This is being used to justify exclusion of reliably-sourced fact, which is a serious corruption of policy. (Where something hasn't been broadly accepted, a reasonable compromise is to attribute the claim, not treat it as a fact in itself.) to which Shanahan replies: So NPG, let me understand this. Theroists X propose Theory Y which states that the occurrence of Z is a "rare event", i.e. has a nearly zero probability of occurring. Then Researchers A report that Z was observed multiple times and in strength enough that a "5% of Z" observation is used to prove Z has occurred. Of course, both X's and A's results are published in peer reviewed journals. So just to summarize: X says Y proves Z doesn't happen, buy A says they have proof Z occurs easily and with significant strength. Then I say that A's results disprove Y, and you need someone else to tell you it is true? I think we are looking at a case of 'pathological skepticism'. I seem to run into that a lot whenever I point out the internal inconsitencies of the cold fusioneers position. I'm not going to argue basic logic with you NPG. Kirk shanahan (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) It's typical of Shanahan that he presents an incoherent or at least difficult to follow argument as if it was obvious and anyone disagreeing with him is seriously misguided. NPG replies again: I don't see the figures "nearly zero" or 5% being used. The theory was selected to match empirical results. Do you think that the SPAWAR claim that charged particles come from the same source of neutrons should be included in the article? Navy Physics Geek (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC) NPG gets it wrong. The SPAWAR group doesn't claim that. Rather, they claim in the Naturw. article that the neutrons are from secondary reactions, and they claim elsewhere that charged particles result from the primary reactions. There is dispute in the field as to whether or not the levels and energies observed are consistent with the various theories, and it's beyond the scope of my comment today to go into this in detail. And Shanahan: Hmmm…what do you consider to be the numerical equivalent of “These will rarely be experimentally detected.” (Widom, Larsen, Eur. Phys. J C , 46(1), (2006) 107)? Typically a ‘rare’ event will occur at less than 1 in 1 million probability, i.e. “nearly zero”. But, I suppose you could wiki-lawyer that, so let’s discuss the other big problem on top of the fact that there should be nearly zero neutrons detected. I already mentioned this, but to explain further… The W-L neutrons are ‘ultra-low momentum’. Since momentum is mass times velocity, and the mass is not changing much, if at all, this means the velocity is ultra low. That translates to ”very, very slow”. However, the claim by Szpak, Mossier-Boss, et al, in Naturwissenschaften 96(1) (2009) 135, that the ‘neutrons’ are of >= 9.6MeV marks these ‘neutrons’ as fast neutrons (look up ‘fast neutrons' in Wikipedia). Thus there is a fundamental disagreement between the W-L theory and reported observations. The data in fact offer no support for W-L theory, and point to another as-yet-to-be-determined mechanism for ‘neutron’ production. Shanahan is responding to the claim that the SPAWAR group findings support W-L theory. In fact, they are irrelevant to that theory. Any cold fusion reaction should, at least rarely, produce neutrons through secondary reactions. The primary reaction if Takahashi's theory is correct is 4D -> Be-8 -> 2 He-4 + 57.6 MeV. Or there may be other reactions such as fusion between palladium and the TSC, which is neutrally charged (because it includes the electrons) and can approach heavy nuclei, causing various transmutations with complex results, which I won't address. The primary reaction described produces very hot alpha particles, quite capable of generating neutrons at low levels (the levels are low because most of the alphas are quickly slowed and absorbed without causing additional nuclear reactions; Bremsstrahlung radiation is expected and seems to have been detected. So he's basically correct in this paragraph. Detecting slow neutrons is quite difficult, though I could imagine means, such as setting up a certain concentration of fissionable uranium in the electrode. Slow neutrons will cause fission, with detectable signatures. To my knowledge, not done. (Fast neutrons don't generally fuse with nuclei, they "bounce.") You are correct that “The theory was selected to match empirical results.”, but the empirical results matched were ‘no neutrons (or other radiation), only He atoms produced’. This points out again the problems with most CF theories, they ‘cherry-pick’ the data they use to base the theory on. And here he generalizes according to his POV. In fact, it's quite possible, even probable, that more than one LENR exists, and so no one theory would explain all results. It's a false constraint. Rather, theories can, and must, be used to make predictions that can be tested, or the theory is practically useless except for speculative purposes. So Preparata, for example, predicted that helium would be found in proportion to the excess energy generated, which has been quite adequately confirmed. Shanahan rejects this by completely sidestepping the issue of correlation; he claims that the excess energy data is bad and that the helium data is bad and that therefore the combination is bad, which is a non sequitur argument. Using correlation, you can build a strong case with quite bad data! Just consider the astounding unlikelihood, for example, that if, as reported by Storms -- indepently published by non-fringe publisher secondary source! -- twelve out of 33 CF cells produce no excess heat, the same cells, analyzed independently and blindly, show no anomalous helium, but that of 21 cells producing excess heat, 18 showed excess helium (with some other differences that could easily account for the three odd cells), that the ratio of excess heat to helium is in the right ballpark for a process that has deuterium as input and helium as output, regardless of what happens in between, and that from an analysis of a series of studies from multiple research groups, Storms comes up with 25+/-5 MeV/He-4, which is right on for the 23.8 MeV expected. Regarding the “5%” number, I admit I was grossly overgenerous there. The actual number should be about 0.1%. Using Fig. 2 of Phillips, G.W, et al, Rad. Prot. Dos. 120(1-4) (2006) 457, we can round up to see that it takes about 10e4 neutrons to produce one recoil track (average, energy dependent), and using Al-Najjar, S.A.R., Nuc. Tracks 12 (1986) 611, Fig. 5 and 6, we can likewise see that one gets about 10 triple tracks per 10e8 neutrons (on average, energy dependent). Thus the ratio is 1e-7/1e-4 = .001 or 0.1%. By the way, this is still over-generous, because that does NOT fold in the 1 in 1 million probability of actually ejecting a neutron from the solid state that can be potentially detected by the CR39. When I used the phrase “5% effect” I was using chemical jargon that points out the size of the effect is consistent with Langmuir’s Pathological Science criteria, as 5% is where most chemists start getting nervous about reliability, i.e ‘working in the noise’. Less than that of course is progressively worse. Both references cited above were cited by Szapk, et al in their ‘triple-tracks’ article. He's beating down a flawed argument. The recently published SPAWAR work confirms that nuclear reactions are taking place. It's consistent with Be-8 theory, but also with practically any other mechanism that will produce hot charged particles and thus secondary reactions. Getting back to the point of the original discussion here, I also need to clearly correct a prior statement of mine (correction was noted above already). The Szapk et al results do not ‘disprove’ the W-L theory, they simply offer no support for it for the reason noted above _and_ point out that it is incomplete since it does not predict the formation of fast neutrons. I'm not familiar with the details of W-L theory, but if fusion is taking place by the absorption of neutrons, we'd expect some level of fast neutrons from secondary reactions. However, the erratum to the 2007 Natur. paper does clearly attribute the mechanism proposed in that paper to W-L. Thus Szpak, et al have actually proposed this mechanism in slightly diffrerent terms in their 2007 paper. The 2007 paper is about charged particle detection, not neutrons. W-L theory can explain that. However, as noted above, the energetics are completely off for this to be true. He claims. In fact, I've seen no decent analysis, and Mosier-Boss et al are continuing to work to identify the range of energies found. It's tricky, because the hot alphas, if that is what they are (they could also be other charged particles, it's difficult to distinguish except by means which they are pursuing), are being generated at the reaction site, which may be below the surface of the electrode, and, in any case, the particles rapidly lose their energy. He might be right, though. I've asked about Be-8 theory on the Vortex-L list and have gotten some similar response from some involved with the field, but when I asked for specifics, nothing but speculation and vague theory. So, we are left with several reports of ‘neutrons’ and ‘charged particles’ that seem inconsistent with the W-L theory, and we have no alternative mechanism to consider except ‘mundane’ D-D and D-T fusion, which most people agree is not happening for the usual reasons. In other words, there is no mechanism for the formation of these supposed particles extant. _And_ we have Szpak, et al apparently not realizing what their results mean (otherwise one would expect some comment on this in their 2009 article that presents the energies determined from the tracks). Unfortunately this is an all-too-common situation in the CF field. Kirk shanahan (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC) See the trick? It's true that most people are claiming that ordinary D-D and D-T fusion are not happening "for the usual reasons." But what Kirk avoids mentioning, why I don't know, is that if there is fusion taking place in the cells that will produce energetic charged particles, especially alpha particles, this will cause that very traditional hot fusion, with the usual reaction products, including neutrons. Imagining that the highly experienced and extensively published SPAWAR group is "apparently not realizing what their results mean" is pure projection. They are definitely working on the problem; they are an experimental group and their primary job is to discover what actually happens, not the theoretical consequences, but in the January Naturw. article, they most definitely do ascribe the neutrons as coming from secondary reactions, specifically D-D or D-T fusion as possibilities, and, in fact, Krivit criticized them for that. Those reports may or may not be inconsistent with W-L theory, depending on details, but, if so, Shanahan has not explained why. Rather, for him, this is an excuse to denigrate the entire field, as he normally does. Lost in all this is that there are now multiple publications regarding charged particles and neutrons, which are characteristic of nuclear reactions and which are never produced by chemical reactions in themselves. Forest for the trees. The detection of charged particles by the Chinese in 1990 using CR-39 was reported in Hoffman, 1994, a reliable source that we've often overlooked. A skeptic who doesn't present the information he has in a biased way, he tries to be complete. That's why I claim that Shanahan cannot be relied upon as if he were a neutral expert. He's quite biased, thoroughly committed to debunking cold fusion; his only related peer-reviewed publication is a proposal for an alternate theory to explain excess heat, not accepted by practically anyone ("believer" or skeptical). Definitely worth looking at, but it certainly isn't going to explain charged particles and neutrons. If you look closely at his Calibration Constant Shift theory, it relies upon an unindentified chemical anomaly that causes unexpected changes in heat distribution in cells; therefore the calibration of these cells by heat sources at other locations or distributed in the cell is incorrect. I think he may propose a mechanism, but that this would affect many different kinds of calorimetry seems to be unexplained by him, and his objections to the helium correlation are quite far-fetched, besides being completely unsourced. In 2004, the helium correlation was raised in the Hagelstein paper that was the basis for the review. In a remarkable error, the review summary completely misunderstood the claims, and presented them in a blatantly false manner, I showed this in a discussion in Talk cold fusion maybe two months back. We can't state that in the article, as such, because it's OR, but we can place the original source (primary source) in juxtaposition to the very dumb claim by the anonymous bureaucrat who compiled the paper. In any case, what we have is an article that, under "Helium correlated with excess heat" shows no correlation at all and, in fact, quotes the review summary, blatantly false, which, if it were correct would not only show no correlation but would, on the face, show that there was no correlation, that the data was probably bad. It's an example of how the article has been badly distorted by pushing of the skeptical POV. We have secondary reliable source on helium correlated with excess heat, being rejected, not even being allowed as attributed claim. This is all in clear violation of RfAr/Fringe science, even if we continue to treat Cold fusion as fringe science, which I find completely inconsistent with the substance of the 2004 DoE review. Cold fusion is obviously still very controversial, but the level of acceptance seems to rise dramatically with knowledge of the research, which is the opposite of what we expect with pseudoscience or pathological science. Robert Duncan (physicist) was skeptical, until CBS retained him to investigate the situation. No longer skeptical. The reviewers in 2004 were quite likely mostly skeptical, until they were given a reason to read the more recent research. We've mistaken the "majority opinion" of that review -- evenly divided on excess heat, one third considering that evidence for a nuclear origin was "somewhat convincing," for a scientific consensus, which it obviously is not. It's an expression of no-consensus, in fact. There is no longer any "scientific" consensus on cold fusion; if we look only at peer-reviewed reliable sources, though, we might even conclude that the question has been closed: cold fusion is real. That might be unfair, to be sure, there is obviously still quite a controversy, but it is a social and political one, not a scientific one as would be based on, say, peer-reviewed secondary reviews. Those exist on the positive side, none on the negative in recent times. (Amd I'm not sure there ever was one that actually refuted the basic finding of Fleischmann, except by appeal to theory: if they had found that much excess heat, there must be neutrons at a level that would have been fatal to the researchers. That is not a refutation of excess heat, it's a refutation that any excess heat is being generated by classical d-d fusion or the like. Which turns out to be completely true, nobody believes that what is happening in the cells is the kind of reaction seen by the plasma physicists at high energies and expected by them as characteristic. It's not tunneling past the Coulomb barrier to produce the same effect, and it's probably not something like muon-catalyzed fusion which, as I vaguely recall, if I'm correct, has the same branching ratios as hot fusion. For this reason I'm skeptical of hydrino theory as an explanation, if hydrinos catalyze fusion, acting like muons, which they could do if they form, we'd expect, I'd think, the traditional branching ratio. And copious neutrons. Or would we? Hydrino theory is notable, it should be in the article, and that was even accepted by consensus, no longer contested, until WMC reverted it out with his capricious edit under protection. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unlike User:Rootology. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - i'm assuming good faith here, and therefore i will point out that this looks rather like "prepping the help" to do what Abd is currently restricted from doing, i don't think it is - but i really think you should remove this (and my comment with it), so that this impression doesn't catch. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure: I think maybe Abd was expicitly allowed to make comments on this topic on user talk pages. It's not a topic ban; he's been encouraged to participate in the mediation page discussing the cold fusion page. I don't mind having the message here. If Abd chooses to remove the message (along with yours and mine) that's OK with me too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But he is restricted from interacting with Talk:Cold fusion, which is what is being discussed here... not the mediation page, which was why i commented. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I should, perhaps, compile a page with beautiful examples of wikilawyering. KDP, I was banned from editing Cold fusion, not from the topic and not from working on the content, nor from discussing the page elsewhere. I was not banned from interacting with that page by means other than editing it. Working on the topic at the mediation is one example; I've also discussed cold fusion based on comments on Talk with many editors, on their Talk pages, since being banned, and yours is the first objection to be based on the ban. Creative, I must say. If this is a ban violation, why don't you inform WMC so he can act accordingly, or warn me, which would amount to the same thing. It could be quite useful. But I don't advise it, at all. --Abd (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.... i wasn't aware that i was wikilawyering at all. I was simply pointing out that this particular discussion looked (notice the emphasis) like something that you didn't want it to. Abd, please take a short breath and read this part carefully: When you are asserting that other users are forming a cabal, then it is rather foolish to let anything (no matter how innocent) even hint at meatpuppeering (and that is certainly what this could be suspected of). Now, i came here, and commented on this in very good faith - but i can see that you are unwilling to listen, and instead turn on the accusationary tone (and a rather uncivil one, if i may say so). Final comment: What does what other people do (or do not), have to do with this? I'm sorry to have bothered you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Sure, it would look like that to you, KDP. What about Raul suggesting that Enric Naval propose GoRight be banned from the RfAr, because it should be a party who does it, or Raul suggesting to Stephen Schulz that he block a new suspected Scibaby sock? I'm not topic banned, KDP, you've got it wrong, as usual, I was actually encouraged to continue working on the issues, specifically at the mediation, but not limited to that. And when an editor is banned from a page, as distinct from a topic, the editor is required to suggest edits elsewhere, it's certainly not prohibited. But this post didn't suggest any edits at all, it just responded to Kirk Shanahan's comments on Talk:Cold fusion, with background. I assume that if Coppertwig does anything based on this, she would research it and verify it and source it, and, of course, if she or you ask for sources, I can supply them for anything that would go in the article. If you think this behavior improper, please, raise it in the RfAr so that your behavior can be more clearly confronted where it can do some good. It's a beautiful example of what the cabal does, wikilawyering everything toward their desired end, exclusion of minority POV, no matter how well it's sourced. If I'm restricted from doing what I did here, it's totally news to me! My POV and my knowledge weren't banned from the article and Talk, and, indeed, it's quite unclear what was banned, though a common theme is long posts. So if the long post is on Coppertwig Talk, with a presumably consenting editor, it is still objectionable, which simply proves that the objection isn't the length, it's the challenge to cabal POV, and the rest is just rationalization and excuses for that.--Abd (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kim, Abd is right here, he can discuss the topic in other pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Enric, i'm not disputing that Abd can discuss the topic on other pages (see below), i'm pointing out that the above conversation "looks" like coaching. Please reread my comments, and consider the posting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I see what you mean. Telling Coppertwig what specific objections he should raise in Talk:Cold fusion. Yes, it can be seen like that, and the post can have that effect. And yes, when Abd wrote that comment, he might have had in mind that Copper, or someome else reading this page, could take his objections and post them to the talk page that he can't edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comments carefully, then consider whether i indicated or even hinted at you being topic banned. Now if you still come to that conclusion: Reread it. If you after that still come to that conclusion, well then i am truly sorry, because then it seems that i am unable to communicate with you, in a way that you can understand. (and what exactly does scibaby have to do with this?? Try sticking to one thing at a time). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(An edit conflict seems to have occurred between the two messages above.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me get this straight. KDP is merely pointing out that the comment I made simply "looks" like coaching, not that it's coaching. Just being helpful, wouldn't want anyone to misunderstand it! But who is going to misunderstand it? You-know-who, he-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned, who would take this to the (cue dramatic music) Noticeboard, as Raul654 (oops! did I say his name?) has just taken GoRight to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scibaby.

What does Scibaby have to do with it? Read the reference gain, KDP. It was a parallel, or actually more blatant, an administrator giving what certainly seems to be instructions to another admin or editor. Stephan Schulz did immediately block the alleged Scibaby sock. Enric Naval did support the proposed restriction on GoRight, though I think it isn't what Raul654 had in mind, and I haven't checked the sequence, and it doesn't matter, that was my ultimate point. (Enric, by the way, thanks for the comment above, it's appreciated, and, to my mind, if Raul654 gives you good advice, you should take it. However, watch out, be careful. He's probably on his way down, from the signs I see, and he might drag a few editors with him. Just remember how everyone was claiming I was beating a dead horse with JzG. Including your kind self.) --Abd (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that i've stirred up your conspiracy gene.. it was well meant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

But what's wrong with coaching? If I'm prevented from editing the page, what's wrong with pointing out issues to another editor? It could be done off-wiki you know? Would you think that safer and better? What's your advice, Kim? Is Big Brother watching? There is no cabal. Repeat as needed for anxiety. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEAT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:Don't cite policy pages in toto to editors who know the policy intimately. Oh, we don't have that? I wonder why? Could be because it's effing obvious? WP:MEAT doesn't prohibit cooperation among editors, you should know that, since you are such a cooperative fellow. Maybe you should read it yourself. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And here i was walking around innocently and thinking that "recruitment of (typically, new) editors to join a discussion on behalf of or as proxy for another editor," was exactly what this might look like. But i'm sorry that i bothered you - i can see that your ability to be civil apparently has reached its limits. (perhaps you should do something about that? Since it is what Coppertwig, GoRight and others find your most likeable attribute...). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Becky Quick

Thanks for the input.

I don't have a clue who WMC is, nor do I think I should have to know. It seems quite a trivial "dispute," if even deemed that, amid the real thing to be discussed.

It is amazing how a Very Minor edit darts down a wormhole in a nanosecond.

Does it ever at Wikipedia get back to the integrity of the data, rather than the minutiae of the process? : )

(Please don't think me rude for not signing here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I do prefer that you sign, but it's not a big deal for me. It would help if I knew why you don't want to sign. It's OK because SineBot has signed for you, but that leaves two entries in my talk page history: a minor disadvantage. I like having the link to the person's talk page in their signature, and to be able to see who it is (i.e. I recognize you as the number "162..." whom I was just talking to).

It is about the integrity of the data. It's just that some people disagree with you. You need to present a more convincing argument. It would help to find better sources.

It also helps to give a link to the page being discussed: Rebecca Quick. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now the system is supporting the other edit-warrior. Because I did take the steps to discuss this through the talk page. I did reach out to previous editors in this matter.

Registering an account? I barely do anything at Wikipedia. Don't have the time. But this is a principled stand. The person in question was previously married. That's all. No more no less. And an edit-warrior both denies the truth AND remains one step ahead of me. For now, that is. The data will win out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.6.97.3 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It may be true that she was previously married, but that doesn't mean the article necessarily has to say so. Why can't the article just not mention that? See WP:V and WP:BLP. Actually, this not signing thing is starting to get inconvenient -- it would be much easier for you to type four tildes than for me to sign for you,have an edit conflict with SineBot and you haven't explained why you don't. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I saw this edit on WMC talk, I was putting the girls to bed, had my i-Phone and just rummaged around a little. Very strange. First of all, the argument about IP editors not being allowed to remove talk page warnings because they might be for someone else is odd because if they were for someone else, that someone else will never see the "you have messages" notice, the new editor will and by having read it, the message is suppressed. I see no reason to disallow IP editors the same courtesy on their Talk page as afforded other editors, it seems contrary to policy to discriminate like that. So, I wondered, WTF is going on here? I looked at contributions and saw an edit which simply stated that Becky Quick had been previously married. Apparently so, the source there is a newsletter, 2003, but indeed has a picture of Becky Quick at a fundraiser, with her parents and "husband Peter Shay." Her present husband is Matthew Quayle, her producer. Recently married. Source for this? [67]. Gossip column, but used as a source. Consider this from the New York Times, January 22, 2006. Ms. Quick turned to television and returned to the Garden State, where she now lives (in Haworth) with her husband, who is a computer programmer. So she was married to Peter Shay, apparently a computer programmer, we assume they were divorced, and is married now to Matthew Quayle. What exactly is the big deal here?

Wait! The plot thickens. Another gossip site has this, with sources. But then it has this discussion of the Wikipedia article, discussion dated May 13, updated July 27. It refers to article history, including IP edits by IP allegedly registered to NBC Universal. The edits involved are:

[68] Yes, NBC Universal, [69] A little COI, anyone?

[70] User:Mquayle removes infobox data "Peter Shay, divorced." Husband Matthew Quayle. Gee, I wonder if there is any connection here? That's the only edit from Mquayle. Registered at 17:26, eleven minutes after the IP edit above, four minutes before the edit to Becky Quick. With no checkuser rights at all, I have cleverly identified 64.210.199.231 as the husband of Becky Quick, who does, after all, work at NBC Universal (or I assume so).

Enter, stage left, User:KeltieMartinFan. Registered 4 February, 2008. Began immediately editing Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) -- more later.... --Abd (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd Been monitoring this, too. So glad to see your input/insight!  : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter, is that you? Of course you have been monitoring this. My condolences, but, in the immortal words of Lenny Bruce, when he reported telling the Chinese waiter who had asked where "your beautiful wife" was that night, and he replied "We divorced." And then the waiter responded, "Oh, you betta off." Of course, I suppose, you may not be Peter and all this is stupid inference.

You've been going about this the wrong way. When Syrthiss advised your friend, or whoever the blocked IP is, to discuss the issue in Talk, he did not intend for the editor to continue to actually edit the article, insisting on inserting the fact. And, take a hint: you are irritating everyone by not signing your edits, and you've left edits that appeared, from the way you put them up, to be from someone else, for example, posting a copy of material from Syrthiss with his signature, copied, at the end. And no signature from you. People here don't like this! Sign edits to Talk pages with four tildes, this: ~~~~, and the software will insert your IP address -- or account, if you register and are logged in -- automatically, plus a timestamp. I don't know if anyone will be able to help you with this situation, it's a bit of a mess, and I'm quite tied up at the moment, facing ... WMC ... before the Arbitration Committee. --Abd (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not Peter. (Nor Paul, nor Mary.)

It sure looks like the IP editor did due diligence today on a minor edit that the facts support. All but for one editor in the Wikipedia universe who rejects it.

Really, don't tildes seem like the least irritating part of the whole matter?

Good luck with WMC/arbitration committee. That IP editor might be headed there, too.

(edit conflict with above) KMF seems to edit articles related to NBC programming (?), plus some other stuff. First impression, aggressive, uncivil. See [71], for example. Blocked in May for edit warring, unblocked as a result of an AN/I discussion. With regard to Becky Quick, KMF began editing the article Rebecca Quick July 2nd, with a punctuation correction. The removal of the information about the previous marriage had not attracted notice, apparently. July 7, IP arrives and restores "It is her second marriage." KMF reverts with Not really appropriate to mention. Note that objection is not based on lack of source. A bit more than a week later, another IP adds "(Quick was previously married and divorced.)" This IP, 76.114.133.44, is from Comcast, New Jersey. Gee, I wonder who this could be? (It seems unlikely that these two IPs are the same user, the first one, 162.6.97.3, the one whose talk page was protected today, is Red Cross IP National Headquarters, Falls Church, VA, pretty far from New Jersey.) Edit warring ensued. This edit by KMF seems typical of the many reverts.

Sure, the information should have been sourced, but that, obviously, was not the issue! KMF is doing what Quick's husband (I speculate) previously did, removing reference to the marriage. I suspect, of course, that the NJ IP is the former husband, who'd like to not be erased from history. The Red Cross IP could be a friend. WMC jumps in, protected the article, and then reverted to the version favored by KMF. The article had been semiprotected on July 20, which, of course, favored KMF, and had come off protection on August 3, with the Red Cross IP immediately replacing the marriage comment, referring to talk. The comment in the article was not sourced, but there were sources in Talk. The IP editor is unsophisticated, and may not know how to set up references, I can speculate, since the information is sourced and seems highly likely to be true. It's not defamatory, rather there seems to be a personal agenda here (on both sides). You have, of course, seen the information on the Talk page, since you commented there. Strictly speaking, WMC's revert back to KMF's version under protection seems inappropriate. This is not a BLP issue, in fact, since the information does have adequate source. The comment from Syrthiss was inserted by IP from New Jersey, 68.50.128.120.

I have sourced the comment from Syrthiss. WMC, as you have noticed, has extended the block to indef for 162.6.97.3, which, if I'm correct, is improper (for shared IP like that), and there doesn't seem to have been sufficient cause, plus he edited under protection to prefer the position of KMF, when there is, as Syrthiss pointed out, more source for the marriage to the "computer programmer" than for the producer. KMF was, long-term, uncivil in this matter, and was also edit warring. No action with KMF. The IP indef'd had complained about WMC's protection at [72].

I notice that Durova previously semiprotected this article in 2007 for COI edits by NBC Universal, as shown by the page log. The IP involved then was 64.210.199.232. Adjacent, i.e., later IP was .231.

Can of worms, Coppertwig. Hungry? --Abd (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd re: 2nd/additional post

I would suggest your facts in many places are leaky, but your opinions overall are sound! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.128.120 (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I make lots of mistakes, and there isn't enough time left in my life to find most of them. You could, in fact, be more specific, eh? I'm aware that I speculated about certain things, and there are lots of possibilities that I didn't cover.... Given the sources you found, I believe that you can get the information about the former marriage in the article, but you will have to be patient. I highly recommend sitting on your hands for the moment. WMC invited your blocked friend, or whoever that was, to write him. If we approach WMC and demand that he reverse his actions, knowing him, he's likely to dig in his heels and the whole thing could take a long time to clear up. If your friend writes, explains the situation, he might unblock. And you could register an account and work on this openly. You would disclose your conflict of interest, if you have one, and simply advise us in Talk or make requests, and rigorously avoid incivility, accusations, etc., etc. (Even if you have no conflict of interest, as a single-purpose account, you are vulnerable if you become pushy, and if you are blocked, and one of the bulldogs decides to attach himself to your leg, it can get difficult to even get a word in.) Try to work it out directly. I don't know who KMF is, but it wouldn't hurt to try negotiation, if it fails, you are back where you started, not worse. KMF is on thin ice as well, though. --Abd (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)