User talk:Docboat

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

Able to help?

Hi there, I have been looking for admins who have the time and patience to coach me for possible later adminship. Are you able to take me on? docboat 07:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sure. Do you want to work on a per case basis (assisting) or something like more formal (theoretical)? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in getting practically active, and backing it up with theoretical understanding. Something like trying an aspect of Wikipedia, and reading the information behind the process. But basically I would do pretty much what you tell me to do :) Many thanks for replying! docboat 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Brian. I think this will be highly helpful for a start. Please read it carefully and give me you your feedback once you finish reading. In case you would only need to read the final resolution of this case, please find it here. We can move on after that. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh boy - this will take some time to read and digest. I will make a subpage for comments and have a (much) longer read and think. docboat 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Where can we talk about this? docboat (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Still on it

Hi again - man you have given a lot to think about - I am still ploughing through the papers I printed out on your very complicated case, and will have put my thoughts together soon. Good things to think about, but I hope it is not always so complicated! docboat (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - where can we talk about it? docboat (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Brian. I've been very busy lately. I'll be fully back soon. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

German-English translations/Gründerzeit

Ich weiss gar nicht, ob Du schon diese Website benutzt, aber sie hilft mir oft, schwierigen Text in deutscher Sprache zu verstehen (und dann kann ich ihn übersetzen). Natürlich ist sie nicht perfekt, aber es gibt auch ein Forum, wo man unbekannte Wörter erfragen kann.

Mein eigenes Ziel ist die Übersetzung aller deutschen WP-Artikel über Städte und Gemeinden in Deutschland. Wie lange wird diese Aufgabe dauern, meinst Du? Kelisi (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ungefähr eine Ewigkeit, so schätze ich! docboat (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

WP Malaysia December 2007 collaboration of the month

Hi there, based on this month's total votes, our collaboration of the month will be none other than our capital city as well as Malaysia's primate city of Kuala Lumpur! Please feel free to make improvements on the article, or comment or give ideas on ways to further improve the quality of the article. Thanxzsz. p/s I didnt know u speak German. Das ist sehr geil! Hehe, im sort of trying to learn, but my deutsch is still hopeless. :) kawaputra^torque 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Ryan Postlethwaite 3

Hi Docboat. Many thanks for your kind words on my editor review, it means a lot to me. You mentioned bringing items to my talk page if you felt something needed addressing - well please do, I try my best here and if there's a problem, I like to sort it out as early as possible. It's important that I know there's a problem, if I don't, I can't do anything about it. I'll get round to giving you an ER myself over the next couple of days. Best regards, and thanks again :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Open Mind

Greetings of the season James. A small point from the homeopathy talk page </groan> but you took exception to the concept of an open mind - and I must ask if you are certain on that point? AFAICT, a certain signpost to false results in any scientific endeavour is to see a closed mind. Not, of course, an empty mind - quite different from being open minded. Peace and joy for the New Year! docboat (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An open mind as in being receptive to new ideas and information is highly desirable. However, this is rarely what anyone means when they use the term. Practically every time I see someone use the term "open mind", what they mean to imply is that the person the are talking to is being close minded because they are not accepting their ideas. Hence, using the term "open mind" is often some form of concealed attack at the opposition. It has been my experience that the vast majority of people who use the term "open mind" faily to realise the difference between someone rejecting their ideas because they lack merit and someone rejecting their ideas because they cannot accept new concepts.

So you see open mind never really means open mind. What it really means is accept a lower standard of evidence. Like for example when you said it before "The reporting of those anecdotal records has been documented sufficiently in the appropriate homeopathic publications, but not to the "gold" standard of double blind placebo etc etc. They are most certainly empirically interesting to all who wish to keep an open mind" You were clearly advocating that these anecdotes are worth something when science says otherwise. It is not close minded to reject bad evidence but this is always the intended implication. Open mind is a term like family values. It's a term that doesn't actually mean what it says but no one would dare oppose what the person using the term says because they are then closed minded/hate familes. This is why I universally oppose the term. If the term actually meant what it implied I'd be all for it. JamesStewart7 (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we can almost agree. Clearly advocating these anecdotes does not imply to accept the anecdotes - but to look at them and ask if there is any merit in them. It is one area of research where we look at a cohort study, which is a collection of anecdotal evidence, and has been used to justify giving antibiotics to treat ear infections. Wrong, but anecdotally convincing. I think of an open mind as in the examples of Koch and Pasteur, whose enemies among the medical community were well-respected, and closed minded. That is my understanding of the term. But then again, my use of English also includes the term "gay" to mean happy/joyful/light-hearted. docboat (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that using a cohort study is one thing when RCT are not available. It is another to prefer a cohort design when RCT are available (as was the case with homeopathy). Also cohort studies are a far of a lot better controlled than anecdotes. Cohorts studies keep track of the hits and misses will anecdotes tend to only report the hits. With a cohort study you can also control for many other factors with techniques such as a multiple regression. However, as far as the term open mind goes, I guess we can just conclude that it has become a tainted term for me due to the misuse of it by many. I'm sure for others though that it carries a different meaning. JamesStewart7 (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Selassie

I have issues with the mediation as premature but, while not knowing you, I am happy to accept your mediation and go along with the process in spite of reservations. I am committed to researching for better and more substantial refs re the divinity issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Tramways in Strasbourg

Hello, i'm eager to proofread your work and am very grateful to you to take it up. Thanks again and happy new year. RCS (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Ryan Lowe: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 12:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi back! Yes, I tend to warn only obvious vandals, ones with a bit of history, or where the vandalism is really obnoxious. Using Twinkle, the feed flows so fast ... so many vandals, so little time! Keep up the good work! docboat (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop vandalism of Joseph Liu Xinhong page

This person is bishop of Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. The fact that he was excommunicated by pope is irrelevant. he still is bishop + he is not in communion with Roman catholic church.

He belongs to Catholic schizmatic church called - Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association

If you do not know subject, or are not interested in it, I please you to stop deleting or reverting articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumaterana (talk • contribs) 14:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP Malaysia: January 2008 collaboration

Hello, based on the total votes collected in December, our collaboration of the month will be ♦ Mahathir bin Mohamad ♦. Please feel free to make improvements on the article, or comment or give ideas on ways to further improve the quality of the article. Thanks. kawaputra^torque 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 05:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

If it helps, I was a little worried about you because... well, you know my opinions of Peter and Whig, and I thought you were "in" with them. I did realise a while ago that you thought for yourself, but never quite got around to officially recanting my earlier position, so... sorry! Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Hi Docboat - thanks for your participation in my request for adminship. I took note of your remarks about appreciating my response to conflict, and I'll try to make sure that it doesn't change and that I never allow myself to become condescending or curt just because I happen to have a mop (the janitor at my junior high school completely let the mop go to his head - he was a jerk). Anyway, the RfA passed 52/0/0, and I'm now in possession of a shiny new mop. If I can ever help you with anything, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Docboat, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New Arbcom case (maybe)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Homeopathy The idea of it is not to censor anyone, but to try and get some guidelines that will end some of the perennial wars once and for all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and LEAD

As you requested, I would be glad to have you explain to me what you think NPOV means, and what the WP policies are for the LEAD of an article.--Filll (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I would be glad to help clear up some misapprehensions, but first off, do you feel OK? You have not been in good form, hostile even - and that is not a good place to be in when resolving misapprehensions. docboat (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• OK, no answer, so I assume you are just fine. OK then. You ask about WP:NPOV in a tone which assumes I am not familiar with the page. What I think you mean to ask is why I do not share your POV on a topic (in this case Homeopathy but there will be others) and you assume that I therefore do not have a neutral POV because you feel that you do, ergo I do not. Now then, if you can agree that I have understood the question, what about the answer?

From the lead to the article, it states: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Now, taking the homeopathy article as an example, we see very different perspectives being argued about. Multiple perspectives, we read, should be presented fairly - which is certainly not the case on that article, where some editors present a view which is meant to "debunk" or "promote" the topic. But that is not what we are supposed to do. We need to illuminate the topic. Undue weight ... asserted as being "truth" .... can you see how that conflicts with the determined efforts of anti-homeopaths on the one hand and pro-homeopaths on the other, who feel they must present the "truth" and that homeopathy is quackery or a panacea? Made accessible to the reader ... the current style is to present a statement, and then a countering statement, to "balance" the article for fairness - but it makes the article inaccessible. Not just the most popular view .... Readers must be allowed to form their own opinions ... do you remember how I rebutted the argument of one homeophobe (NB neologism) who insisted it was a "duty" to protect the public from being lead to believe that homeopathy works? That is not our job, I said.

Neither sympathetic nor in opposition to the subject - precisely that is what I have held against the slew of homeophobes whose avowed aim it is to present homeopathy in such a manner as to convince readers that homeopathy is wrong, quackery, even fraud. Now to make clear, however, I am an allopathic doctor. I do not prescribe homeopathy, but I do see it as useful - even excellent - for many of my patients who seek out one of our homeopaths. I am based in science, and my intellect is not particularly blunted - at least not yet. So please try to settle down, regard my POV reflectively, and see if your attitude of implied hostility is justified.

Now, is that enough for a start? docboat (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I am glad you accepted this challenge. Can you tell me what relevance you think WP:FRINGE is in this area?--Filll (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No Filll this is not a challenge, not an attempt to find our who is "right" or"wrong", but an attempt to find understanding. You have a lot of good points to make, I am sure, but neither of us is going to have the perfect answer. But as you seek to see where I stand on fringe subjects being illustrated on Wikipedia, my personal point of view is that a fringe subject needs t be illustrated as a fringe subject. It is shown - as the subject adherents believe it to be - in all the gory detail. You need to see what it is from the POV of those who espouse the topic. Then - and only then, is it proper, IMHO to fill in the blanks, present evidence to the contrary, etc. For example, if your fringe topic adherents passionately believe the moon is made of Stilton cheese, you need to be allowed to demonstrate just what these adherents do believe. It matters not that they have no evidence to back it up, or evidence which is spurious. When they are done then you show the results of manned space flight to the moon, and can demonstrate very factually why others believe it is in fact an excellent form of Edam. Or whatever. I think this would allow for the topic to be better (more clearly) described, and the opposing understanding also to shine through. Neither viewpoint would be cluttered by verbiage of opponents. And even better, obstreperous editors would be quickly found, and shown the door. Now this is not what WP:FRINGE would agree with in entirety, but it is my opinion of where the relevance should be. Thoughts?? BTW, I am off to Germany for 10 days - writing this from the airport. So I may be delayed in replying. It will be good to get to know you better, I think it will be fun, so hang in there. docboat (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. But this violates the principles on which Wikipedia operates. Wikinfo operates on the principles you are suggesting, with pure "pro" and "con" articles on all subjects by design. So are you proposing to change all the foundational principles and policies of Wikipedia?--Filll (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so - I suppose (hopefully) that we deal with reasonable people, who behave reasonably.— Preceding unsigned comment added by docboat (talk • contribs) 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, would you care to show me where the phrase "reasonable people who behave reasonably" appears in the NPOV rules? This claim of yours does appear to be a way to construct some new principles for Wikipedia out of whole cloth and then try to unilaterally impose your own made-up rules. By this rule, one should essentially allow anyone at all to do anything they want on Wikipedia, since we just assume they are all reasonable people behaving reasonably (remember WP:AGF and WP:BITE). If others think these editors are reasonable people, then all we need is the editor in question to claim he or she is reasonable, and should be allowed to put whatever they want in Wikipedia (by WP:AGF). So it looks like a way to introduce a huge loophole into NPOV to me.

My understanding of NPOV, which evolved from careful tutelage of senior editors and careful reading and rereading of the regulations and rules on Wikipedia is that NPOV is close to the mainstream view. If there is a mainstream view and a WP:FRINGE view, then the FRINGE view is presented, but the two views are balanced in proportion to their prominence.

For example, articles on the Flat Earth Society are written mainly from the perspective of the mainstream which believes the earth is not flat. Articles on intelligent design are written from the perspective of the mainstream in that area, for the most part, since fewer than 1% of the scientists in the relevant fields subscribe to intelligent design. Evolution here is not written from the perspective of the creationists, since that is a fringe view of evolution.

This of course angers many. Creationists and intelligent design supporters and flat earth believers do not like this at all. However, that is what NPOV means. If we follow the "reasonable people" dictum, all of these would be written from the perspective of the FRINGE views. And maybe even evolution would be written from the creationist viewpoint, to be "fair". However, this would produce a product that is far less useful to the average user, although it might please some in the relevant FRINGE community.

There is unfortunately no way to avoid irritating FRINGE elements and keep NPOV. There are other Wikis which do not have NPOV. And I have suggested them to editors who did not like NPOV over the last year. And many of them have gone to those other Wikis and become productive there and even admins etc. So NPOV is not for everyone for sure. I did not like it or understand it at first myself. However, as Jimbo says "NPOV is nonnegotiable". And if a person wants to edit here, they have to understand it, and follow it or there will be trouble. --Filll (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Filll, this is a simple discussion, an exchange of views. No-one is suggesting that rules need to be changed. But it is my opinion that NPOV does not mean that majority opinion must occupy majority space. It does mean that a view should be represented in a way which does not cause an opinion to be made based on rhetoric or style. Facts. Verifiable proofs. Put in a non-judgemental manner.

Now take your examples above. I agree with your assessment. But an article on Creationism needs to be written in a very different manner than an article on Evolution - the one will present the statements and beliefs from one POV (with opposing information to balance) and the other will be reversed in content. I should be able, in an encylopaedia, be able to understand the topics as they are understood by the proponents and opponents, in a logical, clear and concise manner. Such as it is in Homeopathy, we need to see precisely what homeopathy is from the standpoint of homeopathy, first and foremost, and then see the facts against homeopathy. That, IMHO, would be NPOV. What I see, however, is people who oppose homeopathy from whatever perspective gathering together to make that opposition clear at every avenue on the article. That is wrong. It makes the article unclear, certainly less than optimally NPOV and plainly bad. It is not supportive of fringe opinion at all - it merely provides a platform for the fringe to be represented, in a fair manner, without bias. One says "this is what they believe" eg that the earth is flat, and then one says "and this is what we see from space" - there is no bias. Now in homeopathy we see that formula repeated after every sentence (I exaggerate a tad here) and I am saying that these opposing views need to be placed differently: first the case for (what is it) and then the case against (what science sees) - does that sound so difficult? docboat (talk) 10:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Malaysia announcement

Hi there. I just want to announce that this month's collaboration will be ΦЏ Orang Asli ЏΦ. You are encouraged to participate in improving the quality of this article by however means you wish. I would suggest that our target by the end of the month would be for this article to achieve a Good Article status. Happy editing! kawaputra^torque 13:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Turks/Bulgarians

Dear Docboat,

i imagine you are busy, so i will as briefly as possible describe my problem (tho it's turned out longer...):

i write in reference to the Turks in Bulgaria and the Turkish Diaspora articles.

i saw you had edudicated on a dispute on it so am writing to you. if you are not mediating it any more, please pass this letter on to the competent editor.

it is more the Turkish Diaspora article i am writing about, however.

There, someone, a user named "ilhanli", who has removed the figures for Bulgaria from the table on several occasions, saying on the talk page that "Turks in Bulgaria are not Turkish Diaspora". http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_diaspora&action=history [notably on 9 Oct, 27 Oct and 28 Dec]

Several users have undone his changes but he's kept removing them with angry comments and incomplete explanations.

Now Bulgaria is back in the list (for how long???), but again, someone keeps putting it LOW down on the list Originally, the Bulgaria figures ranked high (there is a large Turkish population in Bulgaria), but someone keeps writing 300,000 for the population, while the National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria says 746,000: http://www.nsi.bg/Census_e/Census_e.htm [& click on "Population by districts and ethnic group"]

if you have time, you can read a (rather long) comment i wrote in which i outline my arguments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_diaspora it begins "i don't often write in wikipedia".

i am Bulgarian, and i want the truth to be presented, and if the truth is a large Turkish population, that needs to be stated.

please,

• 1. put the correct figure for Turks in Bulgaria, placing the country 2nd, behind Germany [& giving the nsi.bg as a footnote]
• 2. explain to everyone what you have done and why you have done it
• 3. and, if you are competent, block the page from editing until the dispute is resolved.

(sorry, hope that dint sound too order-you-about, like, it's just a suggestion...)

Thank you

nic

ps. i am not registered in Wiki as the company system we use does not allow us to enter registration pages without special

permission. i do not therefore want to change the article as people will accuse me of doing it anonymously and revert my

changes. (also, i apologise if this is not where i was supposed to post my question; i looked for other ways to write you but couldn't find any.)

thank you. 62.176.111.71 (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the information. I am not adjudicating the article, as I saw little chance of successful voluntary mediation. This seems to be a recurring issue throughout Turkish communities, that of Turkish nationalism in foreign countries. Under such circumstances, passion plays more of a role than facts. I had commented that this needs to be taken to a more formal level if resolution is sought, but (of course) it would be much better if the participants themselves would take some time to review the facts dispassionately, probably get the help of a trained historian in the matter, and let things cool down. I hope they took the advice. I suspect they will not. And I hope you are well and happy! Thanks again for dropping by docboat (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008 collaboration

Hi there. We need more votes again for our March 2008 collaboration. As of February 11, only 5 members have voted. Please do exercise your right to vote! Thanks! :-) White2020 (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)