User talk:Eraserhead1

Fastest = French TGV?

The fastest train in the world uses standard gauge which is French TGV. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Harmony express is the fastest train in service. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In France? 121.102.47.215 (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

TGV and narrow gauge railway 121.102.47.215 (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the Harmony express is in China between Wuhan and Guangzhou, it covers the 900km between them in 3 hours. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

More precisely, the new Wuhan - Guangzhou service covers 922km in a fastest time of 2 hours 57 minutes, an average speed of 312.5 km/h (194.2 mph), see[[1]] ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prospero10 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Change to Ivan I Crnojević

Hi, I agree it is controversial (like many things related with Bosnia). Here is one source: Viator, page 388, from Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies / University of California. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a very reliable source, but I can't see the exact quote from the book which shows it. Can you point it out? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Eraserhead1. You have new messages at Talk:Ivan I Crnojević.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFC on YM

Hi Eraserhead1,

I agree that this matter deserves to be examined by a wider audience, it cannot be brushed off like this.

I think your idea of an RFC on WP:PP is a good one. Alternatively on WP:IAR, but I don't know the place very well and WP:PP is probably better anyway.

If you would like a review before you post just put a draft here and I can take a look. It may be worth doing a little more research in that list, but frankly I think the case is strong enough as it is.

Cheers, 114.146.68.105 (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm British so suggesting anything on WP:IAR is probably counter-productive anyway. The Indians have to figure things out themselves if there are issues that only really affect that project IMO.

On the RFC I was intending just to bring up the schools thing (but internationally). It has at least some merit and if it was in the rules it would be better than the current situation IMO - of course given the BLP thing isn't likely to pass so I think its unlikely to succeed but the community should decide. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS on India take a look at India standard time for example - it used to be an FA :eek:. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please visit WP:IAR - nothing to do with India.

One user being responsible for 1/8th of all current indef semis, some of which being at least a little excessive by any standard, and invoking admin discretion to blanket-justify them all, is something that I think the whole community needs to know about and comment on. Maybe that's fine, but a few questions remain unanswered. For instance, is YM being ultra-zelous with Australian schools, or are all other schools at such high risk of not being WP:PERFECT (note the last bullet point)? I fail to see any apocalyptic consequences if we leave them unprotected.

I don't know when you joined the project, but many Wikipedia articles a few years ago looked like crap, and not protecting them has helped getting them in a much better shape. Even further, in my opinion, "Anyone can edit" is not just a temporary publicity stunt to get the project started and get content there, it's a deep philosophical statement that leads to an equilibrium in the long run and, like it or not, it's still a fundamental principle of the project.

Wikipedia is only getting started, it would be a shame to shut the doors now. 205.228.108.57 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can disagree with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

PS If you guys think I should be asking another question than talking about schools let me know, I'm not sure what of a more YM specific question I could reasonably ask. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, we may not be ready for this. I think we need better analysis into this Nangparbat business for example. I know nothing about India, Pakistan and their conflicts, which makes me impartial, but ignorant.

However, take User:Jayaganeshkigand for example. Recently, the account has been blocked, accused of being a Nangparbat sock. Yet, the link to the investigation does not show any evidence, and indeed any investigation, unless I'm completely missing it.

There are other incongruences. Look at the contribs. Yes, the account holder is probably not a newbie (they talk about pov in edit #12), and some edits are quite biased or not exactly done in good faith. However, in other edits they seem to be well-intentioned, reverting blanking of information (about Pakistan) and adding sourced (if partisan) material that YM promptly blew away. Jayaganeshkigand's edits to Kashmir Conflict and Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, by the way, demonstrate that the semi-protection of these articles (done guess-by-whom) is not only preventing good edits by casual users, but it's also ineffective in stopping determined so-called "vandals".

Also interesting how, when Baramulla district gets "Jammu and Kashmir" changed to "Indian Occupied Kashmir", that warrants an immediate revert and indefinite semi-protection. However, when Mirpur, Azad Kashmir gets "POK" changed to a seemingly more neutral and appropriate, and definitely more readable and encyclopedic-looking "Azad Kashmir", it gets reverted multiple times by the usual suspects.

So, is this area being represented fairly and in a balanced way? Are YM protections and reversions partisan? I hope they are not, but we should analyse this, because this is vaguely reminiscent of the "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" aphorism, and anyway it might be debatable whether this might be vandalism or content dispute, which should not be resolved in conflict of interests, and definitely not with an indefinite semi.

It sounds pretty partisan to me, I went to India and I've discussed some of these issue in reasonable detail and the Indians seemed to be of the view that partition was bad (which I agree with I think). However noone tried to imply the conflict was all Pakistan or India's fault, and I think both parties are responsible for the conflict, so if it says POK then it should say IOK as well IMO. If there is any actually bias it should be IOK as I believe Kashmir is majority muslim and it was a last minute deal which kept it in India.

Also take a look at the protection of Christianity in India (unprotection request), which looks incredibly odd to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, for now let's assume there is no hidden POV in the protections. I can see how Nangparbat might have been a real pest (although I need to investigate the case further), but it seems possible that some people have been traumatised by this and they developed a post-traumatic stress disorder that leads them to hysterically revert/block/protect anything that might possibly be affected by anything vaguely anti-Indian, conveniently tarring all contributions showing that slant under the Nangparbat tag, whereas in fact it could be many users, not just one, reflecting an unbalanced portrayal of certain themes. This is incidentally another reason why blocking IPs is bad. We need feedback to make sure that our articles are not POV. We need to engage POV editors, asking for references and informing them of how things are done, encouraging discussions where they belong, i.e. not in revert edit summaries, but in the talk page. In my experience it invariably leads to good points being raised and the quality and neutrality of articles being improved.

In summary, I think in general we need to gather more detailed analysis about each YM protection, focussing on the least justifiable ones.

It would be nice to set up a centralised place where to put our findings about each protection, each linked to its own discussion page. YM will be invited to comment on each of course, although by the looks of it they will not bother. When we have gathered enough material (let's say another 10-20 dodgy protections) we will be better informed and in a better position to discuss the next steps. 123.222.213.56 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason I think for doing an RFC on schools is that the arguments made for it by YM on WP:AN and myself on WT:PP are legitimate concerns, there is little interesting to say about schools and there is a high potential for vandalism from the current students. Its probably the most obvious general target for vandalism that probably doesn't get quickly reverted on the whole encyclopaedia - including BLPs.

Additionally by putting up an RFC for this category means you can easily argue that any other category has to be discussed with an RFC as it was done for schools and these would be almost certain not to pass.

If the request to blanket protect schools fails it will be difficult to argue that it should remain for topics such as India which must generally have a lower potential for un-reverted vandalism. Additionally it'll be easy to got to WP:RUP and ask for YM's protections of Australian schools to all be reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Schools proposal is now an RfC

See this for the RfC -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This is now concluded. What are your intentions? 124.86.77.180 (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't quite had 30 days yet, the bot seems to have removed the tag prematurely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Eye of the Tiger

Please block user 201.10.115.8 (cause you threatened to block him/her before) if you can (cause I can't figure out how to do that yet). I am so tired of having to revert the genre of the song Eye of the Tiger after I specifically put in there "DO NOT CHANGE". Thank you.-VarietyPerson (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You have to be an admin to block people so I can't - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_banning for that. You'll probably need to re-give some warnings though, see WP:UTM for those. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010

Hi there.

I noticed an IP recurrently "improving" the article over a couple of days; when fixing it, it occurred to me that there is no way this page will need any real editing until after the polls have closed, since no-one is being returned unopposed. So, I semiprotected it (ie, established users only) until 11pm on the 5th - it should hopefully avoid some of the drive-by edits.

I can unprotect it if you'd like, but to me this seems like one of the rare cases where the small level of vandalism is actually much greater that the almost non-existent likelihood of real changes. Shimgray | talk | 08:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - I wasn't really expecting people would want to fiddle with the layout. Unprotected, and you get to keep an eye on it now ;-) Shimgray | talk | 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash‎;

3RR does not apply when reverting vandalism. Since the day of the accident a troll with an IP from Telefonica Spain has been posting nonsense at 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and also at International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash and List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Some IPs used by this individual have been blocked (i.e. [2], [3], ecc.) and he has been told to stop his trolling. Because of this person the main article 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash had to be semi-protected and as he continues his disruptive and childish behavior (i.e. [4], [5], [6], ecc.) tonight he was joined by another conspiracy theorist, who put up his own Original Research (have you read the stuff??? not a single source,... just an attempt to go from WWII and the Soviet hiding of the facts to the theory that the Russian did again...). As wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are there to discuss sourced improvements to an article and not to debatte if Putin did it (maybe by throwing Georgian babies into the path of the plain??? or similar BS) the removal of such edits is sanctioned and does not fall under 3RR. --noclador (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally given the number of reverts you were having to do over a short space of time I think you guys should have let it go, its only a talk page, not the article itself... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi Eraserhead1, just wanted to say setting up an archive for the "2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash‎" talk page was a good move! I was going to add my comment there, when I found the talk page is protected! This seems unusual, I have been editing for 7 months and can't recall this being done before. Though, with all the 'unusual' ideas about the cause of the crash (as per noclador above), I can understand, if that's why it's been done. (Had a look at the talk history user: Slim Virgin did the deed, just before I got online! No problemo! About time I registered anyway!) Rule Brittania! ;-) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Joke?

The one that I posted on Talk:Khmer rouge isn't a joke! It's a real Polish rouge--125.25.241.142 (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Its not really appropriate when Pol Pot is involved - he killed a good percentage of the population of Cambodia, at least 10%, within a few years too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Plante

There is no consensus to have him in the article either. moreover, Plante is already in this article:

while experts in the field of sexual abuse counseling contend that celibacy has no effect on rates of child abuse in the Catholic Church, as it has been shown that the rates of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is not higher than in society, other public institutions and other religious denominations.

No need have him twice in the same context.--71.191.26.127 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be discussing different things each time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Burma Campaign: Lead

With regard to the citations required tags in the lead, I would argue from Wikipedia:Lead section#citations:

Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.

Is it really contentious that British, Indian and African troops battled Japanese, renegade Indian troops and Burmese nationalists; or that there was a famine and large-scale demonstrations in India? These questions are in any case so general that whole chapters are devoted to them in several works. These points are better addressed lower down the article, or in the articles dealing with the campaign on a year-by-year basis. The lead should not be cluttered with citations which duplicate those required later. HLGallon (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proceed as you wish. I have made my point. HLGallon (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Sex Abuses

Hi, Eraserhead. Why do you believe that "Ratzinger is guilty, proofs are there"? joo (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In the Kiesle case, this is what I have found:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001 (Joo> I've verified this via various documentation cited in the article under the Vatican Responses section). The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.

• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.

• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.

• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.

• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.

• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.

• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you're looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.

http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/view/6983/ Original source: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632%20

I think you have me confused with someone else ;). I re-added the 'alleged'. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. joo (talk) 08:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Eraserhead. User:Haldraper kept removing the school abuse statistic given by Professor Charol Shakeshaft. Isn't this a case of 3RR again? joo (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your message

The text I've added is strictly referenced not once, rather several times. You are not reading references at all!--71.191.26.127 (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The sources in question don't say that at all. Neither the Times nor the Guardian make the required claim. As he hasn't been found guilty he is only alleged to have done it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 9 to 5 Mac and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are 9 to 5 Mac, MacScoop. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 to 5 Mac for 9 to 5 Mac, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacScoop for MacScoop. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

epub video rm from ipad

You reverted (357044771) my edit to iPad and removed a link to a video tutorial on the .epub format. I would agree it does not belong. Thanks for your trouble and for the note on my User talk page. * Video: Format overview of the .epub file jk (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject iPhone OS

Promote the project

• Join this project! Add yourself to the list, and add the userbox to your page, to advertise the project to people who happen to pass by.
• Invite people to the project – drop a note on the user talk page of editors working on iPhone OS topics who aren't project members.
• Consider promoting the project via the Wikipedia Signpost WikiProject desk.

Improve the project

• Update the project pages, archive clutter, and make use of the latest automation available
• Consult the WikiProject Guide for ideas
• Come up with new ones

Use the project

• Create a new article. Or check out Wikipedia:WikiProject iPhone OS#Todo and see if these new articles need work such as project tagging or categorising.

• Expand some of the articles (check out Category:Stub-Class iPhone OS articles or some of its subcategories), always respecting Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy. Also, check the Wikipedia: Manual of Style.
• Add references to articles which need referencing improving. Biographies of living persons are a particular priority.
• Assess some of the Unassessed iPhone OS articles, using the criteria at Wikipedia:WikiProject iPhone OS#Assessment. Update the project banner on the relevant talk page.

• Check the talk page for requests for help.
• Check the to do list at #To do

This was a one-time notice from WikiProject iPhone OS · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hat note at Muhammad

The use of a disclaimer has been debated numerous times on the article, with their use being rejected every time. I removed the hat note on that basis. You're welcome to bring it up on the talk page of the article to see if consensus has changed, however. Resolute 19:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead

About the christianity in India page, we should not put wild claims like St. Thomas converted Kings and tribes of North India to Christianity based on no claims. In fact in Muslims of South Asia and Middle-east, there is a popular belief that ENGLAND's ruler had converted to Islam during 7th century. Fables like St. Thomas Acts are not verified and accepted by most Christians. If you visit St. Thomas article, you will see that he has been linked with one or another king from Russia to India throughout middle-east. Also, the article itself has links to disprove these fables Eastern Christian writings state that Christianity was introduced to India by Thomas the Apostle, who visited Muziris in Kerala in 52 CE to proselytize amongst Kerala's Jewish settlements; however this is widely disputed due to lack of credible historical evidence. I hope you uphold the standards of wikipedia. thanks note: such wild claims cause much pain to non-Christians of India. Please dont play with our history and culture. We should learn to respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varanwal (talk • contribs) 26 April 2010 20:04 (UTC)

References

</ref>

Edit Warring

Hello: You may wish to use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to report edit battles rather than WP:AIV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Feature Portal Review of Portal:iPhone OS

IPhone OS has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. This was a courtesy notice from WikiProject iPhone OS · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

One suggestion. It would be best to avoid putting your comments in between someone elses[7]. It make my comments look like yours. In case you need to reply seperately to each point, either refer to them saying "regarding x" or copy the points seperately and post your response to each point. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

For handling my silly joke so very professionally! I was very tired. Sorry for the hassle... 85.77.236.89 (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)