User talk:Coppertwig

Please don't criticize other users in your comments on this page. You can post such criticisms on your own talk page, (if appropriate), and put a message here asking me to read them there.

Haselzweig im Schnee (Hazel twig in snow)

☺

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

• politely-worded criticisms of my behaviour (but please see procedure below if you're thinking of posting criticisms of other users)
• 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.

Re criticism of users other than myself: If you're having problems with another editor, I'll probably be happy to look into the situation, but please follow this procedure.

• consider not posting any criticism of another editor. It's possible to ask for help without criticizing anybody.
• Please don't post any criticisms of other editors on this talk page, (because I don't want to be indirectly responsible for such), but instead post them on your own talk page or the talk page of the other user (assuming it isn't inappropriate to do so); I suggest being as diplomatic as possible.
• you're then welcome to put a link from this talk page to such comment. (See Links or Simplest diff guide, or just tell me the name of the section on which page)
• when giving the link, please avoid posting any words of criticism on this page. It's fine to say "see comment critical of user X at (link)" but please don't say things like "see comment describing disruptive behaviour of user X at (link)".
• You might also consider emailing me.

One way to leave a message here is to click on the "new section" 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.

Your kind note

Thank you, your kind words are much appreciated. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Coppertwig. Thank you for your kind note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Brock notes section

Hi CT. Yes, if you want to wikilink the notes section, that would be a big improvement! The FA review has been extended on the grounds that work is still being done on the article, so now I have to finish all my planned improvements that were on the back burner.. They must do this just to get more work out of us :-). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will. I had a disappointment: I was writing a program so I could add the links using semi-automated editing. I can preserve the special characters and everything while copying the wikitext onto a computer and running it through a Perl script, but I haven't found a way to copy it back onto Wikipedia without messing it up. I may have to wait until I have a private Linux account working again in order to do semi-automated edits fully-automated edits using pywikipedia. Meanwhile, I'll add them by hand. Not difficult for the one article, but if I can do it automatically or semi-automatically I may be able to do a lot of articles. Thanks for the reminder. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, done, at least for the Tupper refs. I'm not sure if any others need to be done, unless maybe they're re-arranged to have only a short note in the footnote. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That was fast! Article looks good now. Since I have a Mac which runs Unix and Python, maybe I could do pywikipedia from here. Consider offering your Perl script for others to look at; you could put it on a user subpage. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing much yet. It will need lots of tweaking to work well on a variety of articles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru

Good luck with your communication attempts, and thanks for the help. --Elonka 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) You're welcome! Thanks for your message! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

There is this IP adress, 81.109.11.33, which makes a series of edits on Dharma that I revert. A user by name user:Langdell reverts my edits to the IP address's version, and then the series of edits from the IP address continue. I think that Langdell may be masquerading here justo show that more than 1 people agree with his version of the article. This has been happening in the Revision history of Dharma since 19 July 2008. Can you just check it out ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The total number of edits by the IP and by Langdell is small, so I don't think it's a problem at this point in time. Even if it's the same person, maybe Langdell simply forgot to log in. Forgetting to log in is allowed as long as it's not used to gain advantage. Even the IP and Langdell combined are nowhere near 3RR.

I notice that you haven't explained on the talk page the reason for your edits. I suggest doing that. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That I have done, in the section right above Langdell's created one. But the pattern that I talked about has occured twice :- An IP address makes a series of edits. Then I revert them, only to be reverted back by Langdell. After this, the IP's edits continue. If this repeats, I'll let you know. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you explained your edits. Are you talking about Talk:Dharma? Could you give me a quote of a few of your words so I can find the section you're talking about?

You said "Hence, this direct upfront attack by questioning or demanding my identity in this manner, is a crass attempt at a personal attack. This desperation..." I suggest avoiding words that are likely to evoke negative emotions. If you think there's a personal attack, you can ignore it or you can say "personal attack", but there is no need to say any more: no need to say "direct" or "upfront" or "attack" (repeating the word which also appears in the phrase "personal attack"; saying it once is enough) or "crass" or "desperation". I think it's also better to discuss personal attacks in a friendly way on the user's talk page, not on the article talk page. ☺ 10:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed the article here, [1] which is now archived (I did not realise this earlier).

Your suggestion about "avoiding words that evoke neg emotions" is noted. But Langdell has used such language too like, "disruptive interventions of IAF" and later going on to question/demand my identity - a discussion that's nothing to do with the article's topic. Even if devoid of some adjectives, this was equally if not more evocative of "negative emotions".

Earlier too I have very politely requested this user on his talk:page here [2] sometime in December last, urging him to discuss the article instead of posting 'warnings' and threats on my talk page. Even at that time he was simply reverting my edits without a word of explanation on the talk page. So his behavior is all the more un-wikipedia like. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted. (However, please see the request at the top of this talk page about how to post comments critical of other users.)☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Your comment avoided answering the question.[3]

Did you comment on Dematt's talk page to deflect attention away from my question?

Here is a reply to your question. It would be inmpossible to suggest a wording that everyone agrees upon. There is no need for attribution which would water down the sources.

Here is the question below.

This edit by Levine2112 was inaccurate because it was more than Keating.[4] What do you think about the misleading edit. QuackGuru 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"What do you think about the misleading edit" is a leading question, therefore I won't answer it directly. There is no need to answer this question directly. If the text in the article is misleading, it can be changed to different text. There's also no need for me to comment on the current text in the article, as I've already commented on it and as there are currently negotiations going on to change it to something else. Gleng's suggestion, which I mentioned, takes care of the complaint that there is more than one source, not just Keating. I answered at Dematt's talk page for several reasons: because you had posted something there which I felt required a response in the same place; and because I thought you would be likely to see a reply there; and because I thought you might not know what part of Talk:Chiropractic the edit I was referring to had been suggested in; and because I thought you might not see a comment if I posted it in that section of Talk:Chiropractic since many people have trouble keeping up with all the discussions there and I didn't think you had been posting recently in that section. By replying to your post on the same page as your post I certainly didn't intend to deflect attention from your question; in fact, I've been trying to get you to post about these things at Talk:Chiropractic so we can all discuss all sides.

When I say a version everyone will accept, I don't mean necessarily a version everyone will be happy with, but at least a version that everyone can accept as a compromise and not keep reverting. I think that's quite possible; and that WP:CONSENSUS urges us to try with good faith to reach that type of solution. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: If the text in the article is misleading, it can be changed to different text. There's also no need for me to comment on the current text in the article, as I've already commented on it and as there are currently negotiations going on to change it to something else.

The discussion on the talk will water down the text even more. It might help this matter if it was reported to the neutrality noticeboard for outside commentary.

There is a need to comment on the current text when it is misleading and a violation of one of Wikipedia's core policy, NPOV.

When NPOV violations continue there is a need to continue to discuss it per WP:DR.

Changing it to something else as suggested on talk will water down the source even more.

The current text is an NPOV violation and can be discussed. Do you agree it is misleading to state that it was just Keating when it was not.[5] QuackGuru 19:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Instead of commenting on the disputed wording, I've suggested another alternate wording here. (And my later correction.) Please help to find the wording which will evoke the smallest amount of objection from Wikipedian editors considering policy etc. Please comment there and suggest other alternate wordings. I see no need to report anything to a noticeboard at this time (other than the SYN question we've been working on) because discussion is proceeding and seems to me to be getting somewhere, but if you wish to report to a noticeboard I have no objection to your doing so. Please make your concerns about watering-down part of the discussion if you haven't already, and please suggest some alternate wordings that you don't consider to be watered down, trying to accomodate the other objections at the same time if you can. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[6]The word researchers does not imply all researchers. If we are going to use attribution then researchers is the most accurate and neutral. Removing the attribution would also resolve this too. QuackGuru 01:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First we need to figure out which sources support the statement. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was an NPOV violation to claim it was only Keating.[7] QuackGuru 16:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We have a 3RR noticeboard. Maybe a new noticeboard called something like 3RR NPOV violation noticeboard would resolve issues like this quickly. If there are 3 NPOV violation edits to the same specific content then it would be reviewed when editors consider it an easy to identify NPOV violation. This is clearly an NPOV violation. We can start a draft for a new noticeboard and admins can take action against NPOV violations. In the beginning the focus would be on the edit and not the editor. QuackGuru 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think NPOV is best enforced as it is now, by consensus of editors at the page and with occasional RfC (article content) and questions at noticeboards etc. I think we need to be wary of any system that would allow admins to make rulings on article content. Nothing wrong with admins, but the number of them is smaller and I think NPOV is better served by consensus among a larger number of people. See User talk:Ronz#Discussion. Anyway, it's good that you're thinking about how the system could be better designed.

I'm working on posting a list of quotes from the references, on which we can perhaps base a re-written version of that sentence.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

When edits like this stick in mainspace there is clearly a problem with the system. If it is not broken don't fix it. But the system is broken at this point. We are not going to get agreement on the text that is NPOV. NPOV is not enforced. Something needs to change. Misleading information on Wikipedia is allowed to remain in the chiropractic article. QuackGuru 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reply above. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So far the NPOV violation continues to remain in the article. The chiropractic article is broken. It should be fixed. Attribution waters down the text. QuackGuru 01:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See if you can think of a good wording that won't be considered to require attribution. I'm just going to try to think of a new suggested wording now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There is already a good wording. Attribution is unnecessary and is currently misleading. We can't attribute text just because some editors don't like what the reliable sources say. How long will the misleading information remain in the article. The longer it remains in the article the more broken Wikipedia has become. QuackGuru 01:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is the good wording? Do you understand what others object to about it? Can you explain their/our POV about that? Can you find wording causing the minimum amount of objection from all Wikipedian editors? I'm just trying to think of some wording now. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the misleading attribution is good wording. Others object because they don't like what the source says. We are here to write an encyclopedia and not a promotional ad. How many days will the misleading text remain. This does not look good for the editors who added the misleading information against NPOV. QuackGuru 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How is attribution "misleading"? If someone said something, it's true to say that they said it. We've been discussing on the talk page wording that acknowledges that more than one person said stuff. And I'm trying to think of other suggestions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The current attribution claims it was only Keating. It is more than one researcher. QuackGuru 02:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on my new suggested wording, which I just posted at Talk:Chiropractic#Antiscientific: suggested wording of sentence. Please help tweak it. Please comment there. (Here too if you like.) This suggested wording doesn't imply only one researcher. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You asked how long the information would remain in the article. One answer is: until we get a consensus or rough consensus on new wording, at least as strong as the rough consensus that supported the current wording. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your new suggested wording is difficult to understand and flows poorly. I disagree with a rewrite.

We don't need a new wording and you don't have consensus for the current wording. Dematt claimed he has not decided yet and you claimed there is more than one researcher to verify the text. I can provide the evidence if needed. QuackGuru 02:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are going to do what you want despite me explaining you don't have consensus or you are watering down the text or adding hard to understand text.[8] QuackGuru 17:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you make specific suggestions for improvements, especially in the appropriate section of the article talk page, they can be considered along with everybody else' in forming a compromise or consensus version. I don't know how to translate "watering down" or "hard to understand" into specific different words for the article; it would be better if you would suggest alternative versions of the sentence.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What you added to the article was very poor writing. I don't understand the text. It would be better if you reverted your edit and removed or fixed the misleading text saying it was only Keating. I strongly object to your edit. It was not an improvement. You written over quality text and now it is much worse. The text was fine except for the Keating part. I did not see any reason for a rewrite and the rewrite makes no sense. QuackGuru 01:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your new proposal is understandable. I made my suggestions at chiro talk.[9] Do you have any specific suggestions for the middle of the spectrum. QuackGuru 18:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we can take this edit to the NPOV noticeboard unless we can come up with a compromise.[10] Outside editors can review both versions and decide which is closer to NPOV. QuackGuru 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Logicus

Coppertwig, as someone who has tried to convince User:Logicus to avoid personal attacks in the past, would you be willing to explain to Logicus why edits like this (see the end, especially) constitute personal attacks? I've asked him to be civil and avoid personal attacks (see User_talk:Logicus#Please_be_civil), and rather than let it go, he demands that that I provide the same details I've already provided to him about what constitutes a personal attack or "withdraw" the claim that he has made personal attacks. Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--ragesoss (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Analog hole

Hi Coppertwig. It seems that the user you interacted with a few month ago - 71.100.x.x - is back at analog hole, and this time, inserting links to his wikibooks:analog hole article, which contains some of the exact links that were removed previously. The editor has some personal issues with me ([11]) due to an AfD ([12]), so I'd like your opinion on the WikiBooks issue before this turn into an edit war. Thanks! --Jiuguang (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I read parts of the discussions at the links you give. I'm not sure if I want to give an opinion on the content dispute. May I suggest WP:3O? Or WP:Dispute resolution. Note that the editor has a right to edit the article and I'm not aware of any reason why the user shouldn't insert links. Please state your case very clearly on the article talk page, and maybe give me a link to where you do that. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful than that right now. However, feel free to ask again if the situation gets worse. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - see bottom of Talk:Analog hole. I'm try not to have a repeat of User_talk:Coppertwig/Archive_7#Message_to_71.100.x.x. --Jiuguang (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Dharma

Hello coppertwig. Thankyou for your attempts to harmonise the edit on the subject of the article dharma. It may be true that editors choose anonymity but please be kind enough to take time to look at User:IAF's talk page. If you do not do this I am afraid that we cannot get anywhere. Please also note that I am the principal editor of Ajahn Munindo's last book 'Unexpected Freedom'. Ajahn Munindo is a senior representative of the Theravada Buddhist religion in the West. He is the abbot of Aruna Ratanagiri Buddhist Monastery. I can assure you that a teacher of Ajahn Munindo's eminence would not invite and then request assistance in putting a book together from someone who did not know what he was talking about. I hope (and assume) that since you have intervened you have some knowledge of this subject yourself. In order to improve the article I need the assistance of someone who actually knows something about this subject. I am very sorry but I shall be unable to enter into any dispute with the user in question. He has more than adequately demonstrated his true colours in the past. My only desire is to further knowledge of this subject because it is one in which I just happen to have a better than average understanding. The User:IAF has a long history of anti-social behaviour. You can only know this by seeing how many times he has been blocked. If you would like to help me improve the article dharma, you are most welcome. Best wishes.Glenn Langdell (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Glenn. It's good to have an editor knowledgeable of the subject. Actually, I know nothing of the subject. I think the page came to my attention at the 3RR noticeboard and I've been acting sort-of like a neutral referee, not making judgements about which version is better. I might or might not continue to do that.

Please treat IAF in a respectful manner. If the other user doesn't reciprocate, that will be obvious. Also, please see my request at the top of this talk page about how to post criticism of other users.

According to the verifiability policy, material should be supported by reliable sources. I hope you'll be able to add more references to improve the article.

Feel free to contact me again. I'll try to remember to keep an eye on the article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, from personal experience, most editors who have a "gudge" against my edits bring up the issue of past warnings and "past behaviour" to further their view-point. I don't think that that is applicable while editing articles because an article's discussion must contain content solely about the articles improvement or furtherment. A User's identity, his User:page being blank, past block-log etc. are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So I request you that whatever decision you make further about the [Dharma] article involving me and Langdel/anyone, it should ONLY involve my (and the other user's) recourses to action that are taken for that article only. Any other aspect/attribute should not be entertained or taken as a mesure of forming opinion or enforcing something. In my case, I have previously invited Langdel quite respectfully to enter the negotiation round, and have put forth a detailed reason for my edits (now in the archives). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have no special authority to make decisions: decisions are made by consensus. However, I agree that a discussion about article content should be only about article content (and about what the references say, how reliable they are etc.) and not about user conduct, and that if user conduct is to be discussed (usually on that user's talk page and other venues, not the article talk page in my opinion) that past behaviour or behaviour at some other article are generally not relevant to decisions about that article. Editors should work together and try to reach consensus. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Actually, they weren't rhetorical questions at all and I appreciate your help. Those were the kind of questions that stymied the article in question. ChrisO, being an administrator and knowing the ropes, was able to search for more individuals to lend weight to his view, and when there was no consensus proceeded to tie the article up with these complaints. This is not a good way to proceed. I did not know one could do an RfC on article content. Perhaps that would be the way to proceed with this article. Thanks again for your guidance. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, without knowing much at all about the article, but from the RfC and stuff, I have the impression that RfC (article content) and questions at reliable sources noticeboard would be an excellent way to proceed. I'm not sure if I've ever done one of those, actually, but I'm willing to help you figure out how if you like. There are probably straightforward instructions. Part of the key is writing a clear, concise question; if the question is too long or convoluted you might not get anyone answering. Sometimes (usually?) people work together on the article talk page beforehand to agree on the wording of the question to be asked. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied

I've replied at my talk (with another question, of course!). Thanks for your message. Antelan 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Block duration

Hi. Just wondering, did you at this comment for the benefit of the IP because it wasn't explicit in my note? No problem, just interested if there was another reason. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was primarily to assist the blocked user, since no duration was specified in the block template. I believe there have been one or two times when users didn't know their blocks had expired until I told them; they may have been expecting a notice to be posted when the block expired and assumed they still couldn't edit. It could also be informative to anyone else who looked at that talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. TigerShark (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Hi, Coppertwig. Are you currently mentoring for QuackGuru? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you left a comment on QuackGuru's user page. I'm generally happy to look into situations when asked, for just about any Wikipedian, insh spare time. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review this discussion when you have the time. You'll see a general consensus to includes the text at Atropa belladonna. The dispute is mainly between myself and ScienceApologist, but several other editors have been involved in the months-long discussion. QuackGuru has never participated in the discussion. However, he has three-times reverted me with less-that-accurate edit summaries. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I read that discussion. I see that there seems to be consensus to include one neutral sentence on homeopathy in the article. However, your edit was changing from one sentence about homeopathy to a different sentence about homeopathy, or even (I forget; you could put a link here to your edit for convenience) to more than one sentence about homeopathy. I see no evidence that there was consensus for your change. I consider that a normal way of doing things at Wikipedia is bold, revert, discuss, and it seems to me that that's what QuackGuru is following: you've been bold and made a change, QuackGuru has reverted it, and now it's up to you to begin discussing and justifying that specific change; since as far as I've seen you haven't done that yet, then QuackGuru is justified, in my opinion, in reverting it again if you put it in. The discussions I saw were about whether homeopathy is mentioned at all, not about the difference between one version mentioning homeopathy and another version mentioning homeopathy. After you provide justification on the talk page for your edit, then in my opinion QuackGuru should not do any more reverts unless either QuackGuru or others have refuted your arguments on the talk page; preferably, in my opinion in this situation, there would be a discussion leading to a mutually acceptable or compromise version.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding: perhaps each party sees their version as being NPOV and therefore supported by the discussion asking for a "neutral" sentence, and doesn't understand that the other doesn't see it that way. This would need to be made explicit in talk page discussion.

The three reverts you linked to were spread over a period of many weeks.

Re "vendetta": Please follow the request at the top of this talk page when posting here; and please assume good faith.

I hope the discussion will go well; and I hope you'll feel free to ask me to look into the situation again if things deteriorate. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

First, thanks for the long, well thought out reply. Second, let me assure you that conversation about the context of the included text has been ongoing for nearly six months now. The most recent conversations can be found here. QuackGuru has never participate in any of these conversations. My issue here is that QG has a tendency to follow me around to random articles just to revert my edits without participating in discussion. He did it again today [13]. I don't think this is about who's version is more correct and I don't think QG is practically interested in this. His goal seems to be one of annoyance. But that's just my opinion. I really respect you as an editor, Coppertwig. I hope you can at least see where I am coming from here, even if you don't agree with me and let your mentee know how his tactics are being perceived. Anyhow, I appreciate your time and input always and if there is something in this matter which you think I can improve on, please don't hesitate to tell me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Levine2112, for taking my post in a positive spirit. However, in the section you link to there, I don't see any mention of the specific edit in question. I suggest that you quote, on the talk page, the entire previous version of the sentence and the entire new version, and in the same post state reasons for changing one to the other. I think it's a good idea to try to put a complete, well-organized argument into one post; then later you can link back to that post if you need to.

I'm under the impression that you didn't read the part of my post that's in small font, which directed you to the request at the top of my talk page. I've just edited the top of my talk page to make the request clearer: it now says "Please don't post any criticisms of other editors on this talk page." You may post such criticisms on your own talk page and provide a link to them here.

I suggest re-reading WP:DR and discussing the matter diplomatically, and in a manner which shows that you are assuming good faith, with QuackGuru on QuackGuru's talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sound advice once again. Thanks. Please note that I have removed some text above per the top of your talk page. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I forgot: you've already posted a message on QG's talk page. No need for more such messages unless problems continue. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is another example of QuackGuru reverting one of my edits on an article in which he has never participated in discussion. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what QuackGuru did was OK: QG posted to the talk page shortly afterwards, and anyway QG had referred to talk page discussion (by others) in the edit summary; although the discussion didn't particularly support QG's position, in my opinion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Note also there is currently a RfC and a WP:FTN for the article. --Ronz (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, take a look at some of the refs.[14] There are some refs that are unreliable and extremely old which is a violation of WP:MEDRS. This reminds me of chiro talk. The older refs have been removed. Higher quality refs are available. This is unduly self-serving to use primary sources that are an opinion in a controversial topic. The text needs a rewrite. For now it should be deleted or moved to the talk page. At chiropractic we don't use chiropractic studies to explain the effectiveness of chiropractic. We use various higher quality studies. It starts with the higher quality studies first. Self-pub sources are being used in an unduly self-serving way. QuackGuru 17:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new

Seems misplaced.... --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:Db-blanktalk/new too. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many templates "db .../new". They are listed at Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new. Only two have been deleted, and their talk pages still exist. Please don't delete Template talk:Db-blankcsd/new because it contains a list of all the other templates, which will assist in deleting them; but the other talk page can be deleted because its associated template has been deleted. I see I made a mistake with all the links to the talk pages, though. (fixed.) Soon I may put in a TfD to discuss deleting all the /new templates, though maybe not if one of the major contributors to those versions of the templates prefers to keep them. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 30#Deleting "new" templates, which are no longer needed. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for deleting these:

• T3: In my opinion, they could be deleted under CSD T3 if they were tagged for 7 days. They were hardcoded copies of the same templates as the standard templates, and are now redirects from unlikely names.
• Two already deleted: Template:Db-blankcsd/new was speedy-deleted as "(G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: db-r3)", and Template:Db-blanktalk/new was speedy-deleted as "(csd r1)". Rather than gradually speedy-deleting these one at a time as users happen to discover them and request speedy deletion, I suggest it's more efficient to delete them all at once.
• Not needed: The GFDL is already satisfied because of null edits that were done to the standard templates listing the contributors to the /new templates. I don't think there's anything in the links from discussion to these templates significantly more interesting than, for example, a statement that draft templates have been created to be worked on. While I think ideally their page histories will be merged with the standard templates, this can, I think, still be done after they're deleted anyway if anyone has the time to do it.
• General rationale for deleting things: One could argue that deleted pages still take up space on Wikimedia's servers, but the important thing is editors' time, not the small amount of space these take; and as far as space is concerned, deleted pages can be completely deleted by developers if they need space, while undeleted pages take up space not only on Wikimedia's servers but also on many mirrors and in many download dumps of Wikipedia. Pages can also be targets of vandalism, and may take up peoples' time when they run across them on "what links here?" and wonder what they're for. Coppertwig (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As one of the contributers to the new CSD template system, I have no objection to the deletion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I also have no objection - tidying up exercises like this are long overdue. I'll G7 all the templates that we are the only contributors to, we can TfD the rest. Happy‑melon 11:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

There's no such thing as a "non-admin opinion". The opinions of all editors count. Comments that are insightful and backed by evidence may count more, but who makes the comments is not relevant (unless it's a single purpose account, a sock puppet or a banned user). Jehochman ^Talk 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. However, when I was helping on the 3RR noticeboard I found it very helpful to let people know I was not an admin; otherwise they assumed I was, and it made a difference because admins could do things I couldn't. I had a feeling a similar situation might arise with the particular comment I made on Elonka's talk page. I prefer to try to proactively avoid receiving comments like this. I don't usually append those words to my comments, though, even on admin noticeboards. Logically, a "non-admin opinion" is simply the opinion of someone who is not an admin. However, I appreciate your comment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, when people start saying "I thought you were an admin" or "Why aren't you an admin," that's when you should stand for RFA. At some point the admins will think you're a bother going to them for service and say, "Here, do your own mopping up." Being a non-admin is a luxury. Jehochman ^Talk 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Stopping by

Moonriddengirl ^(talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hadn't crossed your wikipath in a while, so thought I'd stop in and say hi. :) And also comment how strange I find it that the drawing board has practically dried up! For a while there, I didn't feel like I could go on wikibreak without asking somebody to babysit the board (as you know, since you kindly pitched in). We used to get multi-questioners a week. Now we're down to multi-questioners a month. Wonder why?

Hope you're well. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Must be a link somewhere that's been changed. Can the Drawing Board be found somehow from the Main Page? I don't know if you want it more easily found or not.

Speaking of Drawing Board, though, I'm working on three draft articles at the bottom of my sandbox. (I-message, Federation of Women Teachers' Association of Ontario, and Caroline Andrew.) Well, I'm not sure if I need any specific help, but if you feel inspired feel free to comment or contribute. The main thing I'm wondering is whether I have sufficiently reliable sources for I-message, but I'm just doing the best I can do there. (Haven't really started writing the text yet for that one, except the first sentence.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello and greetings; replying to the message you left on my talk page. A twig that will grow into a shrubbery will make an adequate replacement for a shrubbery. BTW, from a brief perusal of your pages, I'm guessing we live in the same country; can't narrow down our proximity further. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to old archived thread at Circumcision

In response to this comment: Jayjg, please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't be talking about things from so long ago; I only mentioned this because it was brought up here. I'd like to add a further comment in response to this: Blackworm, you could have made your point more diplomatically. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Golan Heights

I replied to your comment on the source at talk:Golan Heights. AreaControl (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I replied there. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey versus study

The first published study is in the US in 1990. Note the patients were "elective," which means without medical reason.[15] The second cite is a published survey, written by a mohel and urologist [16]... both qualified as a source.TipPt (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you help me out here, please: for the second citation, you've provided a link to a page of letters to the editor. Would you please explain which letter or letters (or other things on the page) you're referring to? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Che Guevara

No problem about the citation! I'm reading Ramonez' book right now so I might contribute more to this article. Maybe you could comment on my suggestion on the talk page. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I already did! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Socks

I've removed my uncivil comment at the Sockpuppet case in question. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

User Fipplet

Greetings. Would you please do me a favor and look at the PNA edit history? (I'm in a rush.) It looks like Fipplet has ignored our warnings, plus violated 3RR (in content edits, if not "reverts" per se). I suspect a brief block is in order. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, since you're already working to smooth out the battlefield on I-P articles, maybe you'd be willing to join the cooperative wikiproject WP:IPCOLL? See membership table. It'd be great to have you on board! HG | Talk 15:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another coincidence! I was just in the middle of adding to the report at WP:3RRN, which was started by RolandR, when I received your message. And thank you for your invitation: it's very nice to know that my efforts to smooth things are recognized as such!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

PNA/Fipplet

I noticed your amendment to my 3RR report, and have added yet another (subsequent) revert. That makes eight by my count, seven by yours. I am well aware that I cannot again re-revert; but I hope someone else does, and that we can stop this disruption. RolandR (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your suggestion

Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately the extremely high volume of edits to that article makes it impractical for me to find the link to the version of the article that existed before people started adding in the bit about the Alaska Independence Movement. It was time-consuming enough to compile the diffs for the report as it is. I am hopeful that whichever admin handles my report will recognize that user as having violated the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR. Mike R (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-automated edits

Replying to Moonriddengirl who suggested Ship Ahoy (album): OK, sorry, I should have described better the type of article I'm looking for. I don't think that's it. The citation system I'm putting in is useful in articles where the same source is cited more than once, but with different page numbers. See Che Guevara for example. On the article you're suggesting, some references are used more than once, but there's no change in page number of anything, so there's no need for a separate "Notes" and "References" section. Generally, medical articles won't usually need the two separate sections, but history articles often will. So I'm looking for articles that need to have a separate References section added, or that have one but need links to it. Or to put it another way: if you'd like something done to that article, what would you like done? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I probably don't have too many of those. :) Most of the books I use are encyclopedic themselves and hence only cover the topic in a page or so. The only one that I can think of at the moment that conforms to your needs would be West Side Story (soundtrack). As to the article I mentioned, don't worry about it. It may or may not need anything, but I mentioned it only because it seemed you were looking for test cases. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put in the citation links in a sandbox version of Georg Cantor.

Articles I've converted so far: manually: Che Guevara, Isaac Brock and Temple Sinai (Oakland, California); semi-automatically: 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt and I-message.

Load times: I don't think this makes any noticeable change to load time. I believe load time is usually approximately a function of the number of ref tags (counting all of them, including "<ref name=.../>" as well as "<ref>...</ref>" pairs.) In doing these conversions, I haven't changed the number of ref tags. I've compared load times before and after on several of these articles and they seem to be the same.

This conversion has received a supportive response on two article talk pages (Temple Sinai and Isaac Brock) and an oppositional response from SandyGeorgia, who mentions load times repeatedly (among other things) although I don't think load time is an issue. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Those semi-automated edits looked good! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

regarding arthashastra

thank you for the message you left me. however we both know that what i want to add is not going to be allowed up because of my disagreement and apparent war with User:CalendarWatcher. It is sad really that small editors like myself have to avoid using a registered name because of people like CW. I have been trying for months to get someone to understand my perspective, however that is not going to happen because User:CalendarWatcher has a history on here and i am fairly new. Please take notice however that i have never made a malicious edit to wikipedia. perhaps after my cyber stalker moves on or grows up i will use my account again and start editing again. Until then i am done trying to make a difference or do the right thing.98.222.196.27 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You said "we both know", but actually, I don't agree with you. I don't think that's the reason. I think the reasons the edit you want is not going to be allowed in is because it's not very relevant and because you haven't put any arguments on the talk page saying why it should be included. Whether you use a registered name or not is up to you. One advantage of a registered name is privacy: it hides your IP address so that people can't trace what computer you're using. I'm not aware of any threatening or inappropriate behaviour by CalendarWatcher. If there is any, feel free to bring it to my attention (although I'm not an administrator) or to an appropriate noticeboard. You say you've been trying to get someone to understand your perspective, but I don't see any edits by you on the article talk page. I suggest trying there. Opinions of new users are valued too. However, one individual can't force an article into their preferred version. It has to be by discussion and compromise. You say you've never made a malicious edit but I think you're mistaken: the edit summary here is a personal attack. Note that Wikipedia policy is against personal attacks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

i expected such response.. User:CalendarWatcher has on many occasions warred with many people and no action has ever been taken. but forget about it its not a problem. also.. i apologized for the "attack" i made on that douche bag.98.222.196.27 (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please respect the request at the top of my talk page about where to post criticisms of other users. Many people have warred repeatedly. Most of the time, if there is no 3RR violation or it's not reported properly at the 3RR noticeboard, no action is taken; even if 3RR is violated, often no action is taken. You can take action yourself by warning the person and discussing the situation with them in a friendly manner. People are more likely to be blocked for editwarring if they're also uncivil. I think you've just nullified your apology by making the above comment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

nullified huh? yea.. maybe theres a hidden message there.. if there were such a message it would prolly read "i dont give a rusty eff word". but there may not even be a message.. anyways it was not MY edit to begin with i just get tired of CalendarWatcher playing God all the time and no one standing up to him.. Oh i saw it was you being nosey and 3rr'd me. you can piss off too now. later!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.218.171 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

PSTS Policy & Guidelines Proposal

Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arilang1234 asking for help

Thank you very much user coppertwig,you are very kind and gentle.I guess I got carried away a bit,please forgive me for far too many silly mistakes I have made.To tell you the truth,my Wiki knowledge is minimum,my English is hardly passable,but I still have the desire to learn and to improve.And I am very passionate about Manchu and Ming dynasty history,Opium War,Matteo Ricci etc.In my heart,I have this urge,to share my knowledge with others,and at the same time to learn from others.That is why I spend so much time on that page alone,because the more I google,the more facts resurface,and I wish I could have ten pairs of eyes,with ten pairs of hands to record them all onto wiki,so that others can read them,without going through the world wide web like I did. While I was typing away,I completely forgot about others.I hope you,and other editors can understand and forgive me at the same time. I do like the idea of having my own user's page,can you kindly help me to set it up ?If so how to let others know of my user's page? Many thanks.Arilang1234 (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,its me again.I have managed to put something on sandbox,here is the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox. Please help me by pointing out all my short comings.ThanksArilang1234 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks.Arilang1234 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to Matteo Ricci,Johann Adam Schall von Bell , Ferdinand Verbiest，the three most famous missionaries that went to China in the 16 century.So just to inner-link them within wiki is not enough? So I have to provide outside reference ?I have just learn how to use the ref tag today,it is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

http://home.newadvent.org/cathen/13034a.htm catholic encyclopedia Arilang1234 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just did two ref tag,it looks ok,but I can't find the foot note.Don't know where is it.Arilang1234 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry G. Gelber's book is the source of all the info on "short term cause".I am working on a project to examine the two Chinese dynasty Manchu and Ming;so this kind of info should be relevant. Thanks for pointing out my short coming.I can change the wordings and the tone.About Chinese point of view,they are of complete opposite to the western point of view.Do I need to put them alongside the western point of view too? Arilang1234 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have modify my article a bit and put it on my user page(not sandbox).Please have a look when you got time.I will keep on experiment on it to improve my skill.Arilang1234 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put up more ref links,please have a look and tell me how you feelArilang1234 (talk) 23:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have time for a full answer now. I'll look at it more carefully later. But it's good that you've made changes to make the words more NPOV. Well done. Yes, it would be good to use some sources written by Chinese authors. If different sources say different things, the Wikipedia article should describe all the points of view. See for example the "perspectives" section in the Boxer Rebellion article. One small thing: Whenever you put a comma or period ("," or ".") you should put no space before it, and a space after it. Same with ref tags: no space before, but a space after the </ref>. Please give more complete bibliographic information about your sources. If it's a book, you should give author, title, year, name of publisher, city or location of publisher, and ISBN number. See the references at the bottom of Boxer Rebellion for examples. For a web page, try to find information like the name of the organization that put up the web page, and the date it was last updated. Also the title. Sometimes there's information at the top and bottom of the web page. I'll tell you more later when I have more time.

• Thanks very much for your comment. I really appreciate your helps. I have asked many editors to help me, but none of them came. Arilang1234 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Me again. About Chinese source. Most of the Chinese internet web page are blogs, news sites, or bbs forums,and wiki may class them as unreliable.Unlike English source, there ain't that many university web sites. And where I live,there ain't that many Chinese history text books either. I know how and when to use external links and ref now,but I don't know anything about foot note.Can you explain when you have more time? I would like to name my article "Boxer Rebellion, Opium Wars and Beyond." What you think?Arilang1234 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, long time have not heard from you. Must be busy. My used page have new theme now, please go have a look when you have time?Arilang1234 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm busier than usual. I'm sorry I haven't had time to answer! About the name of the article: the name you said is like poetry. It would be good as the title of a book or magazine article. But names of Wikipedia articles are not like poetry. They have to describe one topic. A name with "and" usually sounds as if it's describing two topics. Maybe a name like "Events leading up to the Boxer Rebellion" or "Westerners in China" (but also put the range of dates that you're talking about in the title) or something else. I'll answer more some time in the next few days.

I like helping you, Arilang1234, because you're enthusiastic, and because you find interesting information to add to articles, and most of all because you're learning. There are many things to learn about how to edit Wikipedia! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you have written a lot!

There is already an article Jesuit China missions. Do you think your material would be good as part of that article? Or do you think a separate article is needed?

I think you're doing better with the spaces around the commas and periods. (That is, there should be no space before, and one space after). There are still some with the wrong spacing, though. May I suggest you read carefully through your user page and change any that aren't right? After you think you've found them all, tell me and I'll see if I can still find any that need to be fixed.

It's impressive that you can put Chinese characters into your text. But, I think they're not needed. I think at the beginning of each article, we have the Chinese characters for the title of the article (if it's a Chinese word or name), and in the rest of the article we don't put the Chinese characters usually, because most readers of English Wikipedia can't read them, and because they can click on the link to the article on that word or name, and see the Chinese characters there. So I suggest taking almost all the Chinese characters out of your writing. Sorry if that make it less fun!

Would you like me to edit your user page to fix grammar?

There's already an article on Matteo Ricci. Do you think your material would go into that article? Where would be a good place in the article for it to go? Or would different parts of it go in different places?

If "FATHER MATTEO RICCI'S DIARY" is going to be the title of an article or section, it should not be in all capital letters.

You need to do some more work on the footnotes. Each footnote should have the title, author and other information. For example, instead of writing "Euclid's Elements", write the title of the web page the link goes to: "Matteo Ricci, S.J. (1552 to 1610) and his contributions to science in China".

I will probably have some more things to say later. I'm sorry I've been so busy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind reply. It is good to have a teacher like you. (1)To all the Chinese, all over the world, Matteo Ricci was, and is, the Saint who tried to fuse Confucianism and Christianity together.Though the Jesuit priests failed in their effort, because the Pope put a stop to it, that did not make Matteo Ricci any less important to Chinese. (2) I am writing Matteo Ricci from a Chinese's perspective.More precisely, from a Ming Dynasty's perspective.To me,and also to many Chinese, Ming Dynasty was being skillfully smeared by the barbaric Manchu tribal slaves owners who ended up ruling China for 263 years, and this 263 years represented the Darkest era in Chinese history. Ming Dynasty is still under a pile of rubbish. I would like to bring the glory of Ming to the surface again. (3) Do you think the time has come for my article to be transfer to a proper page, instead of my user page? If so, please help me. (4) About Chinese characters, if possible, I like to see they stay as it is. My reasons:(a)Ricci was a scholar of many talents, including the use of Latin, Italian, and Chinese.So it is only natural to include these 3 languages in my article. (b) Many Chinese can read both English and Chinese. (C) I hope one day my article will be translated into Chinese wiki. (5) Please feel free to edit my page anytime, not only grammar, anything you think not right, you can change it. You are my teacher. (6) Matteo Ricci is more than a Jesuit priest. He was the Ambassador of Culture between Europe and China in the 16 century.Arilang1234 (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Sorry for not being able to answer you more fully, because I am really completely ignorant on many aspects of Wiki, and with only minimum of internet web blogging.But I am passionate about Christianity and China.The following quote sums up my feelings:"As Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889 – 1975)( a British historian) said: "at this point Christianity had a chance to become a true world religion and rejected it. Never again in history has that opportunity presented itself on such favorable terms. Had Ricci and his colleagues been permitted to continue on their way, there is certainly no question but that the history of the world would have been far different." Arilang1234 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK! I understand that some things may be difficult. Would you like to work on the footnotes? You can choose one, and tell me whether the reference is a book, or a web page, or what, and then we can try to fix it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,me again. I have repair some footnotes, but not all. Question:When one web page is being referred to more than one times, is the title still remains the same?Arilang1234 (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Coppertwig

Mr. Coppertwig, Regarding the 3RR "report" filed against me, I feel that you have failed to perform the necessary due-diligence to examine this particular case beyond the skin-deep level. The reporting individual is highly skilled at masking his own incitement and violation, and craftily reports a revert when his own inappropriate material is adjusted, changed, altered or removed. Please email me, or allow me to email you to discuss this further offline. I have been highly upset and disturbed by the nature of these other users. I am a retired professional, and gentle soul, with many high-quality contributions, and livlihood which backs my contributions. Most Sincerely, Grayghost01 (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have time to reply right now; I'll plan to look into this later. You may email me if you wish. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Grayghost's user/talk pages and his comments on discussion pages and you will understand how extreme his own POV issues are. (His Lincoln comments are a real howl.) At any rate, there was a 3RR violation by him earlier and I mistakenly assumed good faith (see his talk page). I won't repeat the error. Red Harvest (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would both of you please respect my request at the top of my talk page not to post criticisms of other users here. (I just made the font bigger etc.) I've run out of time just now, sorry, but I plan to reply properly later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to your query, I've looked in more depth at the article, article history and talk page.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It's certainly good to have interested and knowledgeable people like yourself contributing. It seems to me that you, North Shoreman and JimWae have all contributed good material. (I didn't look at other contributors in this analysis.) I encourage you to work collaboratively with other editors and try to compromise. An article written by several editors is almost always better than one written by one editor. It can be difficult for one editor alone to achieve a truly neutral article.

Regarding the warning I posted on your talk page: I hope you won't worry about it too much. Essentially, it's primarily to make sure you're aware of the three-revert rule, and secondarily to let others know that you're aware of it. It's not intended to be punitive, and it can be posted on talk pages of users that have come close to violating 3RR even if they haven't violated it, to let them know they're coming close, as a courtesy. In any case, at the time I posted the warning, you had recently done 4 reverts in a 24-hour period. During the same 24-hour period, North Shoreman had done 3 reverts (if consecutive series of edits by one editor are counted as one edit, as is usually done for 3RR purposes), and JimWae had done 4 edits, of which only 2 seem to me to be reverts. I could have posted a warning to North Shoreman too, because as I said the warning can be posted if an editor is coming close to a 3RR violation, but in any case, North Shoreman had mentioned 3RR in an edit summary, so clearly North Shoreman was aware of the policy and no warning was needed. Three reverts in a 24-hour period is not a 3RR violation, though one can still be blocked for editwarring even if not violating 3RR.

If you ever notice a situation where another editor has recently violated 3RR, you can report them at the 3RR noticeboard. I frequently help format reports at that noticeboard, so feel free to ask me for help formatting a report if you like; if I have time and agree that a report is warranted, I may help. Such a report is only useful if an edit war is currently in progress; if editwarring seems to have stopped, administrators will probably do nothing in response.

If you and other editors are having difficulty reaching a compromise, it can help to get more editors involved. If you're in a disagreement with only one other editor, third opinion can help. If more editors are involved, request for comment (article content) can help, or posting a message at a related article or wikiproject (which is allowed under the WP:CANVASS policy). See also dispute resolution.

It seems to me that it's probably not NPOV to say that sentiment suddenly changed in Virginia, or to state that it changed for one specific reason. The phrase "radical abolitionist" strikes me as likely not NPOV either.

Re your comments: "You are purely diversionary, and have no true interest in what the history of Virginia is, nor do you care anything about the state and it's various wiki-pages on its history."[17] "I predict you have no intent to discuss or cooperate."[18], "that you are so hot and heavy to ram into..."[19]: please comment on content, not on the contributors. I suggest reviewing WP:Civility and WP:OWN. And re "The reporting individual is highly skilled at masking his own incitement and violation, and craftily ...": in your comment above: please respect the request at the top of my talk page about not criticizing other editors here. Coppertwig (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and time. Terms like "radical abolitionist" are historical and of old use. If you found that on a wiki article, then it likely is found in its correct context of referring to abolitionists who were willing to either commit murder or insurrection in the name of abolition. There is a whole wiki article devoted to these people at Radical Republican (USA). So ... some editors who have been dabbling in the American Civil War, I've noticed, get wrapped around the axle slapping "POV" on items thinking there is a problem, when in fact there is not. In my particle case, one example of what upset these other editors was the word "invasion" that I must have put on an article about 2 years ago, and which they recently observed. These fellows cried "POV". I tried, to no avail, to explain that this is a purely military term. We, the United States, invaded Normandy (see Invasion of Normandy). The word "invasion" as you see in this main wiki article is not a POV.

Now, while geographic location of one's residence is not normally an issue ... it can be a cause of POV in certain cases, such as the American Civil War. So these other editors "provoke" edit battles by deleting or inserting items which either reflect their own POV .... or which incorrectly assumes a POV on something like the word "invasion" or perhaps "radical" as you pointed out. Its a form of vandalism, because the TRUE spirit of wiki's intent is not meant. I say that because these editors have received many warnings. In tracing through their many edits, they have left a trial of being provoking and warned in other articles. If anyone resists their efforts, they jump on them with 3RR "attacks". These two also work in tandem, cooperatively with each other, to form a perception of "false" consensus on talk pages. Most people are unaware they are working together.Grayghost01 (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Grayghost01: I apologize for the delay in replying.

Re "radical abolitionist": If this is a generally accepted term in the reliable sources – if sources from both perspectives use the term – then its use may be NPOV. That's why I didn't change it myself but just brought it to your attention for consideration.

I'm wondering in what context the word "invasion" was challenged. In the context of a civil war, the word could imply a POV as to whether two different countries were involved or two parts of the same country.

Please avoid using the word "vandalism" to describe content disputes; and please respect my request at the top of this page about not criticizing other editors in messages on this talk page.

People are allowed to edit articles regardless of where they live. Combining the opinions of several editors about how to fulfill the NPOV policy usually leads to a better article than any one could write alone. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The words "invade" or "invasion" are used extensively in historical books, signs, brochures, lectures and etc on the topic of the American Civil War. Lee's "invasion" of Maryland is a typical description by both southerners and northerners. No one takes any beef with it. I've never seen anyone write any dissenting opinions on the use of "invade" or "invasion". In a small, minor, background statement on Winchester in the Civil War, I added that the decision by Lincoln to raise and army and "invade" the southern states was a huge turning point for Virginia and very pro-union areas (like Winchester), and the key is that this is how THEY viewed it, and WHY they changed their minds toward secession support. The point is that these areas had no desire to secede for other reasons prior to that. This fact about Virginia's secession is well documented. So much so, that Jedediah Hotchkiss spends many pages explaining the history of Virginia in regard to slavery, her requirement that the Ohio Valley lands she ceded to the U.S. "had" to be free states, and etc, and how Gov. Letcher's letter of response to Lincoln explained the beef, which is the nature of how I present Virginia history, or used to (before the edit-nazis descended). The person who deleted "invade" from the article, I have discovered, cruises the articles doing this type of thing, arguing with other editors, and tweaking articles with tid-bits of citations from a very selective sub-set of historians, some of which are seen as "revisionists". This persons deliberate tactic is to offensively attack people with 3RR or other warnings. I have checked this out in his history.Grayghost01 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

And a P.S., there are Wiki articles on the Invasion of Normandy, Baghdad invasion, etc. The censorship is applied specifically to the American Civil War, despite historical references.Grayghost01 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an article titled "Baghdad invasion". Surely the invasion of Normandy was not considered part of a civil war. Do you have examples of articles where the word "invasion" is used in the context of a civil war in some country? Anyway, that doesn't matter. What matters is how the sources represent it. From the above, it seems that you're admitting that there are some sources ("revisionists") that don't use the term "invasion". I suspect that "invasion" is not a NPOV term in the context of a civil war. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblockery

Thank you for your kind comment. Although the autoblock got in the way for a wee while, it was not a problem. I'm not one of those folks who throws toys out of the pram if access to Wikipedia editing is impeded, because I have some form of life outside of this beast. It was the actions of the reporting editor that caused me problems - haunting my contribs and such like. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL: I like the word "unblockery". Thanks for your message. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is an awesome word. Right up there with "gratuitous blockery" (which sounds like a serious plumbing issue). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait: there's really a Real World out there? And you spend time in it? What's it like? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You don't want to know. --Abd (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Monitors: this editor has mentioned the unmentionable, per the unmentionable rule, oversight this comment and the ones preceding it, ASAP, they imply there is something worth doing other than editing Wikipedia.

Template:Db-g8

Hi Coppertwig (nice name). I just noticed that Happy-melon is "off to distant lands, and will be editing sporadically – if at all – until September 25, 2008." Would you please revise the Db-g8 template I requested at Template:Db-g8. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nifty quotes by Tznkai

• "How something is done is at least as important as why."[20]
• "I am operating completely editor blind, and deliberately so."[21]
• ...and nifty pictures about building trust, on Kelly's talk page: [22]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• ...and a nifty quote by WAS 4.250: "I would just like to reflect here on how far off the initial path we have come. The free culture movement began with copy left software and now has Wikipedia as its most public example. The opposite of free culture is called in the movement "permission culture". Stop asking permission. Create." [23]☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC on conduct of User:Abd, comment requested

Thank you for expressing interest at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table in my standing userspace RfC. The first questions to be addressed are at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, which is a page for the questions and (later) a summary of consensus. Comments and discussion have been begun, by me, at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Because the first questions address the warning issued to me by Jehochman before the block on 8/11, and should not involve extensive research, I have several times asked Jehochman to comment, but he has declined so far. I have also asked Carcharoth, as suggested by Jehochman, to look at it, but so far he hasn't found time; perhaps he will in the next few days. If you are able to look at the pages ref'd above, and comment regarding the questions, or otherwise as you see fit, it would be appreciated. I am waiting to see if these questions can be resolved and a preliminary consensus found, without going to a wider forum, such as the Village Pump, AN, or a standard user RfC. Thanks for any time you can give this. --Abd (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time. I'm a bit backlogged at the moment. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

People should not become involved in this user-controlled RFC - we have an RFC process, Abd has so far found nobody willing to become involved in his illegitimate version of the process. You should tell him (as everyone else has over the last month of him spamming people) that you will be happy to be involved in a real community controlled RFC, not his sham version. He wants to use the results of it to attack a number of dedicated administrators. It could be harmful to your standing as an editor to be seen to be involved in such an attack page. Send him a clear message instead - set up a real RFC. --87.115.22.127 (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, 87.115.22.127. Do I know you? Are you an editor of the Wikipedia encyclopedia? Please respect the request at the top of my talk page regarding criticism of other editors. I see nothing "illegitimate" about Abd's process. See also Lar's admirable design of a "modified RfC" here. Where do you suggest centralized discussion in response to your messages take place? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP and behavior is definitive for banned User:Fredrick day who, half the time, claims I'm obsessed about him and who spends the other half of this time tracking my contributions and popping up whenever he thinks it's possible it will stir up some shit. Yes. He's an editor, and probably an administrator, Fredrick day was a blatant bad hand account, built for aggressive deletion and to express incivility that would get him blocked were he to do it openly. And, of course, eventually did. But he's very careful, probably uses independent ISPs so that checkuser won't catch him. Let me put it this way: I know I'm doing something right when it attracts the dedicated attention of someone like this. --Abd (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I will try very hard to find time to participate in your RfC and will very probably do so by the end of this weekend. Please respect the request at the top of my talk page about not posting criticism of other editors here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any offense from the "criticism" re Fredrick day, though it's generally consensus (except that the probability that he's got an admin account hasn't been discussed widely). In any case, while he was involved in the incident, not in the part that is first examined. It should really be pretty simple; the warning was mostly based on a single edit in my Talk, in response to an administrator. The edit -- actually a pair of edits -- is long, but the question is only whether or not it matched the warning, so, I'd suggest, the warning should be read first. The issue is not whether or not the warning was made in good faith, it may have been, but was it correct? If so, as I've said, I'm probably out of here, I can't trust myself. If not, then I could move to the next step, examining my subsequent behavior; did it justify the block that was based on the warning? My goal is twofold: personally, block log annotation clearing me of the charges involved in the block; but secondly, to demonstrate a minimally disruptive process to deal with user behavioral problems: start with a process under the control of the user, to get non-binding advice as to how to proceed; it presently happens, but not in a coherent, deliberative manner. There are then other possible applications as well. Notice that I set up a "standing RfC." The same structure could deal with any behavioral problem; I get accused of disruption or the like with reasonable frequency. If it were just for the immediate personal aspect, I'd not bother. I'm unblocked, I don't have to do this. In spite of Freddie's protestations, he is the only one who has participated in the actual RfC process, so far, with questions apparently intended to disrupt it; but I extracted what might be general questions from that and included them. I have no intention of excluding anyone, but of maintaining order and civility.--Abd (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re whether the warning was correct: you've requested comments on your own behaviour, and I expect to give such comments after studying the situation. As far as I know, the person giving the warning hasn't requested comments on their behaviour, so I don't plan to comment on whether the action of giving the warning was "correct" or not. You might want to rephrase the question. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The questions in the RfC are phrased correctly. The fourth subquestion was about the propriety of the warning, though, and I've changed that one to focus on the warning as an effective one. I.e., if I was warned, but uncivilly, it might excuse my disregard of the warning. (And it would, of course, raise other questions as well, but that's not the point.) --Abd (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Db doc

Hi Coppertwig. Apparently, {{db-g7}} now requires a rationale for all posts. Would you please revise Template:Db doc to remove the most basic form of the template at Template:Db-g7. Also, I think db-g7 is used alot by the authors themselves. Thus, would you please add the example,
{{db-g7|rationale=For this page, I am the author of the only substantial content and request deletion of it in good faith.}}
to Template:Db doc so that it only appears at Template:Db-g7. I came up with all this via this post. Thanks. -- Suntag (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Suntag. I looked at the source code for db-g7 and tested it, and I don't believe it requires a rationale for all posts. The link you provided doesn't seem to work. I think it's all fine as it is.

Your username is nice, too: is it a day in some language? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick favor

Hey Copper, I had a favor to ask. I recently added a few citations and references to the CG page, and was wondering if you could go through the references and combine them how you did the others in the past (I haven't quite mastered that yet) ? I would greatly appreciate it. :o) Thanks old friend and I hope life is well.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 09:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely planning to do that. I'll probably get to it sometime this weekend. After I do that, I'm planning to format references on a bunch of other pages (see User talk:Coppertwig#Semi-automated edits). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, I just reverted a comment on your talk page from an IP editor. The IP is an incarnation of User:Nangparbat, a banned user who keeps hopping IPs to make biased edits to articles and harass users who disagree with him. I've been trying to get Abuse Reports to talk to his ISP to get this to stop, but it's not getting anywhere so far. There's more information in several sections of my talk page and User:Hersfold/Vandal watch#Nangparbat if you're interested. Cheers. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes

Thanks! It was a complete (but pleasant) surprise that it was on the front page. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

breast feeding

I welcome your edits on the breastfeeding article, I don't know if my methods are in line with wikipedia rules or not, but I tend to remove items that are unsuitable, hoping that they will be added in a more suitable way, rather than leaving them intact and waiting for them to be modified.

Of course the "how to" issue is relevant on the article, but also even if it is not a guide, are the items in the how to section actually notable? I am sure that it could be re-written in a manner that does not make it look like a guide, that part is easy, but make sure the items are actually notable. I personally don't think that having every single feeding position is notable - perhaps a link to a site that lists them would be better.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When a section is unsuitable but can be improved to be suitable, I would suggest rather than just deleting it, moving it to the talk page so the information isn't forgotten. I'm pretty sure that's suggested in some policy or guideline somewhere but I forget where.

I was thinking of perhaps shortening the material about positions, possibly as short as a single sentence.

I think most of the material in that section is notable, basically summarizing information that's provided in numerous books.

I'm a bit busy so it may take me a few days to get around to it, but I'm definitely planning to continue to edit the section. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility RFC question

I have a question about your support comment at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Civility restrictions#Proposal A.2: Low level incivility is a serious problem. You said you disagreed with my comment, then explained "It's a mistake to ignore incivility until the victim complains." I argued that ignored incivility should still be dealt with, even if there is little apparent effect, which would seem to agree with your statement. I was wondering if you had misread my comment, or if I just don't understand the disagreement. Pagrashtak 16:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what's going on. You had said, "If someone engages in a pattern of low-level incivility, but the target of that incivility simply ignores it and continues with whatever he is doing, I would say that the incivility had little effect, but should still be dealt with." Perhaps I agree with the "but should still be dealt with" part of this sentence, though I'd have to know more about how it would be dealt with. However, I disagree with the first part of the sentence. You would say that the incivility had little effect; I disagree with that, and would say that it may or may not have had a tremendous effect on the victim, an effect which is however not visible on-wiki because of the advice in WP:NPA to ignore attacks against oneself in many situations. In my comment supporting A2, I stated that I disagreed with Jim Miller and with you. The first sentence following that explains my disagreement with Jim Miller's comment and makes no sense in response to your comments. The next two sentences after that explain my disagreement with your comment. The order of the sentences is the same as the order in which I mentioned you and the other user. I hope that clears things up. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. We don't disagree, although it's not clear from my comment. I was pointing out a counter-example, not making a blanket statement—saying it is possible for someone to ignore incivility, (meaning truly ignore, not building internal anger) thus giving it little effect. You are correct that it is also possible (and more probable) for incivility to have little observed effect, but great actual effect. Pagrashtak 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see: you meant the person really ignores it. OK. It was just a matter of how I interpreted your comment. We don't actually disagree. If you like, I can post an explanation/clarification on the discussion page, but I think it's likely simplest to just leave things as they are. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I can see how it would be interpreted that way. I clarified my own comment in case that's how others were reading it. Feel free to leave yours as is if you want. Thanks, Pagrashtak 18:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar! It is much appreciated. Kindest regards,AlphaEta 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

Thanks for adding the signature. I've never done a request for arbitration before (probably evident by the history log of the page). I didn't think I needed to sign the section for Cmmmmm's statement, as I thought that as the filer of the request, and the text used, that it would be evident that I put it there.

I'm not an expert either! However, I think normally a section titled "statement by Cmmmm" would be added by Cmmmm, and I thought it would be useful to clarify and to provide the time so people could find the diff if they wanted. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

True, and if Cmmmm would actually make any statement relating to the specific issues raised, I would have included it. Or rather, I would have gone for a mediation request instead. However, the user simply won't discuss the specifics. (Also, the user in question has specific statements on their user page explicitly indicating bias against JWs.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks Coppertwig, the heads-up is much appreciated. I suspected I might be, but the reverts are simply me undoing removal of proper sources, so if it does result in admin intervention I'd frankly welcome it. Prophaniti (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the removal of my block warning: That genuinely wasn't an attempt to hide/shift it, simply because I'd over-looked the part saying it shouldn't be removed until the block expires. Cheers. Prophaniti (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I think that's just so that if you do a second unblock request, the admins can easily notice the first one. That didn't really come up this time, as such, anyway. Welcome back. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

I very much appreciate it.GreekParadise (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for taking it in a positive spirit! Although it seems my warning may have been somewhat redundant!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

You have not explained your revert.[24] Improvements were made to the vaccination section. You did not explain it. Improvements were made to the Gallup poll text. You did not explain your removal of reliable references. You added Simon-says text that went against WP:ASF policy. We can assert it when no serious dispute exists. Please provided evidence of a dispute. QuackGuru 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'll try to find time for a proper reply later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In the interim, your edit may be reverted due to the unexplained revert per Coppertwig's edit summary (unexplained revert). You reverted an editor because you felt it was unexplained. However, you did the same thing. You have not explained your revert. QuackGuru 21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of my partial revert of 23:09 17 September 2008 at Chiropractic with edit summary "Partially reverting unexplained revert; possibly user mistook it for vandalism?":

• Capital V on "vertebral": unimportant (part of piped link; invisible)
• restoring the word "considered" in "sustained by ideas such as subluxation that are considered significant barriers to scientific progress within chiropractic": see diff of 21:36 17 September Note that Levine2112 and Fyslee replied to this with "Agreed"; and see diff of 22:42 20 September 2008.
• Re the Gallup poll: see diff of 19:03 17 September and diff of 22:50 20 September. I suggest that we wait until we've agreed on the wording before inserting this.
• Restoring the words "what are characterized as" in "and was hampered by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with organized medicine": See diff of 21:36 17 September 2008 and diff of 22:42 20 September 2008.
• Restoring the words "what is considered by many chiropractic researchers to be" in "among chiropractors; the other end employs what is considered by many chiropractic researchers to be antiscientific reasoning and unsubstantiated claims,"; this has been much discussed, and as I said in the diff of 21:36 17 September 2008 I oppose deleting those words for similar reasons as the others; feel free to ask about this specifically if you'd like an answer for this specific edit.
• Re my opposition to changing "have been called" to "are" in "that have been called ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment." Again, this has been much discussed. See diff of 21:36 17 September 2008.
• Re nbsp: I don't know what the correct or best format is; I reverted this by accident along with the substantive changes.
• Vaccination section: Oops! I think I thought my revert wasn't changing anything in this section, but perhaps I did revert stuff there. I'd have to catch up with the talk page discussion to figure out which version I think is better. I apologize for the confusion caused by my reverting the addition of a blank line at the top of the section, making it harder to compare diffs. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:ASF, we can assert it as fact when no serious dispute exists. Please provide evidence of a serious dispute such as references. QuackGuru 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious dispute of what? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provied evidence of a serious dispute of the text that you added atrribution to. Per WP:ASF, when no serious dispute exists, we can assert it. QuackGuru 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you provide evidence that these are "facts" about which there is "no serious dispute". I dispute that claim. Some of these are clearly opinions, not facts, as is obvious just from reading them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Oops! I'm sorry about the tone of this comment. I'll review Techniques for handling emotions when editing. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The text is referenced and not disputed among the sources provided in the article. The article provides evidence there is "no serious dispute" from the references in the article. It is irrelevant you dispute the claim. We should stick to the sources and not let personal opinion go against WP:ASF policy. You have admitted you personally dispute the claim among reliable sources. You disagree with the text. We don't add attribution because you disagree with the experts or reliable sources. See WP:ASF, we can assert it as fact when no evidence of a serious disputed is presented. Now, please provided evidence of a serious dispute. QuackGuru 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Absence

Hi Coppertwig! Sorry, I've been offline for some months. I just moved to Amman in order to do my MSc. Unfortunately, I won't have much time for Wikipedia for the next months, but I wanted to thank you for all the help and support you gave to me and the WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country. If you find the time, I suggest that you adopt Anunezsanchez instead of me. She did a number of excellent articles mainly on irrigation and water resources management. Thanks again for all your help and greetings from Jordan! --Kerres (Talk) 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to hear from you! I hope you enjoy your time in Jordan and learn lots of interesting things! You've made valuable contributions to Wikipedia and I hope you'll be back at some later stage. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD G8 help

Hello! As you have worked on {{db-g8}}, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind working on it a little more? Specifically, there was discussion at WT:CSD about broadening G8 to cover subpages and such. This is not a problem, but then I wanted to preserve the history of the templates as they were, so I moved the original {{db-g8}} to {{db-talk}} and {{db-t4}} to {{db-subpage}} as specific instances of G8, with a new template at {{db-g8}} (a modified copy of the original). I hope this is not making you cringe. Everything works fine, but obviously the way that these specific instance templates are handled is more delicate than that, as I realized when I saw {{db-disambig}}. I would greatly appreciate your help in adjusting the template code wherever necessary so that these worked as elegantly as they did before I got involved. Note that I have not touched the R1 templates, even though this CSD was merged with G8, as two editors objected after the merger. Even though it was discussed before and R1 is now clearly redundant, I don't wish to irritate anyone any further at this point, so I am awaiting a reply before proceeding with that. Thanks for any help you can give. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)