User talk:Enric Naval

Is Storms RS? What about "heat dissipated into the lattice"?

Enric, I see that you have been discussing the removed material with Hipocrite. He's demanded that I not edit his Talk page for any purpose whatever, and I have no need to do so. I assume this is okay here. If not, please tell me.

However, some things should be said. First of all, Storms is RS, which doesn't automatically mean "unbiased," or "usable for fact" What independent book publication shows is notability. If RS states something, reference may be made in articles to that, it is, by definition, notable opinion; if it's controversial, it should be attributed.

Talk Page

Hello. I agree with you, that guy's post was out of hand, but that talk page has been kinda ridiculous for a while now and probably always will be. It seems unreasonable to really remove anything from the talk page given the nature of the subject. In any case the talk page accumulates messages so quickly that his post will be archived in a week or two. Beach drifter (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the archives get full of those messages.... But maybe we should make like Talk:Republic of Macedonia, where any thread about the name is speedily archived. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Form B resignation

There is a new message for you on the Form B resignation page and the Wikipedia Law Project page. Please leave your comments under either one. Thanks. Morning277 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion on Luo Gan issue

Hey, sorry for the late reply. Hours ago I wrote something but didn't save it, and because I had too many tabs open my Firefox crashed and I lost it all. This kind of thing happens. Firstly, I didn't realise I had put the thing back like four times already--though I note that it was under different circumstances. The first time the complaint was about the source, so I got a better source (the point of dispute changed). Anyway, that's good to know, so I'll pay more attention to that next time. What I'm going to do next is find all the instances where this connection is noted in sources, and other relevant information, and present them on the talk page. If there is still not agreement—i.e., that if after it's shown clearly how this information has been conveyed in sources there are still some editors who think it should be excluded from the pages—then we can take to a NPOV noticeboard or other forum, and see what others think. I think the information is sourced and relevant, and helpful for readers to get an idea of the background, as well as what sources have said about this. And yes, absolutely, it's about sources saying that He's critiques were not isolated. If this stuff was in good sources, I don't see any problem--since it's a minor thing, it shouldn't take up much space. Another option may be explore the use of explanatory footnotes, but I'm sure what precedent there is for this on wiki; footnotes would have to be verifiable too, and couldn't become a channel for any old claims, just things that don't smoothly fit into the text. Anyway, my contention is that the information is noted in several sources, and that it should be available to the reader. Sorry to write a lot. This topic is complex; somehow the pages need to communicate that complexity without being bogged down in irrelevant details. But significant detail is helpful. Anyway, two cents, let's see how it goes.--Asdfg12345 02:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(link to warning for reference[1]) I'll reply in Talk:Falun_Gong#Luo_Gan. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I responded. I think the issue is how would those sources be discredited, or I mean, what would make them unworthy of weighing in on this? That's what I don't get. Anyway, we can discuss it there. If you have some convincing argument and we can't agree, then we can take it to one of the boards. I'd like to see the arguments for their unreliability first though, I guess.--Asdfg12345 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: my talk

Thanks I appreciate the assist; I'm only ever more confused and overwhelmed by the panoply of options and policies on Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again For following up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Arthur L. Williams, Jr.

Please refrain from describing the ALW system as a "pyramid scheme". That term is a derisive suggestion that ALW was illegal. Further, unless you actually go forth to EVERY article about every MLM on the Wiki (Herbalife, Shaklee, Amway, MaryKay, Tupperware, etc.) and call those "pyramid schemes" also, you are being biased here. Suffice it to say, while it is indeed true that the ALW system left many people - primarily former agents and competitors - very unhappy, it simply is NOT true that ALW was a "pyramid schme". Please stop saying that. It's not true, and even if some sources contend it, it's POV to state it as an uncontested fact. Additionally, the Art WIlliams article is NOT the place to debate of the merits/flaws of the ALW system. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with leaving it at Multi-level marketing --Enric Naval (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

sock?

I'm curious to know how something like this claim (quote taken from the cold fusion discussion page): "99.27.134.160 (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Nrcprm2026)" is proved to be true? V (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is proved by similarities in behaviour, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in general I agree that the technique can work, but one needs to be careful. Because in general if there is a group of people with the same POV, most of the members of that group will push very similar arguments ("Set A"). Someone who does it badly and gets banned casts a shadow on the others, because it becomes easy for someone pushing the opposite POV with Set B arguments, to now claim that any new user pushing Set A is the banned person, when there is the chance that it might actually be a new member of the original POV group (who of course will have basically the same arguments). In this particular case I hadn't visited that page you linked for a while, thinking it had been closed without reaching a conclusion. Also, it has appeared to me that Hipocrite had behaved more badly than 99.27.134.160; I didn't notice the number-person making undiscussed edits or arbitrarily reversing edits without adequate explanation, while Hipocrite leaped at the opportunity to start a witch-hunt. Since I'm fully aware that the most despicable tactic in an argument is to try to shut up an opponent, instead of actually engaging in discussion, it logically follows that Hipocrite has indeed behaved badly. I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss various matters with him in detail, but the evidence so far suggests avoidance-at-all-costs (especially the "cost" of trying to ban other users) on his part. And you are free to tell him I said so. V (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss matters, but only those related to wikipedia articles. I will not engage in discussion about Cold Fusion and the next great new experiment, which is what you are consistantly trying to do. That's why I ignore most of what you write - because you're using wikipedia as a forum. James S. is banned from wikipedia per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium#James_S._placed_on_general_probation and [2]. If he wants to be unbanned, he knows how to ask - and socking on Cold Fusion and Gulf-War Syndrome is not the way to do it. If you have any serious belief that any given IP is not James S., I'm happy to entertain that, but I'm going to ask that you actually do the research to determine why people think these IP addresses are all James S. before you ask me to justify any IP address - the first time, for example, you ask me to justify one that so patently obvious as 99.27.134.160, I'll go back to ignoring you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to drop by, Hipocrite. I was not particularly arguing against the particular sock-possibility discussed above, so much as wanting to know more about procedures and how much care is taken when a claim is processed by those procedures. It is important that the result be rather accurate, after all. Next, regarding discussions on the CF talk page, it is impossible to discuss an edit without including reasons why or why not a particular edit should be done. If you want to call the presentation of those reasons "using the page as a forum", then, since you are totally wrong, you should completely excuse yourself from doing any sorts of edits there. Here's a specific example. You wrote (more than once): "Mentioning this one paper provides undue weight to a fringe theory." --without explaining why or how that could be true, or even identifying the particular fringe theory. That is an inadequate basis for denying an edit --your statement could be an outright lie, without such explanatory support. That is, why should anyone believe your claim to be true, if you don't explain it? 17:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another example, which possibly even Enric would fault you for, is the utterly false claim you made when requesting the investigation of the number-person, regarding "pushing the same fringe sources". In actual fact most of the sources cited were not fringe at all, and your mere worthless claim that a source such as Naturwissenschaften is "fringe" doesn't make it fringe. It is all the worse of you to say such a thing after participating in the mediation discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion/Mediation, where that Source in particular was decided to be mainstream; the fact that you act as if you learned nothing from that mediation implies you are stuck in a mental rut, resisting acquiring any new information that contradicts your preexisting opinions. Therefore, since it is a fact that the experimental data from the cold fusion field is beginning to solidly tip toward the kind of reproduce-ability required by the mainstream, it logically follows that any editor who acts as if the field must always be fringe simply because it has been fringe in the past...that editor should no longer be editing the article, in any manner whatsoever. V (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Balkan population vandal is back

See 78.83.249.8 (talk · contribs) and C philev (talk · contribs). Keeps inflating Bulgarian and Bosniak numbers, while decreasing all other ethnic group numbers (without a source of course).

He is very, very obviously a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user, C filev (talk · contribs).

This huge vandalism of his on Bosniaks remains unreverted. 58.166.162.94 (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/C_filev, but it might take a while before they are blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been mentioned on an arbitration enforcement discussion.

Please refer here. [3]

Hi Enric. I hope you would oblige me two things. The first is to quickly explain, or refer me to something which outlines the preferred ways for editors to make changes to the pages and discuss them. I came up with my own way of trying to make things really transparent and to enable discussion, but it just kicked up a giant fuss. So, if you have something for me on that I would like to hear it. The second thing is about your recent change to the teachings page. Usually, If I wasn't being careful about what names people might get to call me, or what evidence they might collect, I would just remove the claim that Zhuan Falun II is not published in English because it's demonstrably wrong. But, do you have a better idea? Note both? I would also change "noted" to "wrote" or "said," to clarify that what she expresses is her opinion, and not a fact. But I do not want to perpetuate some impression that I'm a diehard pro-Falun Gong guy who will simply delete or marginalise whatever I don't like. And no, that's not some part of my greater scheme to lull people into a false sense of security. Anyway, I'll probably just make some changes to the Kavan thing. But since you complained about my editing, I would genuinely appreciate some other advice on a better methodology.--Asdfg12345 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kavan paper was published in July 2008, and archive.org says that the page was created sometime around June 2008, and the page displays a translation date of June 2008 (although the books page claims a publication date of February of the same year [4]). I note that Zhuan Falun was apparently published in paper in 1996 and that the first online English translation appears to be from 1998. Note that Kavan's paper cites Penny 2003, so it's not like he's the first to make the claim of disappearing translations.

I also note a few discrepancies. The current English translation doesn't seem to say anything about light years so that part might have been mistranslated or missing from the translation? I also understand that "part II" is cited by Kavan as "part 11" (eleven), that the texts in the translation have date of 1995, that it was probably published in 1996 at the same time as the rest of the book. I also see that the 1996 translation only translates until part 9, so maybe "part II" is actually "part 11", or rather "lecture 11" and maybe also "lecture 10"? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the text a bit. Notice the July-June difference. It's possible that FG followers got wind of the content of Kavan's paper when the abstract lists where released before the 6-8th July conference, and that they decided to release online the English translation. Several people, including the re must have seen it months before the conference Also, since the paper was refereed, Kavan couldn't have updated the paper in time to get it again throught the referring system, and . --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of these 'mysteries' surrounding Falun Gong, such as why Li Hongzhi's biography claiming supernatural powers such as levitation also 'disappeared' from Falun Gong books at around the same period. Colipon+(Talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lecture 5, I think it is, mentions the light year there. See here, search "light year". There is no lecture 11 or lecture 10 in Zhuan Falun. I believe Kavan is referring to Zhuan Falun II, which was only available in Chinese for a while (well, there was a dodgy English translation of some years ago, but I only ever saw this on paper), and then published in English in June 2008. That's the only conclusion that would fit, I think. The idea that someone saw the abstract, guessed she was going to point out that Zhuan Falun II wasn't published in English, then rush to do another translation and get it online, doesn't make sense. It would take a while to translate the whole thing, and it would probably go through several people. How would they even know she was going to say that, and even know of the abstract? Zhuan Falun II's lack of an English version has been noted before, too, I think. The idea that she either didn't get time to update her notes, or more probably that it was published after she looked on the Falun Gong website, is far more plausible. If you want to leave it in, I'm not about to go and delete it. But it's inaccurate. I suggest you at least note that Zhuan Falun II is actually published. There's no Zhuan Falun 11, or lecture 11. Colipon, as far as I understand Li's biography was only published in the first publication edition of Zhuan Falun. I'm not sure of what time correspondence you are referring to, or what it might imply. (Heather Kavan is female).--Asdfg12345 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Enric, it's by no means obligatory of course, but I'd appreciate it if you could fill me in on the editing thing. Or if my methodology is sound, then don't worry.--Asdfg12345 01:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Kavan cites Deng & Fang 2000 "The two tales of Falun Gong". I quote from there:

Since Li is a junior high school graduate lacking any scientific training, it is not surprised to find that Li’s “scientific” teachings are full of misconceptions and blunders. For instance he taught the disciples (including some having advanced education in astrophysics) that one may witness things having taken place 150,000 light years “ago” in another 150,000 light years to come (ZFL C, 66; cf. ZFL E (2000): 191; after his critics points out “light year” is not a unit of time, the second sentence is translated as “year” instead; cf. ZFL BJE (1998): 88, the “light year” is accurately translated) (...).

From Lecture 5, the sentence:

• "(...) what we can now see through the most powerful telescopes are things 150 thousand light years back. In order to see the changes of the present cosmic body, we must wait for 150 thousand years to pass"

would be a purposeful mistraslation "light years" to cover Li's blunder, since he originally stated:

• "(...) what we can now see through the most powerful telescopes are things 150 thousand light years back. In order to see the changes of the present cosmic body, we must wait for 150 thousand light years to pass"

Now for other issues.

Hum, Kavan talks about "Zhuan Falun 11". Could this be a confusion with "II"? Is the "II" thing because Zhuan Falun book was the second book? Was the title changed from the Chinese original? Why isn't it named "lecture" like other texts? I don't know and I don't want to start elucubrating about it and going into original research. I also see that the light year thing was in chapter 5 while the homosexuality and buddishm things are in volume II. The Fang & Deng paper cites simply "Zhuan Falun" (as ZFL E) and 转法轮 (as ZFL C) and cites Zhuan Falun as a single book. As far as I am concerned, sources treat Zhuan Falun as a single book and "volume II" is an unsourced name that appears in the self-published FG website. RS treat Zhuan Falun as a single book. I edited the article a bit to fix the name problems a bit.

P.D.: the reasons for the online translation appearing in that date are my own speculations and they are not backed by sources, which means that they belong to talk pages, and that's why I haven't added them into the article. They are just an exposition that I felt that I had to do, in order to communicate better my ideas to other editor. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

About conduct, you should re-read my complaints in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Asdfg12345 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#HappyInGeneral, and the problems raised by other editors.

Following in conduct, see WP:BRD be Bold, get Reverted, Discuss. You were being bold, then we you are being reverted, and then you reverted your edits back. You were supposed to leave the article page alone, and to go the talk page and make compelling arguments on why you were making those edits, and see if you could convince the other editors. If you can't convince them, then you are supposed to drop the matter or to raise it again when you have substantially better material. What you were doing instead was re-raising the issues without providing better material and without taking notice that a) other editors had raised problems b) those other editors considered that you hadn't solved the problems despite you thinking that you had done so.

In a collaborative project you are not always going to "win" arguments, sometimes you will "lose", or your argument will be changed into a different argument that you might not like. This is all part of a collaborative environment: accepting defeat gracefully, realising that you might be wrong when other editors tell you that you are wrong, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them, a) it's too little, too late b) you tried to keep your version of the article during the discussion, see my comment above about following WP:BRD c) you cram too much material in a single section, one section is not enough to discuss the reordering of several sections, several title changes, etc, d) you are basically asking that other editors prove you wrong, instead of trying to explain them why the edit is a good idea, that's a reversion of WP:BURDEN e) in other sections, like the "Luo Gan" discussion, you acted like the concerns raised by other editors were not important and you could simply set them aside because you thought them wrong, so you had already burnt out editors and shown them that you would refuse to take their objections seriously f) omnibus discussions like those only work if the individual discussions take very little space, and the other editors' experience with you showed that you were going to make every issue into a very long discussion g) as a member h) you mixed in stuff that already had its own discussion section, for example [5] was already being discussed in Talk:Falun_Gong#Quick_note_on_the_Johnson_quote but you didn't link to that discussion when making the edit, additionally you only had some support from me to restore the "do good works" bit, but you only had support from HappyInGeneral to restore the full thing and remove the segregation thing, thus effectively choosing to ignore the concerns raised by Dan and Simonm223, and asking to start a new discussion when the old one is still ongoing is going to be interpreted as a disrespect to the people that already commented in the old one and who expect that their opinion is taken into account. Well, I could pick up a few more points but, honestly, the point here is that you need pay more attention and respect to the complaints made by editors who don't have a COI in the issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And stop removing or adding newlines while you change a text like here, it just makes the diff difficult to read. Also avoid merging or splitting paragraphs while adding or removing text like here, for the same reason. Click in "show preview" before saving and check that it's easy for other editors to see with a quick look what exact parts of the text have changed. The combined diff of all those edits looks like a frigging mess and it takes a long long time to make sense of all of it. Moving section titles or changing them to completely different names in intermediate diffs just makes it difficult for other editors to see what part of the article you were editing. Such edits are bound to be wholesome reverted. You want the diffs of your combined edits to look like this, this or this. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

*sigh of relief* Enric, the information you've provided about the best way of editing etc. is extremely valuable. I just scanned it because now I'm feeling a bit burned out and need a break from all this. But I will read it again carefully later, click all the links, and see what I can incorporate (probably a lot). I appreciate your typing all that. Zhuan Falun II is just... Zhuan Falun 2. It's a separate book. It was published separately, like two years after Zhuan Falun. It was a bestseller on the Beijing book list that year (1996, zfl was late 94 I think). It's got the same title (Chinese equivalent) as the English version. It's in the list as 轉法輪（卷二）. That's book II, or volume II. It's never been printed as part of Zhuan Falun, but only separately. If I come across some third party sources which indicate this, I'll put them on the talk page (though primary sources are permissible in articles about themselves). Anyway. I checked the Chinese version for the light year issue and found that the original indeed said "light year" twice (現在天文學家看不到，是因為我們現在用最大的望遠鏡去看的時候，看到的光景是十五萬光年以前的事情。要想看到現在天體的變化，那得十五萬光年以後才能看的到，那相當久遠的。) The first instance was translated as "light year" and the second indeed translated as "year." I won't speculate on the rationale without any evidence, but of course, Kavan should have her point of view noted (as her point of view, I would gently add, not as a fact). I seem to recall that Li responded to a question about this in a separate conference once. What I'll do for now is probably just two things, since all the edits have been reverted again, and I'm feeling slightly fed up and feel I need to step back whatever the outcome of the AE. So as a temporary exit strategy I'm going to 1) put back in whatever sources I added, minus other the modifications made. 2) make a section on the page and put a bunch of sources, and like a one paragraph or few sentence snippet, with references, for whoever wants to use them. I might note where they might be relevant, which perspectives are missing. And we'll see what AE says. Thanks very much for the advice, it's not lost on me. I did not realise that I had genuinely annoyed people, and not that some people just weren't up for discussion and the hard work of looking at the details of things. When responses mostly include an epithet and nary a mention of the question at hand, one is apt to miss this. I will respond to your six points at AE later. I need to go drink a mate and read for a while. Thanks. Peace.--Asdfg12345 10:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia Watch. Since you created the Wikipedia Watch redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). WJBscribe (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC) WJBscribe (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP non-consensual changes warning

It seems that a couple of editors are making a point of unilaterally changing WP:BLP without seeking consensus first, after that you correctly pointed out the bit about contentious material. I reverted twice but I can't revert more for WP:3RR: would you mind taking a look and see what can be done? thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was already looking at those reverts when the new message bar appeared. I'm looking in the history to see when the "contentious" wording was first used. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#.22unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_CONTENTIOUS_material.22. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles prodded by one editor (to check them up):

Dave Pybus Howard Phillips (Nintendo) Caleigh Peters D. Brian Peterman Michael Pelkey Pamela Paulshock‎ Kelly Overton ‎Denis Ovens Krynauw Otto Andrew Osenga Osamu Migitera ‎Osamu Kubota Takayo Ookoshi Omer Léger Steve O'Donnell (writer) Bill Norrie Mose Navarra

ArbCom case

You didn't notify Lar that you'd added him to the BLP case, so I've done that. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I notified and he acknowledged. Not everyone uses those flashy notification templates, you know ;) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh, I see, I didn't list the diff in the case page, sorry. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve O'Donnell (writer)

Regarding the rationale you added to the prod: " Also fails WP:GNG because there doesn't seem to be any works reporting on him or his work", [6] I was wondering if you actually bothered to look for sources. Sure, he's not one of the more famous writers, but he's had a career spanding over 20 years (which the article did state, even if it was unsourced). A quick google search did turn up sources, [7]. For example, the third result was an interview he did with The Believer [8] (again, not the most desirable source, but better than nothing) and he gets all sorts of mentions in news articles: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. So for you to say "there doesn't seem to be any works reporting on him or his work" means that either a) You checked the wrong sources. b) You didn't look hard enough. or c) You didn't look at all. I don't want to preach because we all make mistakes, but I thought I would suggest that in the future, you actually take the time to back up what you claim. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant articles that were exclusively about him or one of his works, like "interview with Steve O'Donell, writer of Kimmel live", "Steve O'Donell: biography", or similar. The Believer piece is one of those articles. The Believer piece is a joint interview with his brother, it's not an article exclusively about him.

The other articles are consulting him about stuff related with comedy and comedy shows, or asking him because they are writing about the Kimmel show and he happens to be the head writer. If the head writer had been another person then they would have been interviewed that other person. That can be used as an indicator that he is notable, but they are not sources about him, they don't say when or he was born, why he joined the show, his life motivations, etc. They would only warrant a section inside the Kimmel Live article.

Similarly, the Emmy awards were not awarded directly to him, it seems that he shared it with all the other writers of those shows. (and I think that in Emmy-winning shows he wasn't the head writer, he was one of the writers in the staff?; ugh, a People article saying that he was head writer of letterman show and co-author of the top-ten list books, gotta add it to the article)

In other words, he doesn't pass any of the points of WP:CREATIVE. Still, it's a decent article, the subject is still active so he can still do more work, and it has a decent chance of surviving AfD depending on who comments, so I won't send to AfD. You are right, I didn't look hard enough, my apologies. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. You may also be interested in the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. We have been working hard to find sources for the 236 articles which were deleted with no notice by 3 administrators. I love you picture of the cat above, keep removing those misplaced articles added by editors who ignore WP:HANDLE WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.Ikip 01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I respect you contacting other editors about the Pamela AFD. I may change my !vote. we will see. Ikip 00:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you can join the squadron!

A warm welcome! Glad we can have your experience in the rescue squadron!

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Enric Naval, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to post a question on the talk page. And once again — Welcome! Ikip 02:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Enric Naval, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 03:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to your points in AE

Hi. I don't have a legitimate explanation as to why I have not responded to this until now. I guess because it was just this kind of bothersome thing and I didn't want to take the time out then. I looked through the diffs and argumentation you provided then. I'll paste the response below in a hidden template. It's just for your reference. Maybe one day, you could compare them. Just one more note on 2, though. If you read the whole discussion, and followed the links to the third party responses, and still came to the interpretation you did about my conduct and manner in that dispute, then I guess I can just say I would be surprised. It generated a lot of discussion, but I think the key of the dispute was also spelled out clearly several times. Despite initial intransigence, I did not suggest that such views should be disqualified from the article, and sought only for a clear and accurate presentation of the issues at stake. That may not have come across clearly, in which case I'm responsible. Anyway, I apologise for all the time you have spent, rightly or wrongly, on this. This isn't meant to spend more of it, but I at least feel I should respond. Best.

response to the six points raised at AE

1. The source used in [54] was deemed inadequate, as a grad student. The source in [55] is different. The problem with the source in [55] (which is Gutmann) has not been explained, only said to have been explained. I’m currently still waiting on whether the problem is that Gutmann (and Noah Porter and Yuezhi Zhao, who too comment on it) are unreliable sources, and whether that is the locus of the dispute. It has so far been unclear, since first it was said that since Gutmann’s was published in a U.S. conservative journal it was not RS, but later this reason was dropped from the argumentation. The reason for excluding the info has still not been stated clearly. In [56], the material being put in is totally different from the disputed [54] and [55]. The impression given is that [56] is the Luo/He thing. It’s not; just look.

2. This is a typical content dispute, and actually a somewhat complex one, but it has been interpreted as a POV battle. Is the content relevant? On reflection, I would not bother to argue against its inclusion but instead simply try to contextualise the matter, so at least it’s meaningful (the dispute was that, since this is a few lines of 2000 pages of teachings, is it notable? The response was “of course, it’s nuts, of course it’s notable!”). The NYT source attributes to Li things which he is not recorded as saying. Olaf Stephanos summed it as: “If there is an obvious discrepancy between the lectures and any derivative sources, which one do you think is correct? And if we choose to include such text from a derivative source, how should we articulate this discrepancy in the Wikipedia article?” For this, I would suggest simply reading through the dispute. I think I articulate my point of view clearly and civilly. It would be hard to rehash the details of the discussion here, and I think Enric Navel inadvertently painted an incomplete picture in the attempt to do so, so instead I would suggest simply reading through it. Edits are only half the story, and need the background of discussion to be made sense of. Also, there are at least some errors of interpretation. Check 61 for example.}} This is actually me replacing a watered down version that Dilip put up, not removing criticism. Just compare the first lines: “Richard Madsen, a professor of sociology at the University of California, says "among the Falun Dafa practitioners I have met are Chinese scientists with doctorates from prestigious American universities who claim that modern physics (for example, superstring theory) and biology (specifically the pineal gland's functioning) provide a scientific basis for their beliefs. From their point of view, Falun Dafa is knowledge rather than religion, a new form of science rather than faith.” – I replaced (Dilip had replaced what follows with what precedes already) with “Ownby says that Li's teachings on the role of science, supernatural abilities, and higher dimensions have been "ridiculed by scientists and journalists—both Chinese and Western—as being outlandish." – that is certainly not eliminating criticism, but precisely what the edit summary I wrote says: “restoring discussion of disputed teachings.” [62] and [63] were a compromise of slightly rephrasing the quote from NYT to remove the inaccuracy. A third party had raised this, in fact (“does this quote really need to be discussed in the article at all. Is it crucial to the article to mention it? (in other words... would it harm the article to simply ignore the entire issue?”)) This is a specific issue. If you read the discussion, you can see what the dispute was. It’s too abstruse to rehash, but there’s nothing wrong with rephrasing it so a secondary source does not contradict a primary source, as long as that information is being insisted on being kept. That was the first option. The second was to keep the apparent inaccuracy, and simply document what the other side said. But that was staunchly resisted, too. The idea was to present an apparently inaccurate source without stipulating that.

There is another side of the story that is not being mentioned here. Please see the third party appeal things I started (two notes), and what Dan wrote on the talk: “If we include the Smith version, we should try to get a clear picture of the dispute and spell it out there in the article.” – which is what I wanted to do. I would just say to read the discussion to get to the bottom of who behaved inappropriately in this dispute and who did not. I believe my early attempts to remove the material as non-notable were mistaken (I had tried to tread a middle ground, writing: “The basic thing seems to be that these teachings are not a notable part of the corpus of Falun Gong teachings--is there any evidence to the contrary? Do we have a good source linking the notability of Falun Gong to these teachings? This would be useful stuff” and when this was resolved, “My suggestion is a compromise, noting that journalists have raised criticisms, and that Falun Gong claims either willful [sic] or guileless misunderstanding”). I agree that I was slow in giving ground in the argument; for example, instead of being proactive in finding how these remarks are notable, I left that to Simon, but I think when it comes down to it, I articulated my concerns clearly, studiously avoided personal attacks, and sought third party opinion twice (after Simon223 ignored the first). I would regard the editing as a reflection of a content dispute, and not an edit war. I don’t think I went over 1RR doing direct reverts here; there was a lot of jiggling around in succession, but successive modifications and adaptations, I don’t think are the same as a direct edit war. The first is moving constructively, the second is when horns are locked, and I try to avoid that at all costs. In the final part, Enric writes that “he claims that the journalists only picked those quotes only due to influence from the Chinese government.” – no. I included Falun Gong’s response to similar criticisms. That is in line with Wikipedia content policies, and does not amount to me making those claims.

3. “claims” is one of the “words to avoid”, isn’t it? I don’t see how replacing it with “says” is a problem. “Says” is obviously more neutral. Regarding the final sentence, I don’t understand the note of triumph. They are obviously separate points of contention; one about what Li said in one context, one about what he said in another context. There is no way of knowing whether what the journalist (Smith) said is “correct” or not, only how it compares to the available primary sources. This isn’t a truth issue, just a verifiability issue. There would be no way of even extrapolating whether they changed one thing and not another, so even if I bought that assumption, it still would not apply to this case.

4. If you read what I wrote, you can see an obvious attempt to be helpful. Nearly every single change I made there was kept anyway, when I edited again. The second time around I simply didn’t bother to number them, and only added information rather than changed existing information or section titles. That itself should show that the changes were not problematic. Yes, I asked people to explain themselves on each point, rather than revert a series of changes with “POV-pusher” or some other nonsense. Is that unreasonable? Asking people to engage in discussion? Each edit is a separate point of potential disagreement or commentary. In this case, it would have been good to simply explain what was expected of me rather than assume I’m the bad guy after I wrote all that and spent the time. I learnt a lot from the recommendations of how to do diffs well.

5. Is there anything mistaken with that? If the source doesn’t say it’s controversial, then it’s our original research to say it is, isn’t it? This is very basic Wikipedia policy. We’re not supposed to choose ourselves which teachings are “controversial” and which aren’t. Or let’s have a “peaceful teachings” section, then. I’m not saying criticism or controversy is not notable, it obviously is, but it doesn’t take much to present things intelligently, with nuance, and in context, which is what we should strive to do.

6. In other edits I actually put the term “controversial” in the lead, in a sentence that said “The encyclopedia Britannica characterizes Falun Gong as ‘controversial’.” I disputed starting the article as “Falun Gong is a controversial spiritual movement that…” – I argued that this was unwarranted and there was a lot of fun discussion on it. That was resolved by attributing it. The other problems are content disputes. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of my intentions generally. I’m actually not trying to cram my POV down people’s throats or down the throats of the articles. I’ve added an enormous amount of research to these pages, and want to see them read like professional, encyclopedia treatments of the subject. I do not want to eliminate all criticism from the pages, not by any means. Frequently, discussion of the actual content and sources gets overlooked for discussion of the individuals involved. That is unfortunate.

I will make an appeal of Sandstein’s decision later, and respond to the three problems he identified.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

• From the editor: Writers wanted to cover strategy, public policy

• Strategic planning: The challenges of strategic planning in a volunteer community

• News and notes: New CTO, Britain Loves Wikipedia, Telefónica partnership, Multimedia and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on CDs, BBC uses Wikipedia content, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Dinosaurs

• Sister projects: Sister project roundup

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User uses my talk page for article discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DuKu#Clovis_Sangrail_-_Edit_Warring - Advised user to stop in doing so. --DuKu (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis: Sockpuppetry case

Don’t you see that this is a case of a confrontation of one (or two – if at all) newcomer where one tries to pursue a simple argument AND, on the other side, partially organised group of – how I underestimated them! – not 3-5 but about 10 or even more, basically Greek political fanatics.

The problem was always one word: whether Alexander the Grate was “Greek king” (certainly not, as I say, the Queen of England would be then German queen!!!); whether Cyril and Methodius were “Greek brothers” (they were of course Byzantine brothers – we can say Greek brothers but it is just slightly better to say Byzantine.). Trivialities. Yet, as the answers I received pages of unreferenced text rich in nationalistic and racist accusations. Who are these people? There is one who I can understand his/her condition and would not advance any explanation here. But the others who supported the front liner! The argument was absolutely trivial. But their excitation was bewildering!

Of course it looked like that “Greek brothers”, for example, is accepted in popular literature (encyclopaedias) while Byzantine studies scholars prefer “Byzantine brothers”. I was ready to accept this, but not accusations and hate. I am even not Macedonian or Greek or involved politically in any of their blind disputes. I will give you, Wikipedia, my full name, telephone number, address, Wikipedia has my e-mail, I can give to the Wikipedia officials my University e-mail EVERITHING!! – if Wikipedia would request. You can then find on the internet my full biography, publications, all, absolutely all, all is public. But this must be requested by the highest level of Wikipedia and not by the front-liner who is obvious gang member. Let us verify all of these! If you dare to take a risk and uncover the gang of political pamphlets and falsifiers of history. But if you are a part of them, then… then I wish you all the best.Draganparis (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You were pointed to the work of many historians that called Alexander the Great a Greek king. Those are WP:SECONDARY sources. You are trying to extrapolate conclusions from original Greek sources. Here in wikipedia that's called original research. Wikipedia is not a university and it's not a hisstory journal, you don't come here to publish your research on antique texts, your credentials are not important here, you publish your work somewhere else and then it might be cited here by someone else. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

ItHysteria

I went to WP:RFPP very quickly [14]. I tend to revert socked edits out as quickly as possible, rather than waiting for reports to process, even if it gets a bit tedious.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 01:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Believer sockpuppet

I just wanted to say thank you for you help in dealing with this highly WP:DE user, and with his socks. He is quite a problematic user, so as you can see, all of us that disagree with his vandalism are socks of each other. Again, thanks! :) --Tadija (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied

See here, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Watching the ejaculation page.

Hi Enric, no problem, your undo did happen fairly swiftly after the image was deleted. Thanks for pointing out the watchlist, I knew it was there though I have not used it yet, but I might sometime. Info has shown the content to be by a exhibitionist (the matter is beyond doubt). It is therefore not suitable here and that is why he deleted it. All the best DMSBel (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Your caption on the pic(at the top here) is very funny btw :-DDMSBel (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very funny. I didn't write it. I just saw the image with the caption and I liked its message so much placed it here in my talk page. This way people see it when they are going to leave me a message. Hopefully the image induces people to make less accusations in the heat of the moment, and to think more about why I reverted them, or why I changed their texts. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

??????????????????????

WHO IS YOU TO TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK I SHOULD DO HUH ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrshistory2010 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am a random editor who saw the discussion in the admin noticeboard, and decided to drop by and leave a bit of useful advice. I'm sorry that you took it so badly. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice on arbitration amendment request

Please see here soon. I'm requesting an amendment to my case. --Asdfg12345 03:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I do not harbor bad faith assumptions about how you're trying to smear Falun Gong for some unspecified reason.--Asdfg12345 23:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a reference to [15]. Specifically the part "Enric, this edit seems rather cynical, to say the least. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to make a certain group look crazy, stupid, or heartless? That's what you do when you make edits like that.". This sounds very harsh to an editor that just tried to make an edit that helps to explain what believers believe in a certain group. My purpose wasn't to make FG look like bad, and your comment can easily be interpreted to mean that. Next time just suggest better sources for the apocalypse belief thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)