User talk:2over0/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8



It looks like two pretty new editors are editing here. Are new editors supposed to be editing policies like this? Something just feels wrong about the last few editors. I hope you have the time to look at this. Later, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TFOWR 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

  • The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
  • Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
  • Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
    • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
    • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
    • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
    • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"
The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.
  • All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
  • Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
  • The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
  • All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
  • Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
  • Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
  • Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Questions about block of Captain Occam

Several editors have asked you to provide specific diffs of the edits made by Captain Occam that caused you to block him. Do you have any intention of doing so? (I, at least, am specifically interested in the diffs that caused you to block him, not diffs that other editors found objectionable.) Also, could you let us know how you came to be monitoring things at Race and Intelligence and how long you have been doing so? Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: see the Captain Occam unblock thread: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional restrictions on Captain Occam vacated

You have apparently been offline for several days and Captain Occam was asking for independent review of his edit restrictions. As you've been idle, I have reviewed from the original edits and decided that the block was probably unnecessary, and by extension the alternate edit restrictions are also unnecessary. I am vacating those restrictions, as an uninvolved admin.
Your actions were clearly in good faith, but I think we are all better off with the restriction lifted at this point.
I welcome comments and discussion, here or on my talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Review and decision

This is an unusual situation - we rarely impose the type of edit restriction that limits someone to Arbcom case responses only, though it's been done a number of time. The admin who imposed it also has become idle for 5 days. Community "votes" also aren't exactly a standard way of resolving issues with blocks.
Logically - the edit restrictions were a modification to the original block. The place to start in determining what to do going forwards is reviewing the specifics of the original block.
In the days leading up to the block, Captain Occam focused editing on the Arbcom case and on the talk page of the Race and intelligence article. Having reviewed all the threads there, in the days leading up to the block, Occam edited in a manner which was somewhat milder than the prior months, was discussing largely in good faith, and was not doing anything out of the ordinary for the situation currently under arbitration. There were extensive fruitful multiparty discussions going on on the talk page.
The underlying content and behavioral issues at play in the Arbcom case can be seen in the ongoing activity, and perhaps it would be best for all parties if we simply lock the article from editing for the remainder of the case, but the editing slowed down significantly over the last few days (since I full-protected for 1 day on June 8th). It was certainly not worse than prior times.
I believe that the block was done in good faith. However, I believe that in retrospect, nothing was going on at the time of the block that was out of the ordinary or beyond that already subject to normal Arbcom review and needing admin intervention. Admins should not be afraid to enforce policy normally against Arbcom case participants, but we also shouldn't focus overly critically on them. Arbcom will make any out-of-the-ordinary decisions required.
Had there still been an active block I'd overturn it at this point. Given the edit restriction was a replacement for that, I believe that it should just be vacated at this time.
This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors. However, reasonable normal behavior with due respect for the Arbcom case underway is not a problem for the encyclopedia or community.
As an uninvolved admin, having reviewed, I am doing so. The additional restrictions in place on Captain Occam are vacated. I am going to copy this section to WP:ANI, the Arbcom case workshop, User talk:Captain Occam, and User talk:2over0.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

E-mail from 2/0

(I posted this on AN/I earlier today):

Just as a matter of record, I had contacted 2/0 by e-mail while the community discussion was ongoing, and received this response today:

Thank you for letting me know. If it is still a going concern, would you please mention that I am moving and am suffering unexpected delays in setting up my internet access? Clearly, I endorse whatever conclusion the community reaches, though I do express some hope that people who comment do due diligence by reading the relevant contributions first. Thank you for your help in this matter.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


I begged the administrators to take me into care. The user BokicaK I was cursed, because I asked him something. My English is not the best, and translate the Google translator. I asked users BokicaK to tell me that the other user (RastkoPocesta) active, but he replied me the following: Jebote Rastko Pocesta vise. Mogu da mislim na sta lice te vase knjige. meaning: Rastko fuck more often. I can think of what you face your book. on the Serbian Wikipedia administrator and no one to oppose him. Whenever I have defended him he blocked me. On the Serbian Wikipedia all hate him. I begged the administrators to put a block of users, for our personal security, because our on disdains. I feel very vulnerable. Thank you in advance --Filip Srbin (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for article lock

I'd like to request that the Ed Shultz page be semi-protected. It is under constant political vandalism from unregistered users. --Iron Chef (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The article looks pretty quiet for the last few days, but if they start up again please make a request to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, mentioning that it is a biography of a living person. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

BlackBerry - Google Search - Wikipedia Page Error Found - Ivory Coast

Today while watching the World Cup with my wife I searched for "Ivory Coast" on my BlackBerry.

The first reference came up as a Wikipedia page.

The caption under the link had an incorrect statement.

Although the Ivory Coast is in West Africa, the google page information stated it as being a country in Eurpoe when accessed via my BlackBerry.

When accessed through a traditional account it referrenced a country in West Africa correctly.

The error I found is only for BlackBerry (and possibly other smartphone users).

I do not know if this is a Google error, or a Wikipedia error, but it was under one of the links on Google for Wikipedia when searching for the Ivory Coast.

I hope you can resolve this error so other users are not mis-informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that Google was caching an old version of the version of the page served to mobile devices. It is possible to ask them to synch to the current version, but I think that they crawl Wikipedia content pretty regularly so this is probably not an issue anymore. TS, are you watching this? Or can someone else with a mobile device check?
Thank you for your interest in maintaining Wikipedia as a high quality reference work. In future, the best place to bring concerns like this would be Talk:Côte d'Ivoire, available through the Discussion link at the top of any page. You might also be interested in the benefits of registering an account. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I checked the mobile version on an ipod and it was correct (at least in this respect). Verbal chat 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson unprotected page

Hello I was just wondering why the Michael Jackson page is no longer protected?, a lot a changes are being made to page without most people referring to the talk page. Its a featured Article so i was just wondering why its no longer protected.

Thank You Thecriticexpress (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is part of the new pending changes trial, which hopefully will allow a compromise between anyone can edit and semi-protection of vandalism targets. If there is an ongoing dispute among editors and the talkpage discussion is breaking down, please try Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, as appropriate. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (utc) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I hope you have settled into your new place now. :) Would you please give reviewer rights to User:DocOfSoc's? I'd appreciate it. I'm not sure if autoreviewer is also needed. I still don't see the difference in the two. Oh well. Anyways, I think she has been here long enough to have these rights plus ther are a few of us editors who are helping her in some manner or another. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I volunteered on DocOfSoc's page, as they seem to have the editing experience and grasp of policy to be a benefit to the pending changes trial. I believe that autoreviewer applies only to pages created; it is useful if, for instance, an experienced editor decides to create stubs for the redlinks in List of Ediacaran genera. ttfn - 2/0 (cont.) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Yea I was talking about granting reviewer not autoviewer rights to her. I thought all you had to do was give it to her. I got mine from an administrator and then a notice on my talk page a little while later with a link to what a reviewer actually was. :) I hope you are finally relaxing. Moving is so stressful and exhausting. How many boxes do you have left? Take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 09:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I could just tick the box, but then I would feel awfully silly if she is a conscientious objector or something like that and wanted it removed.
It should be no boxes, but I spent the weekend playing around with the packing problem rearranging my furniture (virtually, of course - model twice, move once, I always say), eventually concluding that the extra walking room is probably worth the hassle of swapping my bookcases around. I managed to realize this before they were too weighted with books, but there are a number of knicknacks that should be set aside before I start dragging things around again. Maybe this weekend, so the cat will have time to acclimate to the current arrangement for maximum confusion. I think my life is a Tron parody using one of those puzzles where you slide the squares into the one empty slot to rearrange a picture. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am usually conscientiously agreeable except to trolls and vandals! My unofficial advisor said to say yes please and I find following her advice very beneficial! :-) While we are on that subject may we segue to considering semi- protecting Ryan Seacrest? The trolls are especially hateful there. TY for all of the above! AS Doc would say Cheers! esp. during moving time, ugh! DocOfSoc (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I forgot there were editor who objected to all of the reviewer stuff. Well I hope you are starting to settle in. I know when we moved about two and a half years ago it was a major hassle for us. We'd lived in the other place for 15+ years and boy were we amazed at the garbage we accumulated. :) When we got here I had the boxes all gone within two days but we didn't feel like we were at 'home' until I started hanging things on the walls. When I finished that, we were home again. :) We had to hire movers to move and pack our stuff up. That took a lof of the stress of moving off of us. Where we are now is a very nice community, most of it is for over 50 people. I have to admit though that I miss watching the kids playing outside like I got to do before. My cat Buddy is a chicken and the move scared him to death. He hid under the couch for the most part. We let him into our room at night for about a week. We don't allow him in there since he likes to play at night, we wouldn't get enough sleep. All in all, for us the move was good. I hope your move was a too. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Good to go, DocOfSoc - good luck. I will take a look at Ryan Seacrest over lunch.
@Crohnie - I helped move my parents out of my childhood home a few years back, and found things that I do not remember ever having seen. On the bright side, once it was dug out they did get more use out of the old hamster run that had been moldering in storage for over a decade. Also, I have to admit that one of the advantages of the new place is *not* having kids playing outside. Given that this is a college town, though, by "kids" I mean "undergrads pushing each other into the pool and screaming at three in the morning". Best, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait, I've seen bits of Girls Gone Wild ... what's wrong with undergrads pushing each other into pools again? LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Good one Bwilkins! :) I needed a good laugh today. I do so miss the little people, you know the ones that are still innocent. :) I've still got hopes though for my own little person within the year, grandchild thank you very much! :) Too old for my own little person, way too old. :) Be well both of you, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your stuff.

Hey. Oldspammer (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Were there more? Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 10:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope that I noticed. Did you read any of the stuff there that you complained about? Any comments? Or were you just in the mood to enforce the law in a strict manner? Oldspammer (talk) 10:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Read it, and I found the last bit constructive; I may reply if I dig up a source. That talkpage tends to go off the rails if too many people start speculating, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked through your user page and saw you're interested in climate change science. Is not a lot of the computer modeling / data for that hoaxed by guys paid by their employers? Isn't the entire thing a giant hoax hype / trick for the media / governments in order to pay carbon taxes to the likes of Club of Rome members and the Rothschilds? Oldspammer (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You forgot the Knights Templar. As Umberto Eco observed in Foucault's Pendulum, the Templars have something to do with everything. MastCell Talk 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Rasmussen College

Feel free to undo the semiprotection if you think it's unnecessary. When I placed it, I imagined I was just locking out the IPs, but I see that Warrenpd is affected as well due to the newness of his account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was actually considering thanking you for that - at least one of the IPs almost certainly is the same person as Warrenpd. They have an admitted CoI, but I would still hate to see them blocked. There is now a massive proposal on the talkpage so I am not sure that they really get it, but I am going to see if I can fix it up enough for inclusion anyway. Feel free to keep an eye out; be seeing you, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack in my book


That feels like a PA to me. TickleMeister (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility doesn't mean you can't point out the obvious, however that editor later revisited the comment to collapse th part you felt insulting. The edit underneath that one, by you, shows very disturbing behaviour and makes an unrelated comment about the editor. If you said that about me I'd be calling for you to be blocked. Verbal chat 06:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious that I'm "soapboxing fringe theories"? And you'd call for my blocking for pointing out that the editor making this absurd accusation has a history, both on WP and off it, of agitating against medical science and advocating AIDS denialism? Ye gods, have a nice day! TickleMeister (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the background of the situation your diff does not look like a personal attack to me. PA is used far too frequently when editors are trying to make observations on other editors' behaviour, something that in itself should not be banned in any way. Whether the observation is right or wrong it should not be construed as a personal attack. Polargeo (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur, there's nothing in that diff that is anywhere close to a PA. It is a clear description of the type of edits being made. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby Sock

I suppose I should be trying to cut my losses (and avoid Wikipedia like the plague) at this point, but I'm still somewhat confused by the chain of events that occurred after I made a suggestion at the Global Warming page. While I admittedly have not been a particularly active editor, I've had an account for a while now, try my best to correct vandalism/perform minor edits, and am not clear on why I was immediately accused (and, apparently, convicted) of being a sockpuppet after posting the question. I'm contacting you because my username is still listed on the page for Scibaby socks, and you seemed to believe that I am not this person (which I greatly appreciate). What sort of account validation do I need to provide to avoid this in the future? Thanks in advance. Missionamp (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think you're Scibaby either. Probably the best thing is to let the checkuser go through so the technical results can be posted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I appreciate the advice. I'll let it run it's course. Missionamp (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I am also pretty sure that you are not Scibaby, and I am sorry that this ever came up. Issues relating to climate change can evoke strong emotions, and sometimes they can interfere with building a comprehensive respected reference work. There are several people who regularly create throwaway accounts in this area, attempt to disguise their distinctive writing styles, and lie when caught out; it would seem that the tagging editor thought that he detected something familiar about your post, but I think even he is willing to work with you under an assumption of good faith.
To peer under the Wikipedia hood for a minute, only a bare handful of highly trusted editors who have self-identified to the Wikimedia Foundation have access to the server logs necessary to see whether two accounts are controlled by a single person. The community recently had a bit of an election fubar, and we are severely understaffed in terms of people who have such access (more here if you have some time on your hands). This unfortunately has led to some delay before some volunteer has the time to look, but I believe that the suspected sockpuppets page is the only one that currently lists any suspicion about you. If you would like, drop me a note after that concludes and I can delete the now-removed template from the revision history of your userpage to expunge even that. Best of luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks for the response. I understand that, given the anonymity provided by online accounts in general, sockpuppets can be a challenge to those of you who strive to keep Wikipedia in good order. My main concern is that there is some aspect of my account that will cause this to be an ongoing problem but, as I noted above, it’s not like I spend a tremendous amount of time editing articles. Thanks again - Missionamp (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't edit any page related to global warming or climate change and you will be fine. ATren (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


As long as no one finds out you're a sock of me, then I'll be fine. He'll probably be editing the French wikipedia anyway. Have you seen the editwarring at ANI? Not great! Verbal chat 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait - you? I thought I was a sock of Orange Marlin (who should totally start editing again); my bad, will not happen again. Also - edit warring at AN/I? Classy. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, it's a classy joint (à la Bogart) . You can't be OM, I'm OM. Oh... (I miss him too). Goodnight! Verbal chat 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
He won't be back. Not under that name, anyway. (Email me if you need a less cryptic, but really no more informative answer). Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I am sad about all the drama shortly before OM's retirement, and wish him all the best in any future endeavors, encyclopedic or otherwise. While part of me would love to hear that he is back editing productively and drama-free under a new username, I do not want to know that username (best to make a clean break, I think, than risk faulty memories and hasty editing), nor do I even want to know whether this is the case (edits should speak for themselves on their own quality, so it simply does not matter except for distracting me with speculation and second-guessing); thank you all the same, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I have no idea if he is or isn't editing, and if I did know or suspected anything (which I don't), I wouldn't divulge it. I have the utmost respect for his privacy. All I know is what made him feel he had to quit, and I would be willing to shed just a little light on it to people I knew are his friends. Last I heard (which isn't all that recent), he's well. That's always a concern, I think, when people suddenly disappear. Guettarda (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I did not mean to imply that you would show less than the utmost care when dealing with another editor's personal information. Best regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi, you've got mail. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 13:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What?!? How did you know that? Explain yourself before I ban you and your little dog too!
j/k, obviously :P
On a more amusing note, I just checked the contributions from my current IP address (public locale), and apparently I may be sharing a chair with a banned sockpuppeteer at a few days remove. I would go shoulder-surfing for fellow distracted-by-Wikipedia-ns, but (a) that would be rude and (b) state law only protects minors from exposure to inappropriate images - the rest of us have to look after our own eyeballs. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
And your little dog too? Are you saying that User:KillerChihuahua is Crohnie's sockpuppet?! :) Guettarda (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the whole Puppy Cabal is up to something involving dirty socks, smelly old shoes, gnawing on the rocking chair, and rolling around in the grass ... - 2/0 (cont.) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Data on a Caddie

According to Commodore_Datasette, a 30 minute audio casette, similar, lets say, to an 8 track, could hold 1mb using turbo tape and other fast loaders, whatever those are.

A caddy has, let's say, a 10 foot by 5 foot by 5 foot size, for total area of 250 cubic feet. However, you need a driver to move, so let's take out 50 cubic feet for that. An audio tape is 4 inches by 2.5 inches by .15 inches, or .001 cubic feet (give or take), so you could fit 200,000 audio tapes in your caddie (+ driver), which is 200,000 mbs, or 200 gbs.

Let's get our caddie really going - 80mph. Thus, it takes our caddie is going 116 f/s, which I'll round down to 100 f/s. It takes 10 feet for the whole cabin to move through a point. So, it takes .1 seconds for the caddie to move 200gbs, providing a theoretical "caddie loaded with audiotape" bandwidth of 2 tb per second - assuming you want to move data exactly one carlength, which is exactly how far I want to move data. Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your driver is a bit voluminous, but good enough for a Fermi problem. Also, thank you for reminding me that I fell asleep the other night before I actually finished estimating the volume of my books in barn-furlongs. On the order of 1024; which also reminds me - 2/0 is not allowed at the next Friends of the Library sale until he finishes the books he bought at the last one. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The return of GoRight?

A few months ago, you commented on the indefinite blocking of User:GoRight following this AN/I discussion. A newly created account, User:TheNeutralityDoctor, has been reported to WP:SPI as a possible sockpuppet of GoRight, based on behavioural evidence. Your views would be welcomed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, are you canvassing for support?[1][2][3][4][5][6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
As long as ChrisO has not intentionally left anyone out of a certain group this is a neutral information message and is not canvassing. Polargeo (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
See-also [7] which answers another of AQFK's confusions. More interesting is why AQFK is bothered William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
He did not notify User:Trusilver, User:samj, User:Mlpearc, User:NuclearWarfare, User:Diannaa, User:Enric_Naval, User:Ncmvocalist, User:Count_Iblis, User:ZuluPapa5, User_talk:JzG, User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris, User:Atmoz, User:JzG (Not sure why this link is red, his name is displayed as "Guy"), User:Alexh19740110, User:ATren, User:Beyond_My_Ken, User:Ncmvocalist, User:Dayewalker and User:Atama. All of them participated in the previous discussion.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks then this is potentially selective and should be dealt with by equally informing the other participants with the same message. Polargeo (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@AQFK: Oh, give me a break. How on Earth would this sort of message be inappropriate canvassing at all? "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive. What community discussion is being held at the SPI? None at all. NW (Talk) 12:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I think this is easily dealt with. No blatant canvassing occured but if AQFK wishes to inform other users with a similar neutral message then that solves their issues. Polargeo (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the burden of cleaning up after ChrisO should fall on me. He's an experienced editor and should know better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to 'clean up' after. It's not a vote. If it's sockpuppetry, it's something that needs people to help clean up after. There's nothing inappropriate except, perhaps, annoying people who don't really care. And if any of the people Chris notified are annoyed that he did, they're all capable of telling him so themselves. Guettarda (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@AQFK It does not appear that ChrisO is trying to stack votes. He has simply informed several people, in a very neutral way, who may be knowledgeable about the situation. If you wish to inform others then that is a quick solution. It will take you a lot less time than arguing about it here. Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't a participant of that previous discussion, but based on the wording of ChrisO's notice, it appears as if he only contacted editors who proposed, supported or were willing to discuss an indefinite ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. However, the ban has happened, a possible sock has turned up. ChrisO has informed those who took part in the banning action to review the sock (do they think this is the same user?). I agree this may be a little one sided but it is still not a clear violation of WP:CANVASS and is best dealt with by informing everyone who you think is interested. This is something I have often done myself in the past rather than argue about canvass. Polargeo (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I specifically confined myself to notifying the admins who participated and one non-admin (Tony Sidaway) who proposed the ban in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Be a little more careful next time as admins should not have a greater status than non-admins except in situations wikipedia has allowed this, such as use of admin tools (obviously). Even then these should be used per consensus (not just admin consensus) Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
And as this is a situation where the use of admin tools is involved (the indefinite blocking of a user and the potential blocking of another user), contacting admins is appropriate. Contrary to what AQFK claims, I did in fact also ask JzG and Atama. There is nothing exceptional or unusual about this - it's simply a request for second opinions from admins with prior experience of dealing with sockpuppets and of dealing with this particular user. The only reason why we're even discussing this is because AQFK has, as usual, assumed bad faith. I can't be held responsible when another editor assumes bad faith and jumps to the wrong conclusions. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not holding you responsible. I don't think you have canvassed. I am just saying that any user may have an opinion on this not just admins. This is just a thought to take forward from here. Polargeo (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, let me make sure I understand you correctly. According to this edit,[9] you stated that "I specifically confined myself to notifying the admins who participated and one non-admin (Tony Sidaway) who proposed the ban in the first place." So, editors who defended GoRight were excluded from notification, and you selectively notified editors who proposed, supported or willing to entertain an indefinite topic ban? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As the user who indefinitely blocked GoRight, discussed unblocking conditions at great length, acceded to another admin's unblocking offer, and then participated in the community ban discussion, I would say that notifying me of this was a reasonable action; the above discussion seems to hash out any other potential canvassing concerns reasonably well. I think that this is very likely our proxy-abusing friend, which together with other behavioral concerns is likely to result in a block independent of any potential links with GoRight. I am concerned that superficial idiosyncracies are trivial to mimic and require only a little slogging to identify. Otherwise I do not really have anything to add, as the CU is already endorsed. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't everyone who was involved contacted? Was anyone who was sympathetic to GoRight notified and encouraged to participate? We have specific policies to discourage this: WP:Canvassing and WP:Votestacking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
SPI isn't a vote. Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Further, why would people symapthetic to GoRight have an opinion different than others on this issue? It seems you're arguing that if you agree without GoRight about content you would tend to exculpate him from sockery. I'm shocked that you assume such bad faith from people you agree with. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
AQFK: when has anything ever been done even handed here? Why are you so surprised that canvassing is perfectly acceptable when one of the "good guys" does it? ATren (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is AFQN following Chris around rather than simply asking him? When asked he gave a perfectly reasonable explanation above. I also fail to see the problem here. Verbal chat 20:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea where AFQN came from. I meant AQFK. Verbal chat 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably errant signals from some radio station like AFN Yoorp that we used to get on the wireless as an alternative to Radio Luxembourg when we couldn't stand the Light Programme any more. Sorta like Radio Free Albemuth. . . dave souza, talk 20:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia works by discussion and consensus-building. Selectively inviting only editors who you think will agree with you subverts the process. I asked ChrisO if he would rectify the situation by notifying all the editors,[10] but ChrisO responded by deleting the message.[11] Maybe someone else can ask him if he would be willing to notify all the editors he skipped? This seems like a perfectly reasonable solution. I'd rather not file a RfE if I don't have to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please do file a RfE, then everyone can tell you again that you're wrong. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
What you did there, AQFK, was attack him. He's already explained it, and it's been explained to you that he didn't canvass. Verbal chat 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think he would actually be so stupid as to file a request for enforcement despite being told by everyone that he's wrong, but here it is: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#ChrisO. I'd say this has crossed the line into harassment. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

  • As a general comment to everyone involved in this argument (not directed at any one participant in particular), I think John Cusack said it best. MastCell Talk 21:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"I didn't think he would actually be so stupid as to file a request for enforcement" Sorry, Chris, you didn't really leave me much of a choice. I gave you an out. All you had to do was to notify the other editors, and this could have been resolved amicably. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You could have done it, as you were invited to. Less work than filing the RfE and makes you look bad. And the very misleading "quote" should be amended by you. Verbal chat 22:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please respect my request that this discussion be continued elsewhere if at all. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why should I have to clean up after ChrisO? He had an opportunity to correct his mistake but choose not to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is my intention not to be further involved with this sub-issue. Can discussion of it please continue at another venue? I am ordinarily happy to host polite productive discussions, but I think that everything that can be said here has been. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
@dave souza - neato, I did not know that Tim Powers and Philip K. Dick knew each other. Especially with Last Call and some of his short stories I can see it, though. I have not yet reached Radio Free Albemuth in working through Dick's oeuvre - should I move it up in the queue? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your 3RR closure

Good work there. Sweetpoet had posted to my talk page but I hadn't had time to do anything. I agree with your decision. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :). - 2/0 (cont.) 22:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this. And I liked your talk page preferences banner so much I put a modified version on my talk page. So thanks for that, too! Novaseminary (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
May it serve you well. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have had some terrible issues with Sweetpoet and his personal attacks on my talk page, I haven't logged into wiki for some time because of the troubles I was experiencing. If you have a look at the log on my talk page you'll see he undid my removal of his abusive language (on the talk page) and even undid my archive bot request before it had time to execute. He also edit warred nearly all contributions made to the Nontrinitarianism article; I never attempted to edit it once I saw him revert, and took it to the talk page, where he was extremely disruptive and unhelpful to the many editors participating in the discussion. Is it possible to lodge a separate complaint regarding his treatment of me or are these matters now too stale? He certainly seems to be on a roll here, and I'm worried about further disruption from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retran (talkcontribs) 09:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I expect that they are stale, though if you wish to file a request for comment they may help establish any long-term pattern. I would recommend against starting any such proceeding while the user is blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not to pile on here, but after you (2/0) blocked Swewetpoet, he placed this rant on his talk calling me a "nutball", "maniac", and "INSUFFERABLE TARD". He later removed the post with an equally charming edit summary. Anything else that can be done? This was just on his own user talk, though he has been almost as uncivil on other editor's talk pages and article talk pages. Novaseminary (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I did see it, thank you. Such posts and edit summaries are neither good nor really acceptable, but traditionally recently blocked editors are granted wide leeway, particularly when they later self-revert. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

An official invitation, no less

OTRS Wikimedia.svg
The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our permissions, photosubmissions, and info-en queues. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider seeking approval at the volunteering page. Thank you. NW (Talk) 12:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I am touched, thank you. I would not like to start a new project while I am not able to offer timely replies, but I expect to be taking a deeper look at this in not more than two weeks. Comment post-dated comment so this thread does not slip into the brink - 2/0 (cont.) 04:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Global warming scam endorsed by the global elites.

Hide the decline controversy:

The video music of Hide the decline is catchy! Have a listen / view...

Could this be used in an article about the debate?

It is extremely amusing video. The fox news story indicates that the investigation of Hockey Stick-gate was pretty superficial (i.e., a cover-up) where expert investigations were forbidden to challenge the hide the decline guru's science closely in any open fashion. Seems not very transparent to me? And seems to be further evidence of fraud and cover-up of the entire processes involved in the brewing debate that some political and financially interested parties (including birth certificate / power usurper Obama) say is more settled than Einstein's theories of relativity.

The world bank / world monetary fund and similar such organizations sponsored the idea of cutting down the amazon rain forests to bring about agricultural production in the various countries there. Estimates of the destruction were done very poorly. When agricultural crops failed, and the rain forests would not regrow rapidly, then whose fault was that? I think that it was the elite money men who sponsored those wild ideas that turned out wrongly. Are not these same elite rich guys are involved in sponsoring the climate change science and the ideas that AGW is settled? Shame on me if I am tricked again by Rothschilds handy work to bring about carbon taxes and a Global Environmental Facility (bank). What is the cause of AGW? My guess is that it is the deforestation of the rain forests by the IMF / World Bank / supporters of carbon credit exchanges, carbon taxation and of CO2 causing global warming! Makes me think scam every time I look at it. They create the problem, offer a fake solution that they want, then it gets implemented, they get the money, and the problem is never properly addressed? Oldspammer (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, when you keep perseverating about "elite money men", New York bankers, the Rothschilds, and their shadowy manipulation of world events, you start to sound like... well, I don't want to violate Godwin's Law, so I'll stop there. It's a little creepy, though. MastCell Talk 07:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there a corollary to Godwin's Law about mentioning Godwin's Law? I'd look but I'm afraid there probably is. I don't pretend to understand Godwin's Law, only to enforce it. Verbal chat 10:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Still waiting for my check. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You must set the secret decoder ring to "Green, Alpha, Alpha, Sirius, Kabbalah" for pick-up instructions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you'll start on a blocking rampage for daring to question an admin but the people should know. It shouldn't be just the ARBCOM discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious

Hi, no problem, just curious if you got my email about an now blocked editor? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From the 30th? Oui - you are very kind, and I should probably respond one of these days. I think I read it over lunch, and by the time five o'clock (metaphorically) rolled around ... Are you keeping well? I am not really around much right now, but I like to keep in touch.
Too long for an edit summary pun - ATLAS experiment pop-up book provides evidence for extra dimensions, no felid is safe. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes I realize you aren't here that much which is why I sent the email. I figured you should be able to enjoy editing than having a discussion that would go no where. :) I'm doing ok, my mother took a nasty fall and scared us half to death. We've been doing all her running and tending to her needs. She'll be 80 this year, fractured her shoulder in three places but doesn't need surgery. Now how amazing is that! She is in better health at her age than I am. She is healing, slowly of course, but actually doing quite well I think. She has another appointment this Friday so I should know then how things are going. I have to admit, taking care of her, my husband and myself is actually quite exhausting. I put a notice up on my talk page because I'm not here that much either. Thanks for asking, you stay well, and that's an order! :) Talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)



All good, thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at an edit at Michael E. Mann article?

Can you take a look at this revert [12]. As far as I see they remove (all three reverts [13][14][15]) the main point ("Mann says that not all global warming science is settled" per source archived) as discussed at the talk page[16]. Is this disruptive behavior? Nsaa (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look, but this will likely take a bit longer than firing off a quick response to the below. If it needs it in the meantime, please feel free to request page protection. So far as I know, nobody disputes the point that the precise details of climate science remain to be worked out or refined, which based solely on your above statement I would guess is the context here. Please do whatever you can to keep that article calm, collegial, and productive in the meantime. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
As long as the parties continue talking and the incipient edit war does not boil over, I would call this a good faith dispute on the best presentation of a particular source. Then again, I may be applying an unusually high threshold since I think I still want to avoid this topic area for a while longer. Feel free to raise this or related issues at one of the content noticeboards, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, or some other venue in the dispute resolution chain. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Could you drop by sometime soon. The section you commented in on my talk page has deteriorated. Best, Verbal chat 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I have worked with Wolfkeeper on a couple of physics and associated articles, and had marked them down in the Reasonable column. I am really not sure where that mess is coming from. I like the compromise formulation in the current article using neither, but then - I would. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


{{Talkback}} 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paranoia self-destroyer

You have protected our Climategate article citing sockpuppet concerns.[17] Can you please explain what's going on here? User:Wealths wealth makes one edit[18] and he/she is automatically accused of being a sockpuppet?[19] What happened to being welcoming and assuming good faith? This is not how we are supposed to treat newbies. Do you have any evidence that this editor is a sockpuppet? If so, please present it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That was confusing. The climategate page isn't protected. Do you think you could learn how to spell Climatic Research Unit email controversy, it would make things so much easier. I notice that a number of other "skeptics" have similar spelling troubles William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
@AQFK - The sockpuppet investigation is here. There are several currently unblocked accounts in that report; I am confident to one degree or another that some of them are being operated by a banned sockpuppeteer, but I reserve "block on sight" for the really obvious cases. If you would like to understand how this is an obvious case, please show due diligence by reviewing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby/Archive, comparing the edit patterns with the user in question.
I also, as a matter of practice, prefer not to semi-protect an article due to sockpuppetry unless there are at least 2–4 non-autoconfirmed socks in the recent history.
On a side note, please link to the article you mean when referring to a specific article (as opposed to topic, in which case I really could not care less). The pedant in me will thank you.
@WMC - I actually do not think that AQFK is a climate skeptic, though I think they weigh in towards the inclusionist end of the editing philosophy scale. Also, I would appreciate it if you would avoid disingenuous mockery on my talkpage. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
This says otherwise. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Really? How so? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't read Minor4th comment in detail. #2 is a classical sceptic position, which isn't supported by fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see the source of your confusion. I said "fairly accurate", not "perfectly accurate" or "100# accurate". Minor4th makes several points. I agree with his point about having to make a disclaimer is proof of how hostile the environment is, as well as points 1, 3 and 4 (except banning one editor isn't enough). I am sympathetic to 5. Point 2 is a content issue, not conduct, and ArbCom has made it clear that they will not rule on content. But your failure to assume good faith is duly noted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I found both Guettarda's and KimDabelsteinPetersen comments to be particularly ironic given the title of this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? I saw your question, and tried to deduce the answer, which seemed rather clear. I'm btw. rather confused about where i should have failed to assume good faith? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
So you think Guettarda was wrong and you were just trying to explain why he made this mistake? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You are confusing my comment with taking a stand. I have nothing invested in this, and quite frankly have no interest in doing so. It seems to have been you who didn't assume good faith. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and accept your explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
{EC}WMC: I will learn how to spell "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" as soon as reliable sources start using this term. Until then, I will be as neutral as possible and refer to this scandal as "Climategate" just like the rest of world. I'm not sure where "other 'skeptics'" is coming from considering that I've repeatedly defended the mainstream viewpoint regarding the Climategate scandal. In any case, none of this explains why 2/0 has blocked an editor as being a sockpuppet. Is there any evidence to support his accusation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
@2/0: sorry (but I disagree with your charactierisation of AQFK; see my evidence, e.g. [20]). @AQFK: is there evidence? Yes, all in plain sight. But see-also WP:BEANS William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
WMC: Your evidence is underwhelming: one comment from 6 months ago about FOI requests which has nothing to do with the larger issue of CC. Perhaps you are arguing that everyone who agrees with the FOIA is automatically a CC skeptic? That seems quite illogical, IMHO. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to disagree, and you're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary. I don't feel any great inclination to provide a pile of ancillary diffs. Or you may feel that being asked to take the loyalty oath is degrading. But you now know my opinion. I'm always happy to revise in the face of contrary evidence William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
AQFK - you should know by now, any deviance from dogma and you are labeled a heretic skeptic. ATren (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually I think that page would be a good candidate for the flagged revs trial (or whatever it is they're calling it these days). Guettarda (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, the best way to keep an article from being messed with is to write it in such a fair, balanced, and neutral manner that most people can't take issue with it. If that had been the approach taken with the AGW articles starting in 2004, we probably wouldn't have all the bickering that's going on now. I'm not saying that means "equal weight" for everything. Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Right - stop the POV pushing by the same 4 or 5 editors and the problem goes away. ATren (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
@Guettarda - Personally, I favor flagged revisions for all articles, but I think that the current trial is focusing more on articles that receive many productive and non-productive non-autoconfirmed edits, like most pop-culture topics or anything covered in basic high school classes. Feel free to propose it, though, as I am not really involved in that side of the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Level of involvement

As you have commented here, could you please state your level of involvement (if any) next to your support/oppose/comment in that discussion? Although all input would/should be considered, this will help clarify a community consensus from a local consensus among involved users. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, and thank you for staying on top of this. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Child psychotherapy

You protected this article because of sockpuppetry; it seems to have started again. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, same guy. Semi-protected for a while longer, and Elockid nabbed the sock. Thanks for the heads up. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know

I suggested that you should be formally reminded to communicate over at an ArbCom evidence page. I explained a while back why I thought your two-week block (eventually vacated) was in poor taste and ignored the principles of admin communications and evidence-based actions (see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability, and footnote 6). I realize you were moving and so you couldn't respond to the repeated requests by several users to explain your actions in more detail than "WP:BADFAITH" (ironic?), but the initial action was very poorly thought out and no evidence-based explanation was ever provided that I saw. So in my evidence section I recommended that ArbCom admonish and clarify that your type of action is really not up to par. I realize that you probably feel (and may in fact be) safe and immune from consequences because you are apparently defending the "mainstream" or "morally right" position, but I think you are wise enough to admit when you're wrong and I hope you work towards doing more research and coming up with diffs prior to major actions. I empathize with the tediousness of the work but one or two illustrative diffs, or at least a two or three sentence non-generic non-alphabet-soup narrative, is absolutely necessary.

I remember I made a derogatory remark about you without notification a while back and you asked me to let you know if I do it in the future. Sorry for the delay in giving you a heads-up - I have no good excuse. II | (t - c) 04:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I am not monitoring that page, but I will take a look over there in a day or two. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


I see you've blocked User:Jsolebello as a Scibaby. You may well be right, poissonally I'm not totally convinced in this case. I'm not suggesting you reverse your action, just letting you know William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

They sent me an email last night that did not sound like Scibaby, so I have unblocked. Drat, time to spend some more time practicing by reviewing the archives. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Ask Boris for the sekret decoder ring, I think he has a few spares William M. Connolley (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Toni Braxton

It is very unlikely that the I.P. user is willing to work things out on this, as they quickly did a 4th revert on the changes to Ms. Braxton's birth year before you locked the page. Besides my own private research through hired experts, I also found several pages of other online legal records(ex. Intelius) dating her age as currently 43 this month. That obviously means in 3 months she will be a 44 year old, which someone born on 10/7/67 wouldn't be. I do not consider media sources to be reliable as the artist or her PR people could easily lie to make her seem slightly younger. From accurate research, not based on solely third party sources, I have found Toni Michelle Braxton to be born on October 7, 1966 in Severn, Anne Arundel County, Maryland to Michael and Evelyn Braxton. Many legitimate sites go by that date or list ambiguously c.1966, or 1967.Carmaker1 (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I read your arguments over there, thank you, and briefly searched to confirm that one date or the other was not blatantly and obviously inferior. My talk page, however, is not a good place to discuss content for that article. Please make your case at Talk:Toni Braxton (with appropriate reference to old discussion); if a consensus of editors there agree that the date you have found is substantially more likely to be the correct one, please add {{editprotected}} or request page unprotection. It may be helpful to request outside input at the Reliable sources noticeboard or WikiProject R&B and Soul Music or another appropriate WikiProject. Having had a thorough discussion, it will be much easier to point to prior consensus next time this question arises. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

DPeterson socks

Hi. I've started another one here for a certain User:Mexico-Fred buti'm not sure if I got it right as it doesn't appear on the SPI page. Fainites barleyscribs 22:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the same user - blocked. I copied the case you opened and deleted your page, as I think your second thought was the correct one. Several of these often show up around the same time, so I am asking for a sleeper check. Keep up the good work, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It's nice to have some other people on the job too as I am on UK hours and he often socks during the UK night. I assume he reckons it is worth having his spam advertised all over wiki for at least a few hours a week! A lot of similar and also defamatory spamming goes on off wiki too - sometimes using the same names.Fainites barleyscribs 09:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the CC proposal summary

Thanks for the CC proposal summary - I was struggling to read through all the proposals, and it was a struggle. While the sheer volume is still a challenge, the organization makes it easier to read. --SPhilbrickT 11:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree completely :). I am wondering if there is some way to encourage more actual workshopping on such pages (step one would be to be proactive myself, I suppose, but the longer a discussion grows the more I want to be sure that my contribution is really adding something not already present or implicit) - I was disappointed by the number of posts consisting almost solely of this sucks, in so many words (often with the implied you suck, which may explain part of the problem). There were a couple of counter-proposals, but no solid system for discussing them as a unit. I assume the drafters will read the profusion of proposals stating, in essence, civility is great, collegiality is good, let's go write some articles, picking out the language they think most pertinent to this case. I cannot help but wonder, though, if there might be some better way to encourage people to work on one final case together, or at least only two or three, instead of one per proposer. Ah, well, back to wondering if there is enough really relevant encyclopedic information about δ-carotene to get a DYK out of it. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you guys referring to this?[21] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That is the one. I announced it the other day over at the /Workshop talkpage, I cannot imagine how anybody could have missed that :). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another one

Here. Tried to get it on the right page this time. There must be an easier way! Fainites barleyscribs 11:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Zapped by Elockid. A couple more articles semi-protections, whee; I am still waiting for the results of the pending changes trial before I deal that out, especially on a lowish edit-traffic article (Lar, are you still watching this page? Do you agree?). Do you know anything about the edit filter? I think a good chunk of these would be amenable to machine-filtering; there might be performance issues with a proliferation of single-target filter conditions, though, I am not sure. I am also not sure that persistent sock puppetry would be within the remit of ClueBot or any of those, but it might be worth checking. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Worth a try. This been going on for 2 years now, with the whole sock mob in charge for the year before that.Fainites barleyscribs 21:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Something you can do that I can't

Hi, I just ran across this. editor. I rollbacked the edits to the Bell, CA article but the new article that this editor wrote needs a speedy from someone like you due to major BLP violations. Would you mind saving me the hassle? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been taken care of, however, it seems that the story checks out, a rename and some more refs could have saved it. Unomi (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but after the editor put the name and crook in multiple places in the Bell, CA article I took it as vandalism only and didn't read it. I have no problem having it rewritten the correct way though. Thank you for tending to it. I'm done for the night. It's been a long day for me and I have a giant heating pad waiting for me with my name on it. :) Thanks again Unomi, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Sleep well :). Unomi (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Cleared while I was out dating - go wiki model of editing :). - 2/0 (cont.) 06:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User Texasreb

You blocked this user here [22] based on my referral. The user's first edit to the article after his block was this edit [23]. This is a repetition of one of the edits that was part of the original 3RR violation which I reported (see here [24]). It appears the edit war has been resumed despite the block and the warnings. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This was an entirely appropriate request, and the formatting is particularly appreciated. I apologize that I was not around to investigate it in a timely manner. Texasreb has currently not edited for about a day and a half, but do please let me know or request at the appropriate venue if there are any further matters. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 12:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


{{talkback }} (sdsds - talk) 22:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that I deleted one of the articles at that discussion? I do not remember specifically, but ideally the url of the WP:COPYVIO should be in the deletion statement, or at the very least in the requesting edit. I doubt I can provide any particular perspective other than the ability to view deleted edits, but do please let me know if you would like me to comment further. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


I am not sure what to advise here, but I am wondering in you could pay a visit the talk page of User: and give him some encouragement to learn better WP:Civil. This editor is just back from a 3 day block of yours. This comment[25] to the talk page was rude, which is an issue on that talk page because personal attacks are disruptive to the work of improving the encyclopedia. Also, this edit[26] was a "edit war" edit, and that is disruptive because we are trying there to first build consensus on the talk page prior to making major contributions in article space. Thanks for you attention to this matter. SaltyBoatr get wet 00:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think, unfortunately, that there seem to be more issues at that page than can really be solved by a few quick words or button toggles on my part, sorry (also, sorry for the delay - real life intervened). I think that it is beyond my abilities to shepherd that article into a normal editing environment, and I fear that I would muddy the waters for the worse were I to try. I also prefer to avoid civility blocks unless an account descends to the level of pure vandalism, though modeling the behaviour you would like to see in return is always a good idea. You may wish to request input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Law or one of the other WikiProjects listed at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, or initiate a request for comment; in either case, a neutral statement of the issue at hand followed by your take on the matter is most likely to attract interest. My apologies if you have already attempted these mechanisms; with such a contentious topic, I would not be surprised if the best solution might be to full protect the article while the parties discuss at mediation. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 12:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


{{talkback |User_talk:Greggydude}}

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


{{talkback|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring|User: reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: protected)}}

Replied, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blood irradiation therapy

Regarding this revert to Photopheresis, apparently you see Blood irradiation therapy as 'fringe theory'. May I ask what is the basis for your view? --Dyuku (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Blood irradiation therapy sums it up pretty nicely, as does the article itself. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any such summary either at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Blood irradiation therapy or in the article itself. So is your opinion based on some reliable sources? What are they? --Dyuku (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User InternetHero

Starting with this edit by InternetHero (talk · contribs) and his talk page discussion about it, I took a look at his other edits. Today he reverted Siege of Fort Meigs, a well-referenced article using 12 sources, to his preferred November 2008 version with only one, using the edit summary "Bitch". As you were one of the editors at that time trying to stop him from keeping his version, I thought I'd like your comments on his recent actions. I've warned him on his talk page about this and adding personal comments to a BLP. I'm not sure if there is a serious problem here or a minor one. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, on my talk page he's threatening to get a sock puppet. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, I got involved in that one following a Third opinion request at Telescope. That experience coupled with their edits today lead me to conclude that InternetHero is just not a good fit for this project. I do not feel clever enough at the moment to give any warning or advice that might actually do any good, and I am opposed on principle to merely following forms (though if you are reading this, InternetHero, I recommend that you slow down and take greater care with your edits, being particularly mindful of WP:5). I believe that similar issues with this user have been raised at WP:ANI before. If the BLP comments get too out of hand, I would support an out of process block. Please let me know if you pursue either of the last two cases. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposing an edit

Hello, I'd like to change the last line of the Lyme disease intro to "A group of experts say that current scientific evidence...". What the evidence indicates is debatable, as is the process by which it has been translated into expert opinion. But there's no debating that "a group of experts say that...". I'm guessing you (and the WP:MED editors responsible for the article) haven't examined the published evidence, so it would be more accurate to indicate that the statement is based on authority only - which of course is entirely acceptable for Wikipedia purposes. Better yet would be to omit the statement entirely - it's begging one of the questions at the heart of the controversy. But you put it in there, and I'm sure you have some reason. Any problem with my proposed change? Postpostmod (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Please direct this discussion to Talk:Lyme disease#Chronic in lead. Please refrain from speculating on the motives and dedication of your fellow volunteers. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Say what?

I'm sorry you didn't like what I said, I meant it literally, not as a criticism. My honest interpretation of WP:MEDRS is that it's not standard to look at data, only reviews. That would mean not examining the published evidence, only summaries of conclusions, as is given in reviews. And I'm only suggesting the modification because I'm assuming you don't want to delete the statement entirely, since if you did you wouldn't have added it. In other words, you must have some reason, so it would be disrespectful of me to simply delete the statement, rather than suggest a way to keep it in and still be accurate.

Again, I'm very sorry if I inadvertently insulted you. I'm a scientist, living in a Lyme endemic area, just coming to grips with how WP:MED does its work.

Best wishes, Postpostmod (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite right about WP:MEDRS. We're certainly allowed to look at, and even cite, "primary" papers and data. What we're not allowed to do is to select and present that data in a way that advances our own interpretation over that of expert secondary sources (e.g. reviews, statements by major medical/scientific bodies, etc). The point is not to avoid the underlying data - the point is that we have to be careful not to (mis)use it to produce an editorial synthesis that conflicts with the synthesis of recognized, reputable experts and expert bodies. MastCell Talk 18:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not particularly attached to that statement one way or the other, hence waiting a month since proposing it, but I think that per WP:LEAD we should probably have some mention of the subject in the lead. Please feel free to delete the sentence with a clear rationale regarding why the article would be better without it (preferably posted at Talk:Lyme disease#Chronic in lead, though an edit summary could be enough if you are better at writing concisely than I am).
I think that WP:MEDRS is slightly more nuanced than that - we should prefer the reviews when they are better sources, but should not deprecate individual studies entirely. We as editors are required to refrain from adding our own interpretations to any source, though, which I think squares with your point on not looking at the data directly. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Copied it over to Lyme discussion, and replied there. Thanks for quick responses! Regards, Postpostmod (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, and thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


Who's the sockmaster? I see several other very possible socks. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Banned access

This is a share computer with about 2,000 other users, many of which are yuppies, communists and other people who WP:DGAF about following guidelines. It appears you blocked me for reasons to do with another user! Is that correct?? In the future, would you be so kind as to leave a note on my talk page b4 blocking my account? As an admin, I don't see you can't WP:AGF for a fellow user, who has never vandalized anything b4. Kcchief915 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Hello, 2over0. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NW (Talk) 01:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, the article Indian Ocean University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted back in June by yourself due to copyright problems. There is an outstanding OTRS request (dating to June) relating to the article that may make it suitable for userfication if the only reason for was copyright infringement. Could you take a look at the deleted version and advise? The reference is Ticket#: 2010062910010977. Thanks, (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Survey on gender

Hi! I'm Liria Veronesi (User:Akoha77) and, together with Paolo Massa (User:Phauly), I'm starting an empirical research on "Gender and votes in requests for adminship". For this reason, we need to know the gender of Wikipedians who were candidated to become admins.

We tried looking for the templates User:UBX/male and User:UBX/female but only 4 admins use it. We also used the API for getting the gender field in the profile but, out of 1744 admins, only around 400 have filled this field. But we would benefit from a larger coverage, i.e. possibly knowing the gender of 100% of candidates.

So, after asking for advise to 3 admins and receiving 2 positive replies (1 and 2), we decided to try to ask directly to Wikipedians.

Thus, would you be so kind to write your gender [Male / Female / Other], together with a text comment if you want, on my talk page at User_talk:Akoha77? If you prefer to send me this information privately, you can send me an email, the information will be kept confidential and never shared.

Thanks! Akoha77 (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


Aha, you found it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Although that did remove the implication in those two redlinks that creating a page about untouchable issues is itself an issue deserving of the caper toss treatment. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Use easter eggs! Hmm, tasty. WP:TENFOOTPOLE -Atmoz (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
How is the weather in London, anyway? - 2/0 (cont.) 15:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The Possum Drop

Sorry, I had though there was a bot that automatically notified people if their article was suggested for Speedy Deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Elena Gadel

Hi, I accept your apology but the stub is a clear copyvio of {}. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted my CSD, I see now that NME has used the Wikipedia article. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to eliminate confusion regarding two pages

There are a couple of pages whose names are quite similar, Hyborian Age (which is about the fictional universe created by author Robert E. Howard as the setting for his Conan stories) and The Hyborian Age (the essay originally written by Howard about the setting), and it causes some confusion when trying to figure out which is which even for me (and I visit the former quite frequently), so I want to suggest a solution to alleviate this confusion.

  • What I propose is that the pages be renamed to Hyborian Age (essay) for the page about the essay, and Hyborian Age (fictional universe) for the page about the universe itself. I think this would be the best naming pattern for them because it provides each one a title with clear visual distinction regarding its content during a search.

Please respond to me on my talk page regarding this issue when you have a few minutes. Thank you for your time. Spartan198 (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit of Faith healing: reference to Benors' analysis of clinical trials


You reverted (on 23:20, 17 September 2010) my edit of the Faith healing article taking out the reference to Benors analysis of trials citing WP:MEDRS. (I had assumed that using an analysis of trials rather than quoting the results of one trial would "average out" a variation in each trials' results.) Would you be able to offer any advice about obtaining a suitable analysis of trials - what websites / search hints?.

Thank you,

Adrian-from-london (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, any decent biomedical journal will be indexed by PubMed and searchable here. I believe they have a tutorial explaining the fields and the use of limiters such as database or field or date of publication. Once you find a paper that covers information relevant to the topic about which you want to write, searching by the key words listed for that paper can help you retrieve additional relevant results. Though results are often incomplete (especially when a reference is not well-formed), I also find it helpful to use the 'find papers that cite this paper' function of Google Scholar and some databases. Searching out other papers lets you see the state of the relevant field as a whole so that our articles can reflect that rather than being a mere amalgam of whichever papers editors happen across. Always read the original paper before citing it; abstracts and especially lay summaries may be misleading.
For covering aspects of a topic related to the history or the sociological impact, PubMed is less useful. The same advice regarding searching out additional sources to gain an understanding of the field as a whole continues to apply, though.
On the issue of well-formed citations, you may find these tools I have bookmarked on my user page helpful.
On this particular paper, you are absolutely correct that reviews are, with some caveats, preferred to individual studies. One of those caveats is that pretty much any paper from 1990 is likely to be of only historical interest. As more papers are published, they will be summarized by updated reviews. Quality and historical importance are also concerns, but as a general rule of thumb it is best to consider only the most recent few reviews. Reviews can use different methodologies and examine slightly different questions, though, so it is important not to throw out a good source solely based on the publication of a new review.
It is always worthwhile to consider the source of any paper you consider citing. Complementary Medical Research (now Complementary Therapies in Medicine) was founded by the Research Council for Complementary Medicine, though apparently they have been taken up by Elsevier now; I am not sure off hand who published it in 1990. Reviewing Benor's oeuvre, I would be wary of citing him for anything other than his own opinion; his opinion may be relevant in a few articles, but should always be properly attributed.
This review is a very good source, as it is relatively recent and comprehensive, explains its methodology transparently, and is published by the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration.
Hope this helps, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey

Shubinator (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
Message added 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring

Why have you not warned QuackGuru re edit warring. This is biased and a completely unacceptable violation of wikipedia's guidelines re edit warring - he is also involved in the edit war. QuackGuru is reverting without discussion against wikipedia's guidelines. Please see Talk:Chiropractic#Systematic_review_about_safety --Javsav (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment there. In case it is not clear, my admin hat is firmly in the corner on this and all other alternative medicine articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Open Gallery

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy to :). The deleted talkpage is associated with the article that was A7ed previously, so I have not restored that. There was anyway no content but for a WikiProject London tag. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added the OTRS tag now. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


just as a point of information user:The_Transhumanist has four times as many edits as you do, so hitting him with a newbie template is a bit rude. I'm not defending him, mind you, just pointing out the obvious. --Ludwigs2 06:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See my edit notice, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean by that - I'm quite aware that this is a user talk page, which is all your edit notice seems to say - but c'est la vie. no real need to explain, because I have no real interest in pursuing the issue further. --Ludwigs2 07:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that was unduly cryptic of me. I am aware of the essay in question, but disagree with its advice. In my edit notice, I state my preference that other editors template me, as the wording of the templates has been carefully crafted. That article has been subject to several moves over the years, and the most recent one was rather protracted. See you on talk if the move discussion continues. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi, please delete these articles:,_District_1_-_Southern_Election,_2008 And then please delete my first 3 contributions.

And then delete (totally, so it does not show up in history) this post, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBLibertarian (talkcontribs) 08:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

who made you admin

No matter who reports this user has violated the rules

DO you have any reson why you declined. do you know what is violation of rules ?

if you dont know the rules why dont you leave this issues to any experienced administrator-- LONTECH  Talk  18:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Brief note

Hi, thanks for your reasonable judgement in the report filed against me by Lontech. I had been drafting a paragraph during which time you were working on his request; as I submitted it, it was held up in an edit conflict, I then sent it through but then I came to realise that its clash was with your decline of his request. Does my block need to stay? Or shall I remove it? I was only pointing out the thread to his behaviour that you have already noticed. Evlekis (Евлекис) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It is probably best just to leave it for posterity, but feel free to remove it if you would like. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Well if it is not in anyone elses way then fine! I just wish for it to be known that my first contribution was not a restoration of my own work, so it wasn't a "true" revert; the second was different to the first because I had amended it, so I wasn't reverting the same thing, that was what I was trying to say in that wall of text. Thanks all the same. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Just for your own interest, another user User:Sulmues has since made a contribution to the Kosovo article, moving Enric's version down the page; Enric in turn edited mine; I had hitherto softened the original by Cinema C. I feel that these have all been positive contributions and I believe that there is no further reason for any user to "remove" the material or dismiss it as "POV" (NeroN BG having made an intermediate edit). The history is here. I sense no conflict now. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I need explanation or i'll report you

what kind of reason is this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lontech What has to do this wtih 1RR violation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talkcontribs) 18:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Evlekis reported by User:Lontech (Result: declined) (permalink).
I reviewed the history and relevant talk surrounding the current flare up at Kosovo, and decided that neither blocking any involved editor nor protecting the article would represent the optimal solution at this juncture. I also considered warning certain parties, but all seem to be aware that the article is both contentious and subject to special sanctions. The link to AE is merely convenience for anyone else who reviews the situation.
If you would like to request a review of this decision, I believe that the best place to do so would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you initiate a thread there, please notify me. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 20:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded there.--Terrillja talk 20:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Thread copied from User talk:Reisio#iPad

If you have an issue with the use of the wordmark, take it to the talkpage there. It has already been discussed and consensus was to keep as it is now.--Terrillja talk 07:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCC, though I wouldn't personally call it a matter of consensus, unless there is some consensus to abuse infoboxes and in other ways make Wikipedia discontinuous, which I'm fairly certain is not the case. Maybe YouTube should have an embedded video instead of its name atop its infobox? Maybe NASA should have a dancing astronaut GIF on its? …or maybe not. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring isn't going to change anything. It's a wordmark, not a .gif. Grow up.--Terrillja talk 07:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I call it maintaining consistency, a word that comes up a lot at WP:MOS. Why does this page say you're offline if you're not? :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already been warned about this. Why are you continuing to remove the wordmark without further discussion? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Warned about what? Terrillja warned me (threatened, really, and then called me a vandal at WP:AIV, only to have the listing dismissed) about violating some irrelevant non-consensus he seems to have taken part in. What are you warning me about? You've yet to say, despite having been explicitly asked to. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Terrillja talk 18:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, please do not start a redundant section at that board; it is sufficient to calmly and neutrally present your side in the same section beneath the original report. It is anyway incumbent on the reviewing admin to examine the edits of all involved parties. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly trust admins to do their jobs (an unfortunate result of a fair amount of experience), but since you ask, should this happen again, I will attempt to once more give the benefit of the doubt, at least initially. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


You blocked Phantastic95 (talk · contribs) back in September for copyright violations, but that user's back to his old tricks.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Moonriddengirl has now blocked indefinitely, exactly as I would have done. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice, please

Hi, i noticed you had blocked this user for disruptive editing on Al Pacino recently. They have gone back to their same ways once their block expired, adding minor unsourced awards to the article and generally adding nothing constructive example. Monkeymanman (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Letting me know works, thank you. I have blocked the IP and semi-protected the article. Please let me know again if they return next week. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete a few images?

Would you mind cleaning out Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 22 September 2010? I cleared out all of the day's other image speedy deletion categories and deleted all of the other images in this category, but the last four images I tagged, and I want to avoid a COI. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

On it, thank you for your good work. Next AN3 report is yours in the meantime if you want it. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Zirkle Mill


I commend you for making an effort to obtain properly licensed photos for this article. I spent a fair amount of time working with an older photographer who is not computer savvy, to license his historic photos for use on Wikipedia. If you live anywhere near this site, the easiest solution might be to take some photos yourself. Another option is to ask someone associated with the mill to take NEW photos and upload them under an appropriate license, getting around the copyright issues regarding the current photos on the website. I'll put the article on my watchlist, and hope you are successful. Good luck. Cullen328 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :). The mill is nowhere near me, unfortunately. The original uploader has not been active on this project for quite some time, but the outcome I am hoping for is something along the lines of yeah, that was me if they were uploaded in good faith and the person is still affiliated with the site. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Denialism and NPOV

Hi there. I see you reverted my work because of NPOV issues in articles about AIDS dissidents. I read about Wikipedia's NPOV principles, and that's why I resorted to using a more neutral word. The word "denialism" implies that you deny something, and is of course quite subjective. The word "dissident" means that you oppose or question the official account, and I think the word defines better the choices of people like Peter Duesberg or Kary Mullis. Duesberg doesn't deny AIDS, nor the existence of HIV. He only criticizes (and that's a fundamental necessity in science) the most widely accepted theory. Since "denial" has a negative connotation, I think it's not suitable according to Wikipedia's NPOV principles.

And I have a question about scientific sources, because apparently, the sources I recently submitted are not good enough for Wikipedia's standards. Since Wikipedia's articles are free and public, does it mean the sources used within articles must also be free and public? Thank you for your cooperation. Bwass (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reread the policy, neutral does not mean conciliatory, kind or sympathetic. It means representative per the scholarly opinion. Denialists do deny something - that HIV causes AIDS, which is the mainstream opinion with crystal clarity. Thus we portray it as pseudoscience and treat it as a form of political activism and conspiracy theorizing rather than a real subject of discussion. Duesberg's not contesting a hypothesis, there are sources from the late 90's that state clearly that he is letting his own preferences override the scientific data.
Sources must be reliable, not easily accessible or free. See WP:PAYWALL. Go to a library if you want, but for the love of dog don't waste time objecting to sources added by others merely because you can't see them and disagree with the content they verify. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
WLU says it pretty well, but I would add that the issue of terminology has been discussed many times at Talk:AIDS denialism. The current consensus is that the preponderance of weight in reliable sources indicates that denialism is the preferred term, and covers the positions put forth by people like Duesberg and Mullis. If you would like to change this usage, the best way to go about it would be to demonstrate at that talk page that most of the most reliable sources prefer a different term. Please read the archives before initiating such a discussion, though, to avoid making repetitive arguments. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen this enough times that I'm wondering if a FAQ might be in order for Peter Duesberg, AIDS denialism, possibly elsewhere. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
[27] :)? It could certainly do with some expansion and wider use, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Definitely - reference to the main denialists (Duesberg) would seem to be warranted. Kalichman's book Denying AIDS makes an explicit point that Duesberg is pretty much the only reason that it gets any even remotely positive press based on his former reputation. The Peter Duesberg page could use one too - mentioning that he's only a reliable source for cancer and not AIDS, and that his beliefs shouldn't be treated as serious or given much text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I took a stab. Can you give it a sanity check and suggest/make any improvements before we start proposing it for wider use? - 2/0 (cont.) 14:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
It looks fine to me, in fact in my opinion it doesn't go far enough - but I'll be the first to admit that there's probably multitudes who would disagree with me. I've added a section myself - people are interpreting "neutral" incorrectly. I think it's a good question, but I also think I'm taller than my driver's license says. If enough people disagree then it can certainly be removed. Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a fair summary of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity - excellent. Also, you have email. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I see what you mean. What makes me doubtful is the actual notion of "preponderance of weight". How is this weight calculated? Is there any index or some sort of coefficient to evaluate such feature for any given piece of information? Does the fact that Seth Kalichman is a psychologist makes him relevant? Are reviews from sites like considered relevant and reliable? Another question. If a source has an uncertain reliability status, but itself contains links or footnotes to reliable sources, is it acceptable as a source itself? Thanks for your help. Bwass (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As said in the policies and WP:UNDUE, this is through citing reliable sources in terms of number and prominence. Duesberg hasn't published anything in a mainstream publication about AIDS in a while - Medical Hypotheses doesn't count. Particularly since even in that terrible, non-reliable, non-medical journal, the article was retracted.
It's not a numerical calculation. It's a matter of what you can cite, the reactions to those citations, where they are published, the impact factor of the journals involved, if the books are published by respected academic publishing houses, etc. Simply put - you can't find a serious discussion of Duesberg's AIDS claims in any peer reviewed journal, only in crank publications and webpages. No-one considers it a serious explanation for anything. Seth Kalichman's book is an anthropological study of a pseudoscientific movement written by a psychologist active in AIDS research published by a respected publisher.
It is not citation of reliable sources that makes a source reliable - the sources can be inaccurately summarized or quote mined (as Duesberg has done), obselete, irrelevant, or any other myriad flaws. You should read WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, WP:PSCI, WP:V and in particular WP:NPOV.
Also, abandon any hope of ever portraying the Duesberg hypothesis as anything but nonsense. Anyone who tries to portray it as such is either deluded, lying, uninformed or malicious. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
"Preponderance of weight" is determined by how the relevant community has received the idea. Compare to how physicists treat atomic theory - it is just part of the landscape. You might be interested in the advice at Wikipedia:Fringe theories; Wikipedia aims to be a serious, respected mainstream encyclopedia, explaining all ideas and how they have been received.
That Seth Kalichman is a psychologist indicates that we should probably avoid citing him on the biomedical aspects of the virus, the progression of the disease, and some aspects of the epidemiology. He might be a good source for the sociological aspects of the AIDS denialist communities and similar matters.
A review on Amazon is not itself reliable for anything, though they sometimes link to and republish sources that are reliable for how a work has been received. Any question of science should, of course, be cited to a scientific source.
If a source has an uncertain reliability status, it should not be used until that can be determined. Read and use the sources in the footnotes instead. Many times, sources in controversial areas will misrepresent their sources, so it is especially important to make sure that you are following the full intent of a source, not relying on a potentially cherry-picked quote. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed on all points, 2/0's point about Kalichman is particularly solid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The arbitration case

Hi, I've been learning a lot with this case but if I had to pick two things that I really learned for my own personal needs is 1) The way to pick difs to present in different kinds of cases, like AN/i and other boards. I've never really brought a case against anyone to a board that required difs so this was actually an interesting learning experience. I had a lot of nice editors help me too without making me feel like I was ... (fill in your own word here. :) then 2) was the Right to vanish rule. As like a lot of others, I was wrong about how this worked. I thought it was a lot like Clean start so I found the discussion that the arbitrators had about this one really interesting. It made me go back and read the policy about it in a different way. No matter how this case turns out, which is important so don't get me wrong on that, one thing positive for me has happened. I've learned a lot of things with this case. I see WLU is above chatting with you. Well since he and I first met, I believe it was on the Crohn's disease article he has pushed me to be bold which I encouraged him to do too. But I just didn't get that bold as I'm sure he will agree with me on. This case I have now learned why WLU has told me to be bolder than I am and I'm now ready to do just that I think. I want to get involved in more ways where I can help the project without becoming an administrator which I have absolutely no interest in. I've watched the request for adminship and some that hang out there are heartless at times and it seems too much to put up with when it's not supposed to be a big deal. I want to help with that cleanup that is mentioned on my talk page, I just haven't had the time yet. If there is anything you can think of that would be interesting and fun to do, please let me know. I just wanted to share this with you. You take care and be well, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It figures, my timeing is bad.  :) WLU left on his vacation. I knew about it but I forgot.  :) Oh well, take care, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just watching what's been happening lately ...

I feel this great desire to tell you how much you are appreciated and the best way I can think of doing that is with this barnstar.

The Purple Star The Purple Star
You deserve a dozen of these for enduring the recent arbitration hullabaloo. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am giving this to you for your common sense approach to things that involve you. You don't take baiting and you always seem to remember that the editor behind the ID is still a person with feelings, even when they are upset. Keep up the good work you do. I would also like to add a thank you for making a correction when I was wrong and all the help and support you have given me. It has not gone unnoticed by me. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


I've replied at User talk:EdJohnston#Semi-protect Chiropractic again? I actually think that full protection can be a good thing, though not everyone shares my enthusiasm. It can be used to bring about rational changes by making all edits get consensus before being instituted. I saw this happen a couple of years ago at Morgellons which used to be a mess, and had a strong off-wiki lobby group backing a fringe theory. The article is now unprotected and things are OK again. Even a month or two of full protection could be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


On Talk:Miley Cyrus did you delete the right revision, or am I missing something?--Talktome(Intelati) 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a BLP violation.--Talktome(Intelati) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Both - I was following a different user with more time than common sense, and only saw that that edit was clearly different. We do not delete revisions for just any BLP violation, but I think you may be right about that one - thank you. Please let me know if it looks right to you now. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Checkmark.pngTalktome(Intelati) 20:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

What's going on? Has there been a radical change in admin culture while I was looking the other way? This was a raging edit war, discretionary sanctions had been filed, but instead of just issuing blocks we see an admin stepping in and stopping all edits on the article and letting the warring editors think that it's okay to do that. --TS 21:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointer? I can take a look. Basically, I am tired of this article showing up at AN/I, so when my watchlist blew up again it looked like time for a nice long lockdown. I do not necessarily agree with the BLP assertion, but it looks at least credible. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I found it. Reading the specific sanctions and catching up on the AE discussion now. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for sounding so grouchy. I'm tired and I sometimes wish I had the bit back so I could set an example. --TS 21:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to worry. And we always need admins with a bit more gravitas. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I just read your comment there. Excellent work, thanks for taking the trouble. I would have just blocked everything in sight, sanctions or no, but maybe I'm too old school. --TS 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :). Believe me, I considered it, but there was some attempt at compromise there at the end. The talkpage is a mess, which never helps, but maybe a month of downtime will give people some time to work out their sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is under a 1RR restriction and you have now complained about editors on both sides who made one edit. If you believe the article should be under a 0RR restriction then please add one, rather than penalize editors using a retroactive ruling. Also, editors new to the article may not realize that 1RR will be interpreted as 0RR. The best way to impliment a 0RR restriction is of course to lock down the article. It is further unfair that you have listed editors who have had no opportunity to reply. If you do not remove these warnings I will complain at the ANI noticeboard. TFD (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If that article had shown up on the Edit warring noticeboard I would have warned or possibly blocked all parties for edit warring. Especially on perennially contentious articles, the revert limit is a bright line maximum, not an entitlement. Here and here are the relevant talkpage discussions at the time of your revert. If you can demonstrate that your fellow volunteers are not negotiating in good faith, please report them for tendentious and disruptive editing; otherwise, discussion should continue, with an emphasis on improving the concordance between the article and the most reliable sources. I really sympathize with your point that the article should accurately reflect the state of mainstream scholarship, but revert warring is not going to help the encyclopedia in the long run. My comments at AE suggest a way forward involving scrupulous referencing to high quality sources in response to unsourced argumentation.
If you do raise this for review at AN/I, please leave a note here so I will notice the discussion. I will probably be out of the loop for the next 6–10 hours, but I will check in as soon as I can.
You might consider as part of your appeal whether the material in question should be covered by the Digwuren case. I would argue in that case that there is enough long term disruption at that article that it should be placed under some community sanction, but I can see the logic to not associating you with Estonia. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I could really use some help if your available. Please check your email to understand why. Thanks. Isn't the weather wonderful lately?  :) I was so surprised about I guess 5 days ago when I open my sliding door to let my cat on the patio and felt the cool air. Do you think our winter is going to unusually cold this year with it getting cool so early? Well thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


File:It Gets Better.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thanks for your message. Isn't the {{Non-free use rationale}} I have included in the summary sufficient? (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are good there - thanks! - 2/0 (cont.) 15:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Back Again Unfortunately

Our friend has returned unfortunately [28]. Hope he stops now, but just a heads up. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will continue to keep an intermittent eye on that article for at least a few weeks, but please do feel free to ping me again if anything comes up. I may have days away from the site, so a crosspost to requests for page protection might be seen sooner. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate article

I notice that Doug Weller redirected Climate Skepticism to global warming controversy, which you then protected. The same author has duplicated the content at Views of Prominent Climate Sceptics, which I have also redirected to the same target as the previous one as it seems sensible. --TS 10:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My formal warning here included a personalized message noting that [r]epeatedly recreating a content fork is disruptive, and you may be blocked if you continue. I invoke WP:TENFOOTPOLE on the actual matter at hand, though - sorry. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

When you get a chance

Hi, when you get a chance would you mind checking the Paul Bern article? An editor there is holding up any improvements to the article. You can see it at the talk page and at the article itself. I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Opined there. Some of that writing is unclear to the point of incomprehensibility, but I think I can at least identify the locus of dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes I saw and since you've been there he is accusing editor of being invited there to back up one side, obviously the side he's not on. He also removed all the tags you put into the article. He won't let anyone make an edit to the article. I'm frustrated with this as you can tell so I'm done for the night. Talk tomorrow, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for A Block

Hello, I would like to ask you to issue a block to Woodada because he continues to post unsourced information on List of World Rally Championship records even after being warned. Thank you. -- LS C HIST (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that I will have time to look at this soon, so you might get better results at the Edit warring noticeboard. Be sure to mention that this is a case of repeated insertion of material absent consensus rather than a simple case of WP:3RR. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your advice. I will try my best to handle this case by myself. -- LS C HIST (talk) 09:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Volvo B9R

Hi. Could you possibly email me the contents of the Volvo B9R article that you speedied as advertising back in April please? I think it's probably a notable topic and want to see if any of the old content is redeemable. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, good luck. There were no sources and I suspect that the specs came straight from the manufacturer's website. I could also undelete the article and move it to your user space if you would prefer to work that way. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


I left that warning in April. You're extremely late and unnecessary. Blindeffigy (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Is this in reply to this comment I left on your talkpage this past April? Please refresh my memory, as I do not remember interacting with you. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 15:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Royal Society

There's some discussion at Royal Society; you're invited. --Yopienso (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


I had an RFA a little over a month ago and I cracked under the pressure. My health really can't handle another RFA. I'm going to ask ArbCom for my tools back when the new committee comes, if not I'll try again in five months. I'll let you know if I decide to run. Thanks for the offer. Secret account 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so this time there was actually a reason for the old cliche "I thought you were one already" :). Stay well. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Your AN3 closure

Thanks for your work on the Filioque dispute with User:LoveMonkey and others. I was out of ideas because I would have had to wait for admin consensus to issue any suitable restriction. Out-of-the-way disputes like this one are hard to get admins worked up about, so that angle seemed unlikely to make progress. When you added your comment, it brought attention to the important issues. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion. I've tried a couple of times in recent months to get Esoglou and LoveMonkey to work constructively together on East–West Schism and Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences, but the nature of the topic seems to make it extremely difficult for adherents of either side to think or write in a neutral fashion. You might find it informative to study the talk pages (including archives) and edit histories of those two articles. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits to IAHP. Cheers, Colin°Talk 07:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please Investigate before you make false and baseless charges on my user page

You left a comment on my user page falsely accusing me of edit warring.  Had you bothered to investigate, you would have have recognized that in both cases my fully-sourced contributions were simply deleted, without discussion, in favor of unsourced or impermissibly blog-sourced opinion conformining with the particular editors' bias.  Go look look at the discussion page for each article and satisfy yourself as to who was engaged in frivolous and contentious editing.

With respect to the C of C, note that my recommendation that the new section on foreign dues be deleted was followed.  This occured after a lengthy discussion in which those proposing the section insisted on favoring politically-funded blog "report" over a New York Times article refuting it.

As to the Coffee Party article, read it for yourself.  It's nothing more than a press release put out by the organization itself.  The authors pretend, based on Facebook "likes", that the Coffee Party rivals the Tea Party in popularity and political influence.  It's quite preposterous, and if you're threatening to ban me based on my efforts to to add balance to the article, you're way out of line.  I would also note that after a long period of pulling teeth, some of my edits were adopted after it because impossible to reject then without losing credibility.

In short, what has happened is that my recommendation have been repeatedly and vexatiously removed without explanation or warning. I assume if I went around and repeatedly deleted someone else's work in the same way, I would be banned.

As you can see, I gave given you a fair and full explanation of what transpired.  I assume your response will afford me the same courtesy, backed up by specific examples in favor of your position in the unlikely event you don't change your mind after carefully reviewing the evidence.

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityPersonified (talkcontribs) 12:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the Incidents Noticeboard the correct forum for NPOV tag removals?

I pointed out some systematic removals of NPOV tags at the Incidents Noticeboard [29]. This notice also show that the dispute is still there despite many attempts to compromise and obtain mediation. The NPOV tags has proven useful since we are now in a Rfc started by Doc James himself, but the NPOV dispute is still not resolved. I just want to know if this was the correct forum? Should I bring this to Arbcom since the article is under general sanction? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Had Doc James been acting as both an administrator and an editor, in violation of WP:ADMIN, AN/I would have been exactly the right place to call for more attention. Unless I am missing something, though, he is just discussing and trying to improve the article in an editorial capacity. A disagreement over the placement of article tags like {{NPOV}} is just like any other content disagreement, and should be met with discussion. If the discussion has resolved at consensus regarding the form of the article, the tag should be removed. It is not intended as a "badge of shame" to remain indefinitely or a sop for someone who disagrees with editorial consensus (I intend no implication that that is going on here, merely a general statement on edit wars involving the NPOV tag).
I am not familiar with the TM case, but any violation of its terms may be posted to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, following the instructions there. Generally speaking, requesting outside input is a good next step when the editors active at an article arrive at an impasse, so hopefully development of this article can start moving forward again. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
You are right. He was not acting as an admin. It did not seem a requirement when I read the purpose of that forum, but I take your word for it. So, it was not the proper forum. We seem to be moving toward a consensus regarding one of the issue, so we should remove the corresponding TAG soon and hopefully the same will happen for the other issue as well. It still remains that Doc James should not have removed the tags before the consensus is achieved. Thank you. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not a requirement, that is just one particular way that an ordinary editorial disagreement could rise to the level of needing outside administrator attention, as opposed to extra editorial eyeballs. Anyway, best of luck. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Request to clear my page history

Hi! I want to clear or nullify my user page history here and here because of some privacy concerns. Thanks in advance.--Logical Thinker:talk 06:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the pages, which I think covers what you wanted. Please let me know if it does not. If you want content there, just create the page like you did initially; the software will tell you that you are recreating a deleted page, but that is fine. In future, you can also put {{db-user}} anywhere on a page in your userspace you would like to have deleted. This will flag it up to any admin patrolling the speedy deletion categories, saving you the trouble of tracking down one who is active at the time. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Excuse me, but aren't the 'good articles' and 'featured articles' in Wikipedia supposed to be the best articles? Then how come the Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End article has received a good article status, when there are at least six "citation needed" tags in the article? Doesn't it mean that the article is lacking in appropriate references to the information furnished? So why stamp it a "good article" before providing them? I have seen this thing in many good articles before, and in those case I provided the necessary citations. This time too, I will do so, but before that I thought it would be better to bring the matter to the attention of an administrator. This practice of stamping a random article as "good" will just mar the credibility of good and featured articles. Cupidvogel (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not involved with the audited content side of the project, so you would probably be better off asking at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. My guess is that the {{cn}} templates were not present when the star was applied, but I honestly have never perused those criteria (I care about writing quality articles, obviously, just I have never been bothered about the little green star). The problem you have identified is actually, unfortunately, quite common - see Blumenstock (2008) for the strong correlation between FA status and simple word count, or Lindsey (2010) for the problematic lack of expert vetting in our content auditing processes. More at Academic studies about Wikipedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


Please provide me with an explanation as to why you blocked me for a restore of content and this edit[30] does not warrant this editor being blocked for 24hours as well. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Filioque currently does not indicate consensus for the material in question; rather, it indicates a rough agreement that the article is overlong and poorly organized. I am also less than perfect. I try to monitor all the relevant users and articles for a period of time after I become aware of a dispute, but I did not happen to see those edits. Have you tried asking for additional input at a relevant WikiProject or noticeboard? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I had done all of that BEFORE you blocked me. And why is it that I again was blocked after restoring sourced and "controversial information" and I have yet to see the other editor get so much as a peep? LoveMonkey (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
LoveMonkey, any evidence that you are trying to follow WP:Dispute resolution would help the situation. The other editors should do so as well. The Filioque article may be heading for a period of full protection if there is no sign that anyone will sincerely negotiate to find consensus. Ill-tempered exchanges of personal criticism do not constitute negotiation: "..mass deletion under the guise of hobby horse won't bode well as a valid excuse to blanket delete sourced information." EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey this administrator blocked me and gave no such treatment to the deleting party. I thought the disputed content was to be restored but after I restore it 2 over 0 blocked me for 24 hours and called it edit warring. It would be nice with there was some equal treatment. I'm then only getting the the negative terms like "ill-tempered". Why doesn't Ed Johnston or 2 over 0 outline what they mean by Consensus? I think that is a fair question since the article here in wiki is not clear at all. LoveMonkey (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:Dispute resolution. If you've tried any of the steps there, let us know, and say what happened. It sometimes may appear that a dispute can't be resolved, but if the steps have not been tried, it's hard to tell. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have responded to the mass deletion on the article talkpage it appears that I however can not get a clear answer on how I can restore the data whole sale deleted from the article. What about administrator abuse is there a noticeboard or a review process that I can post to in order to address my concerns in that area? Or is WP:Office the only option I have available? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Admins are not here to take sides in a content dispute. (You could try asking Arbcom, but they will say no also). Try opening up a WP:Request for comment and get it advertised. That may bring in more participants. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
OK I am at a loss here. ???? Why was I blocked? And then why was the other editor not blocked after engaging in blanket deleting if no sides where taken? I have yet to hear from 2 over 0 in this. If you are uninvolved why are the responses coming from EdJohnson and not 2 over 0? Can you not see how someone would get frustrated by what your doing? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
If you believe 2over0 misused his administrator privileges in this case, I believe the appropriate response would be for you to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (WP:RFC/U) and create a request to review the matter. I would also strongly second EdJohnston's suggestions that you should open a Request for Comment and pursue other avenues for dispute resolution regarding the content of the article (being extremely careful to separate the content disputes from any questions of misconduct by individual editors).
As for whether the disagreement between you and Rwflammang (talk · contribs) involves editor misconduct or is simply a content dispute, I would suggest that when Editor B is repeatedly justifying his reversions of Editor A by claiming in his edit summaries that Editor A's actions are in defiance of a consensus (or a lack thereof), an uninvolved administrator is likely to conclude that the situation appears to be a case of vandalism or other misconduct on the part of Editor A. The best way to avoid this sort of issue is to seek outside input (to create a larger, broader consensus) and/or to create a (WP:RFC/U). Simply continuing to pursue an edit war — even if you are convinced you are right and the other person is wrong — rarely if ever accomplishes anything useful, and an admin coming in to "break it up" may easily end up misidentifying the real culprit (I'm not saying that did or did not happen here). Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the best place to request a review of my actions related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Rwflammang reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: stale, but advice) would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; please let me know here if you do open such a thread. A request for comment/user requires that at least two people have tried to resolve similar disputes with a user; if you search the archives for this page (linked up top under the Signpost box), you may find such a user, but no one springs to my mind). AN/I is more like a request for a second opinion (EdJohnston, if you think I have acted incorrectly here I would be happy to listen - here for preference, or privately if think it would be better).

A more fruitful avenue, I believe, would be to open a request for comment/content concerning Filioque, or to request additional input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. If other editors are simply running roughshod over your contributions and showing article ownership, additional editors will be able to counter this and show their actions to the light. Administrators are not content arbiters, though - we have to act based on apparent local consensus. Your edit continued an edit war instead of seeking such a consensus. I will add also that your recent edits to Talk:Filioque have been less than helpful, as they take an adversarial stance more than they ask for compromise. Please let me know what you decide, - 2/0 (cont.) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


2/0, why did you collapse these three responses only under the guise of Wikipedia not being a battleground? I'm curious because you collapsed my suggestion for people to take the question to the BLP/N which clearly has nothing to do with this rationale, while the rest of the not collapsed talk page is cluttered with aggressive commentary and attacks. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That was a sensible suggestion (and much in line with my rationale), but it seemed out of place outside the collapse. If you would like to move it out, that would be fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


Saw this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Neato :) - 2/0 (cont.) 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My wikipedia account

Hi I am not sure who can really help me on this. My account clydew was set up some time ago and at that time I had a Telus email. Since then I have changed ISP's and thus email addresses. I thought that I changed it on Wikipedia but apparently I did not. So, my password was sent to the old email which no longer exists. Solution? Should I just build another account? I would like to retain my existing if possible. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You might try contacting your old ISP to set up temporary email forwarding or something like that. If the account no longer exists, they probably sent your request to the bitbucket, but you can make another request once you have access. If you exchanged emails with anyone, they might be able to vouch for you to a bureaucrat, who I think would be able to re-enable access; if this is a viable route, I can try to find out for you. User:Clydew appears not to have been registered (typo?), but I assume that you did not set up a committed identity hash (c.f. my userpage). Short of that, I think your best option is to create a new account, and give your old identity on your new userpage. Wikipedia:Help desk might be able to help further. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding page

"General restriction ... 2) Any editor working on waterboarding or any closely related page may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator."

Are you in fact an "uninvolved administrator?" While I wouldn't want to make an accusation, your choice of wording (unintentional, no doubt) has the unfortunate effect of coming across as a threat. I'm sure, however, that you didn't really mean "shut up or we'll shut you up," and I would appreciate clarification. I would also like to learn, if you don't mind, how the recent spate of reversions is actually supported by the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding --Solicitr (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. The take home here is that productive discussion is welcome, but disruptive comments, like the one I linked on your page, are not. The goal here is to have the best comprehensive, informative, and neutrally presented encyclopedia articles possible. Discussion at talkpages should be polite, inclusive, and narrowly focused on that goal. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, 2over0. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 19:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Complex PTSD

I do disagree with Faaintes and think the distinction should be clearer and at the beginning. Regarding assuming good faith, is if good faith to call me a name that is not mine??? Also, why remove my notations without first a discussing; isn't that the norm here? TuvolaPHD (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive notice-discussion link: Talk:Complex post-traumatic stress disorder#Formal Recognition of C-PTSD. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means? It only takes be back to the discussion and my question. I would like to hear why you tell me to assume good faith and not this Fainites?? TuvolaPHD (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, that link is for my own future reference if I ever need to refer back to that discussion when browsing the archives. Please keep discussion of the article at the article talkpage. I am not sure what else I can add to that discussion at present unless you make a specific suggestion for how to improve that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Needle promo-poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Needle promo-poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Do I have an image-savvy talkpage watcher who can double check this? Or, better, add the tag to {{Non-free use rationale}}? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tiffany Midge

Thanks for the kind phrasing. I can get the list from the other site and rework the other material to avoid copyvio, so don't worry too much. Best, Vizjim (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But why are my edits condemned and the other person, who did the same thing, not. IN addition, you've still not addressed his bad faith personal slurr when this Fainnites called me some name. Please respond.TuvolaPHD (talk)
And now I see This Fainnites calls me a puppet wearing socks? Isn't that a personal attack and bad faith???TuvolaPHD (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith?

Why was my comment not in good faith? And why was not this Fainites calling me Dr. B-W not addressed by you as some sort of not in good faith comment or personal attack of some sort? Thanks you. TuvolaPHD (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response on the CPTSD talkpage. I believe this user to be a sock of the DPeterson entity - same as User:RankinUberall who has already been blocked following edits on the CPSTD page. Fainites barleyscribs 20:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this an example of an administrator having good faith and not engaging in personal attacks???? TuvolaPHD (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF does not mean blinding oneself to reality. I am stating up front what I believe to be the case. Fainites barleyscribs 21:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia WP:MEDRS sources


In the past you've kindly helped me with reliable sources feedback.

Please comment on these 2 paragraphs - do they provide sufficient WP:MEDRS sources for the topic?

Writing in the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, James Oschman describes . doi:10.1016/S1360-8592(97)80038-1  Missing or empty |title= (help) "the oscillating magnetic fields emitted by practitioners of therapeutic touch and related methods" and then writes about how these frequencies change. He then offers a hypothesis which seeks to define "healing energy" as one or several frequencies which stimulate healing whether generated by a medical device or projected from a healer.

An article written by Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow in Medical & Biological Sciences [1] describes research conducted on Sea Urchins. The term "bioelectromagnetic energy" is used in the description of the healing protocol. This resulted in a healing rate of 76% on "treatment group" subjects compared to 42% of the control group.

Thanks, Adrian-from-london (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Even for a bottom-tier brand new journal, I would not recommend the second article if it came across my desk for peer review. It does not seem to be indexed by PubMed, which pretty much means it should not be cited for any medical information. If you are looking for a source for a statement about the existence of such research, it would be better to find a source that states that it exists rather than demonstrating it directly.
The first is slightly better in that it is published by Elsevier rather than Scientific Journals International. The journal states that it is PubMed-indexed (I do not see that particular article; possibly Medline only indexes the articles from that journal after a certain date). On another hand, this paper is 13 years old; WP:MEDRS recommends replacing older primary literature with more up-to-date reviews as they become available. The citation record for this paper is not consistent with it having had a significant impact on any field. It should likely be avoided in preference to a more comprehensive review for the medical claims and a more canonical source for the mechanism claims of practitioners.
I get the feeling that you may be approaching this question from the wrong angle. I cannot know your thought processes, obviously, but I sometimes find that when my searches are returning less than stellar sources that it is useful to change the search parameters to adjust the angle of attack. Specifically, it is necessary to let the sources write the article rather than searching for sources to support some point. This is a topic area where a great many if not most of the sources (by number) will by covered by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Use independent sources, which makes it especially important to broaden your search criteria to ensure that you are fairly treating the reliability-weighted totality of sources rather than just a narrow POV. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 00:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Naturopathy entry - homeopathy

Hi there,

Looking forward to working with you to improve this article. Please let me know if there is specific information that you feel should be added. As a licensed naturopathic doctor who does not use homeopathy, I am interested in helping this entry to be more clear. Mcmarturano (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I wrote most of some of the sections about a year back (I think it is mostly still there, though I have not read through the full article lately), but there is a lot more that can be said. Your recent edits look good to me. The biggest thing to keep in mind is the issue of levels of training, and I see now that you have raised precisely this point at Talk:Naturopathy#NPOV.

For a wishlist of things I would like to see but have not had the time and inclination to research yet, there is a lot more that could be said about the history of the movement. A couple of the references in that section go into a great deal more detail that could be used as a starting point if you are interested in writing it. Particularly, the driving forces behind the resurgence in the 1970s and the development of the movement since then could be explained with more clarity and detail. There is also some potentially salient detail in the first three decades or so of the twentieth century that I glossed over basically for length concerns. The cultural lineage of naturopaths outside the US/Canada, India especially, should also be covered better. Indian naturopaths use Ayurveda significantly more frequently than American naturopaths; it would be interesting to know to what extent this comes from people trained as naturopaths picking up another system as opposed to the other way 'round. It would also be interesting to explore the three jumping-off points—the Nature Cure movement in Europe, Lust in the US, and the modern Western alternative medicine movement—to follow the cross-cultural exchange of ideas during each period.

This is beginning to sound like an outline for History of naturopathy. I doubt that I will be motivated to write such an article in the near term, but I would love to read it.

The other major point that comes to mind as needing further exploration is a coherent and comprehensive examination of traditional naturopath vs. ND vs. MD; utilization rates, guiding principles for differential diagnosis (concrete rather than hand-wavy, I mean), and statistics on the health advice rendered would be excellent if reliable sources describing them exist. That probably more properly belongs at the ND article, though.

Good luck, and see you around, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I have been compiling a list of potential refs at Talk:Naturopathy as well as combing through the existing refs and adding data if available. Mcmarturano (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

puppet wearing socks? Why does an administrator say such a thing?

Why do you allow this Fainites administrator to make accusations and not comment?TuvolaPHD (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Do I have no options to complain about such behaviours? TuvolaPHD (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See here. Apologies for the delay in filing this 2over2. Been busy in RL.Fainites barleyscribs 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Not to worry, thanks for doing the drudegwork here. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ACE 2010

ArbCom election season is almost upon us once more, with !!voting set to open in about two score of hours. In keeping with tradition, I will be leaning heavily on SandyGeorgia's field guide to the candidates, with a heavy dollop of reading the statements and questions. Also as per usual, I plan to vote neutral on any candidate with whose work I am not at least passingly familiar unless I find a red flag that indicates an oppose is warranted. I find this year's slate of default questions to be not particularly useful or insightful, but YMMV; I am only really interested in one question anyway. Comments and questions directed at me or discussion of my opinions are welcome here; general discussion and questions for the candidates should go on the actual election pages.

Left as neutral. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Not expecting an last minute issues, and generally impressed. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
On reconsideration, I think I have to stick with neutral here. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Edit: probably not worth it, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Wizardman raises concerns - needs review. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the FAC and SG furor is not so great; probably enough so to move me to neutral here. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a big enough deal to oppose, so support on balance. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Breakdown: 21 candidates for 11 seats, 8 support, 3 probably support, 5 neutral, and 5 oppose. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My votes are in, but I remain open to recasting if anything major develops. Good luck, all. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion of the proposed close as of when I commented looked fine. I will probably not have a chance to go over this for another day or so; if that link is otherwise agreeable to the parties involved, I would not stand in the way of getting the RfC/U squared away. Thank you for letting me know. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
"The other side" (dislike that term, but you know what I mean I hope) disagreed vehemently, so it will probably close without a summary in the next couple of days. Thanks for your input. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure If you are a good person to ask, but...

How should we handle this?

ALL footage of both the Tsar Bomba and RDS-37 use the same footage, they have the exact same explosion and mushroom cloud. All images of both explosions on both of their pages are from this same footage.

Is there a way to find out weather it is one or the other?

(at least, they look near identical in the videos, check youtube)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The uploader does not seem to be active anymore and the talkpage appears to be but little watched, unfortunately. I will see if I can match that image to one in The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history if not. Thank you for noticing this. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Shearography edit war

Hi... I did use the "click here" button, but when I hit "Preview" it asked for a Subject, so I entered one! Oh well, next time I'll know... Stephenb (Talk) 17:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it sounds like the clever report formatting template is being overridden by the global notifier that usually omitting the subject is a mistake. I apologize if I sounded snippy in my edit summary, I did not realize that that page is providing conflicting messages. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


I think your protection is a bit hasty. Ther have in fact only been a few reverts, and not all of the saem material or editors work.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be, but it looked like it was getting a bit heated over there. I started a section at the talkpage, and if the other editors agree that it is not necessary I would be happy to unprotect (or anyone else can if I am not around). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)



I saw that you had requested my article labeled "Proto-duction" be deleted. I am writing you to request a solution: If I remove all company names (Strata-G Solutions) will that satisfy the requirements for posting? The term "Proto-duction" refers to a process similar to prototyping which has a page on Wikipedia and should be allowed to be on the site.

Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treecescaife (talkcontribs) 19:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not - it really needs to be based on secondary sources discussing the term (in preference to marketing-speak), and would need to discuss the term without evangelizing the practice. The term does not appear to be all that wide spread (with or without the hyphen), but a quick search indicates that there is probably enough material to write a good article. The website for the Strata-G (I think - I checked this morning, but I can probably dig it up again if you would like) has a PDF that looks like an internal USAF report that discusses the method a bit, but a book on management trends would be better. The article on Agile software development still has some issues, but you should be able to use that as a rough guide.
If you would like, I can move the deleted article to User:Treecescaife/Proto-duction, where you can work on it in peace. When it has references, you can use the Move button at the top of the page to move the article back into mainspace. The software will alert you that you are recreating a deleted page, but that is fine. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I will re-work and resubmit. Thanks for the tips, please let me know when the article will be moved to a workable space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treecescaife (talkcontribs) 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, good luck (leaving a note on your userpage as well). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Got it changed in the work space. Let me know if this looks acceptible and I will tweak the content if necessary before working on the image. How can I move the article to the main article section from the work space? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treecescaife (talkcontribs) 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I expect that someone who knows more about the topic than I will want to edit it, but it looks much more like an encyclopedia article now; thank you for working to make this project better. It does still need to be sourced, though - Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and editors and readers need to be able to access the primary sources for more information and to double-check accuracy. Wikipedia:Verifiability discusses this in depth. Wikipedia:Citing sources has a quick guide to adding references, but at a bare minimum it needs a statement of where you got the information. Try something like:

== References ==
* a book, website, newspaper article, or similar
* another reliable source
* et cetera

I used <nowiki> to format the display - you can copy the text as it appears when viewing this page without the tags you see when editing the page. The move button should be inside the drop box in the down arrow just to the left of the search bar at the top of the page; if you are using the old display settings (I think that you would have had to change the site settings, so this is probably not the case), it should be a separate button next to the History tab at the top of the page. Also, when you are making a comment at any discussion page, you can sign your post by appending four tilde characters (~~~~) to the end of your comment; this adds your username and a time stamp and saves some work for the autosigning bot.
Purely for my own edification - why would this design process be limited to military applications? I was, of course, unfamiliar with the term until a few days ago, but it looks like the principles should be applicable to any design process that can be compartmentalized into a number of relatively independent pieces that can be tested and redesigned simultaneously. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I found the problem - the software disallows page moves by very new users. I trust you not to go on a spree of moving pages to inappropriate titles, so I have enabled the functionality on your account. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Glad we were able to accommodate the policies of Wikipedia and will get sources up shortly. Of course Proto-duction can be applied to a vast array of disciplines but, as with a lot of new technology and design/manufacturing processes, was primarily, initially developed for warfare applications. (i.e.: airplanes were first used in mass numbers for war-time reconnaissance and weapons delivery to aid in the fighting of World War I). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treecescaife (talkcontribs) 14:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just dropping in

Hi, I haven't seen you around lately so I thought I would drop by to say hello. :) What do you think of the weather lately? I know we had at least one day that broke records. Just think, today is the beginning of winter, at least officially. I actually had to get a jacket for this weather and some other warm clothes. I'm from Florida, well was born in the north but came here when I was 6 months so I am a Floridian. I don't remember it staying so cold for so long like it's been the past few weeks, do you? I hope you are well and also, have a very happy, healthy holiday season. I am hoping that next year is better than this year. Take care and talk soon, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My poor ivy plant lost a few strands the other week while I was out being cold with friends instead of thinking about it, and the cat has been less interested in exploring the great outdoors. On the whole, the latter is not a bad thing - she managed to knock out a screen the other month and plummet to the ground. Fortunately, we are only on the second floor and she looked more confused than hurt; good practice for the heart-stopping adventures of children, I suppose.
Did you catch the eclipse last night? It was quite late, but worth interrupting my sleep a little. I am headed to a solstice party as soon as I finish baking - happy holidays! - 2/0 (cont.) 00:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought about my plants on my patio (I live in a condo) and what I have out there is easy to replace but hard to bring inside where my cat won't eat them. :) My cat is allowed on our patio in the very early part of the day while it's still dark out. He hasn't been interested in going out either. When the weather first got cold he went outside for maybe a second, probably less, than he came screeching at me to make it warm outside. Then he jumped on me and snuggles into my jacket that I wear until he was warm and it was like rinse and repeat for the next few days. Finally I just stopped opening the sliding door, it was too cold for me too. I missed the eclipse. My sleeping is more important since sleeping is hard for me to do these days. I know I should but oh well, maybe next time I'll see it.  ;) Have a wonderful holiday, --CrohnieGalTalk 15:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


I do not understand your objections to my edit on the pemf page you keep changing back. The material I added is not copyrighted and the article I link to is written by a real guru in the field. Marko S. Markov has written numerous articles and books on the subject just google him. Pietjebel (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread on block of Collect.

Here. Kelly hi! 02:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied there, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment on unblock

I unblocked Collect as a result of seeming consensus on the AN/I thread that this was the correct thing to do. It seemed from a quick look like everyone was saying the edits and the warnings were not sufficient to block an established editor. If there is background to this that I have missed then feel free to let me know, either on here or in email. I continue to respect and value you as an admin from what else I've seen of you. This is almost the first time I've ever undone a fellow admin's action and I feel a little weird about it. So, sorry, no hard feelings, and keep up the good work. --John (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If nobody else sees the pattern I do, then there is a good chance that I am misreading the history. Your unblock was well-supported by that discussion, including respected and uninvolved members of the community. Thank you for letting me know and for your kind words. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 07:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind making an entry in Collect's block log that your block was in error? Kelly hi! 08:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it would be a good idea to show that the block was made in error. — BQZip01 — talk 16:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi 2over0, would you mind saying more on AN/I about the reasons for the block? As things stand, it does seem puzzling. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, it would be appreciated if you could say on AN/I whether you're willing not to use the tools in this area from now on. I think that would put people's minds at rest and the issue to bed. See WP:AN/I#Question for 2over0. Many thanks, SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 07:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)