User talk:Enric Naval/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

You have been mentioned on an arbitration enforcement discussion.

Please refer here. [1]

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

Kavan paper was published in July 2008, and archive.org says that the page was created sometime around June 2008, and the page displays a translation date of June 2008 (although the books page claims a publication date of February of the same year [2]). I note that Zhuan Falun was apparently published in paper in 1996 and that the first online English translation appears to be from 1998. Note that Kavan's paper cites Penny 2003, so it's not like he's the first to make the claim of disappearing translations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Lecture 5, the sentence:

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

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

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

Now for other issues.

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

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

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

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

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

As for Talk:Falun_Gong#Changes_and_discussion_for_them, a) it's too little, too late b) you tried to keep your version of the article during the discussion, see my comment above about following WP:BRD c) you cram too much material in a single section, one section is not enough to discuss the reordering of several sections, several title changes, etc, d) you are basically asking that other editors prove you wrong, instead of trying to explain them why the edit is a good idea, that's a reversion of WP:BURDEN e) in other sections, like the "Luo Gan" discussion, you acted like the concerns raised by other editors were not important and you could simply set them aside because you thought them wrong, so you had already burnt out editors and shown them that you would refuse to take their objections seriously f) omnibus discussions like those only work if the individual discussions take very little space, and the other editors' experience with you showed that you were going to make every issue into a very long discussion g) as a member h) you mixed in stuff that already had its own discussion section, for example [3] was already being discussed in Talk:Falun_Gong#Quick_note_on_the_Johnson_quote but you didn't link to that discussion when making the edit, additionally you only had some support from me to restore the "do good works" bit, but you only had support from HappyInGeneral to restore the full thing and remove the segregation thing, thus effectively choosing to ignore the concerns raised by Dan and Simonm223, and asking to start a new discussion when the old one is still ongoing is going to be interpreted as a disrespect to the people that already commented in the old one and who expect that their opinion is taken into account. Well, I could pick up a few more points but, honestly, the point here is that you need pay more attention and respect to the complaints made by editors who don't have a COI in the issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Response to your points in AE

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

response to the six points raised at AE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfg12345 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 January 2010

Wikipedia Watch listed at Redirects for discussion

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

WP:BLP non-consensual changes warning

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom case

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

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

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

Steve O'Donnell (writer)

Regarding the rationale you added to the prod: " Also fails WP:GNG because there doesn't seem to be any works reporting on him or his work", [4] I was wondering if you actually bothered to look for sources. Sure, he's not one of the more famous writers, but he's had a career spanding over 20 years (which the article did state, even if it was unsourced). A quick google search did turn up sources, [5]. For example, the third result was an interview he did with The Believer [6] (again, not the most desirable source, but better than nothing) and he gets all sorts of mentions in news articles: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. So for you to say "there doesn't seem to be any works reporting on him or his work" means that either a) You checked the wrong sources. b) You didn't look hard enough. or c) You didn't look at all. I don't want to preach because we all make mistakes, but I thought I would suggest that in the future, you actually take the time to back up what you claim. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Glad you can join the squadron!

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

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

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Enric Naval/Archive 6, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

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

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User uses my talk page for article discussion

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

Draganparis: Sockpuppetry case

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

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

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

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

ItHysteria

I went to WP:RFPP very quickly [12]. I tend to revert socked edits out as quickly as possible, rather than waiting for reports to process, even if it gets a bit tedious.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

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

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

Human Rights Believer sockpuppet

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

Replied

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

Re: Watching the ejaculation page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice on arbitration amendment request

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

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

It was a reference to [13]. Specifically the part "Enric, this edit seems rather cynical, to say the least. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to make a certain group look crazy, stupid, or heartless? That's what you do when you make edits like that.". This sounds very harsh to an editor that just tried to make an edit that helps to explain what believers believe in a certain group. My purpose wasn't to make FG look like bad, and your comment can easily be interpreted to mean that. Next time just suggest better sources for the apocalypse belief thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Enric, you are right that my note sounded harsh. I apologise for that. Given the history and context of the pages, and the constant difficulties in getting simple, neutral presentations of some of these basic facts, yes, I had thought that your note was a simplistic attempt to make Falun Gong look bad. It turns out that it was not, and I am sorry for misunderstanding your intentions. I agree with you that the point of it should be to show what believers believe in a certain group. In previous cases, several editors have run roughshod over attempts to do precisely that, instead deliberately pushing a negative agenda which introduced inaccuracies. Some of those inaccuracies are still on the pages, and attempts to explain and fix them have been dismissed as bad faith pro-Falun Gong advocacy. In those cases, the key is precisely to give an inaccurate and negative presentation to make Falun Gong look bad. If you would like to see the Falun Gong perspective on those claims, you could see this FAQ. That's not a full depiction, by my estimates, but nor does Kavan provide a full discussion. Ownby usually gives an evenhanded evaluation. I agree with you about how it should be to show what Falun Gong people believe. That's what I suggest, too. As I say, Ownby is a good source. --Asdfg12345 05:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain

I have just posted some suspected socks there. Edward321 (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI on Dilip Rajeev

Note that I've made an outline of Dilip's recent editing behavior here--PCPP (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Memetics citation on "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience"

Thanks for going to the trouble of actually finding and linking to the book review in question! I feel guilty now because now that I've actually read the review I think I'll remove that citation, as the relevant material is merely a summary of McGrath's opinion, who once again doesn't fulfill the stated criterion for calling memetics pseudoscience.

Once again, thanks for the hard work, and sorry for undoing it! Lightnin Boltz (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement case: Dilip rajeev

Kindly note the WP:AE case above has just been filed. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your addition of link to an AE closure to a talk page for a closed RfAr.

[14] is a diff to a close of an AE report you added to the RfAr talk page. Perhaps you noticed my archiving of a closed RfAr/Clarification for that case, which I hope was done correctly. Normally, this would be done by a clerk, but it was apparently overlooked, so I Just Did It. I don't see any tradition of linking AE reports to the RfAr, and there are piles of them for many cases; there is a separate set of archives for AE. Is it really your intention to reopen discussion there? You did not sign it, so I'd think not. On the other hand, if one needs to be there, then they all should be there, don't you think? Will you consider removing it? --Abd (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I provided it to give context to the request for clarification right above it. No, there is no tradition to list AE threads in RfAR pages, but there isn't either any prohibition saying not to list them (this should fall back to a case-by-case ad hoc basis, with people listing them when they think that they will be necessary or useful). The talk pages of cases can be edited by anyone to add coments, not just clerks, even if the case is closed. No, I didn't want to restart discussion (I was just dropping stuff for reference in the future, to have all links related to the same topic in the same place so I don't have to hunt them down every time I check the topic in the future). No, I wasn't going to list all the AE threads, just that one in an ad hoc basis. I have no problem with going ahead and listing all AE threads and not just that one. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

You may have noticed that yesterday afternoon, I removed several comments--including some of yours--from my talk page. What I had meant to do was remove a discussion that had degenerated to sniping back and forth between two individuals; unfortunately, some other comments I did not mean to remove got caught up in the mix and I didn't catch it until just now. I have restored your comments, obviously well-intentioned, as well as my latest response which you may have missed. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 18:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I thought that you had gotten tired and no longer wanted to talk. I have commented in your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you help with a Human Rights in China Project?

Enric, this is to request you to join http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Human_Rights_in_China. I sincerely believe you could contribute much in terms of content and research.Dilip rajeev (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mundane book keeping.

I may at some time in the future have need to produce a diff wherein I asked you to stop pursuing, stalking and/or harassing Abd. Please consider this to be that diff, and please just leave him alone. Enough said. Have a nice day. --GoRight (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take a clue, and stop considering Abd a poor helpless victim. He has already been told what he can do to avoid sanctions: editing quiet articles with no disputes. If he wants disputes, then he will have to wait until he finds his own disputes. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here.[15] As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(moved to a subsection) Damn, this sort of things always appears right when I am preparing myself to edit wikipedia less often..... Well, I'll keep an eye on that discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Andrew Koenig

Hi. I noticed that you mentioned you had seen this on WP:AN/I and commented on the talk page. I tried to find a discussion on AN/I and couldn't find it. Could you show me where you saw it? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have looked at both AN and ANI from 25th March and I can't locate the thread where I read about Koenig :( --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably WP:CN#Andrew Koenig (actor). (I used "what links here" for that.) Hans Adler 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Andrew_Koenig_.28actor.29, that was the place, thank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem?

Hi. Under User:Abd there are six subpages whose titles mention "cold fusion", e.g., User:Abd/Cold fusion controversy, User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, User:Abd/Cold fusion theories, and more. They are old pages but should they still be hanging around? Don't know who to report this to or if it's a ban violation or not, just thought someone should take a look. Thanks. --71.174.170.243 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all: they are not a ban violation. They were started before the ban was in place, and they haven't been edited since then. They are just sitting there and they have not been cited by Abd.

one of them (User:Abd/Calorimetry_in_cold_fusion_experiments) is a deleted article that was userfied, see the article log [16].

Personally, I would just leave them be, as harmless leftover pages. If you think that they are not appropiate for wikipedia, then make a WP:MFD request, making a compelling argument of why they are not appropiate. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion

[17] I did not know about that, good call :) mark nutley (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks :) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

re: ROBERT TAGGART / sockpuppet (?)

NO. Whatever that nonsense of yours is, I am no 'sp' for 'rt'. Iam a 'collegue' of said person (tiresome government training scheme) and one of about thirty such people. All said people having access to the net / wiki' via the comunal computers. 'RT' be most miffed about this wiki'/cyber bullying. He has expressed a wish to 'disappear', but, the more 'nerdy' (socialy awkward ?) wiki' editors will not allow this. Why not ? He tells me he has done all the editing he wishes to (completed c. february '10) and thought that was that. Me ? new to wiki' and probably 'old' soon !—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Syth ! (talk • contribs) 12:07, 7 May 2010

(I moved your comment here[18]) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Massimo

Fabritius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio"[19] and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim.[20] A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed.[21] [22] [23] [24] Fabritius then repeated the same [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored.[45] Edward321 (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, it's going to take a bit to read all that long talk page. I'll see if I can help. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Enric - many thanks for your kind offer to help out. The issue Edward321 raised has been dealt with by another administrator (OhNoitsJamie!), who has reverted the article to the original/consensus version and warned Fabritius not to resume edit warring or to make any further changes without getting a consensus first (there is currently a unanimous consensus against his edits on the talk page, and he also has a COI which he has already been warned about). I see that you are very experienced in this area, but I also see that you are planning to wind down your time commitment on Wikipedia until the summer, so would it be OK if I called for your help only if the action by the other administrator failed to resolve the issue? Given the length of the talk page (mostly my research, sorry!), I hope you agree that this would be a better use of your time. If the action of the other administrator fails to resolve the problem, your expertise would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards, Historybuff1930 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's OK, I still have to read that talk page, and I have like a thousand things to do in Real Life. ..Enric Naval (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering this page says you're not likely to be available until summer, I appreciate your taking the time to respond at all. When you do have the time, I also recommend looking at the discussion on Fabritius' talk page. Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Does DZIQ exist?

Recently, Supergabbyshoe created DZIQ & claims that it it Radyo Inquirer 990. Does this station exist? Or is this one of the hoaxes that Supergabbyshoe made? Superastig (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks legit. I left a couple of links in the talk page of the article. You should listen to the online stream to see if it's really broadcasting the The Inquirer news. Yesterday I only heard some music, but today I heard some people talking that sounded like they were reading the news. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Expanding Earth

Hi there: just wanted to let you know that I removed a bunch of the stuff you inserted in the lede of Expanding Earth: couldn't find it in the ref, and didn't make sense. AFAIK, Expanding Earth never had many proponents, and geosynclinal theory was the principal intellectual construct back then (for several reasons, including lack of a mechanism and lack of evidence of massive marine transgressions and/or removal of all marine faunas and/or the evidence of pre-Pangean geologic history). Anyway, since I removed something you wrote, thought I should let you know... Awickert (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is here. It's linked in the first ref, but it's not easy to see. It was continental drift that was rejected until the 1960s, not Plate tectonics, my mistake. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) [Copied from User talk:Awickert to keep this thread together]

I saw that source, but it doesn't say anything about an expanding Earth. It says some things about contraction, but says that it had gone away by the early 20th century because of the development of ideas of isostasy. It's a cool read, but I'm not so sure about its applicability to the discussion at hand. Awickert (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this was probably added to nail down that the scientific consensus today is tectonic plates, and that this is an indisputable fact. It was probably intended to fend off edits like this one[46]. I saw that the talk page is full of discussions about "mainstream acceptance". I guess that it wasn't really popular if people like Orestes feel necessary mention the contracting earth theory, but don't even make a passing mention to the expanding theory. That article must be difficult to source. It would be nice to find a secondary source saying "expanding earth stopped being fashionable at year X". --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... that article is a problem. It's in vogue today for pseudoscientists who don't know geology or physics, and who want to rewrite history and buck "the establishment. Problem is, "the establishment" is full of people who are very intelligent and actually know what they're talking about... I've thought of tackling that article, but I mostly just do damage control. Awickert (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

broken page move

Thanks, I screwed that one up. Lampman (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

SPAs

On arbreq you seem to be saying all SPAs should be topic-banned. Wikipedia already has quite a reord of shooting itself in the foot by banning, blocking or otherwise driving away experts, but banning them all from their own subjects? Maybe I misunderstand. Peter jackson (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts. If an expert is editing all the time in a non-neutral manner to push his own POV, then he is not welcome. I remember a comment from one arb, but I can't remember where: on the long term, an editor that edits only one topic will damage the neutrality of his editing, editing several edits allows you to see better your own flaws (since you are editing topics where you don't have an emotional investment). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I did understand. I have to say that your explanation does seem to be in accord with the dominant approach of the Wikipedia system, an approach that puts behaviour before content, civility before neutrality, peace & quiet before building a better encyclopaedia. You're obviously aware of the problem with this, as you've linked CPOV. WP hasn't managed to develop a solution yet (or, according to Kotniski, it's deliberately avoided solving it). Do you think this, or any combination of behavioural measures, would solve it? Peter jackson (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not that. The SPAs in the R&I topic were already POV pushing. And anyone who keeps editing a single topic all the time is going to wind up POV pushing. Because editing only a single topic is eventually going to twist your perspective. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what's not what? Peter jackson (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about behaviour, or about civility, or about peace & quiet. This not about giving more importance to good behaviour than to content. (I feared that you were missing the point and believing that it was a pure question of civility).

It's about POV pushing, and about an editing pattern (editing only articles in one topic) that is one of the signs of POV pushing. A pattern that, if carried during a long time, causes people to POV push (even if they were doing extremely good edits, we would still be asking them to edit a wider range of topics).

A topic ban is a way of saying "you are a good editor, but, for whatever the reason, you are doing more harm than good in this topic, so go edit other topics." We are hoping that, by editing topics where they don't have strong feelings, they learn to apply guidelines and policies more calmly and correctly. I guess that this counts as a behavioural measure. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. You're not treating the actual problem, bias. You're treating what you think to be a cause of it in some cases. Peter jackson (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You want to treat bias? As in, changing the behaviour and outlook of those editors? As in, an editor that has a bias? Well, a good manner of doing this is getting them to edit a wider range of articles, so they get different perspectives...... You can always try to talk them into changing, but they have to want to change, they have to put some effort on their part. If they still refuse to change after several tries (like, for example, insisting that there is no problem with them and it's all the other persons who are problematic), then you are reduced to having to ban them for not following community rules. We can't just reach through the screen and force them to behave well. Also, wikipedia is an online community just like forums, newsgroups, mailing lists, etc, and the tools in online communities limit us to the usual scalating chain of: advising --> reasoning --> warning --> scalating blocks --> indef block --> total ban. We don't have stuff like "talking to someone in their family", at most, if he respects some editor, we can ask that editor to talk to him. Also, cue WP:NOTTHERAPY, editors who can't get themselves to follow community rules are eventually restricted or banned, we just can't fix their problems for them (well, we can try to help them, but at the end it's still their responsability). At the end, you wind up stumbling upon editors that just won't learn and you are forced to kick them out of certain topics or kick them out completely. As above, when an editor keeps having a bias after advice, the usual solution is getting him to edit other articles and hope that they learn by experience, there are not many other tools or strategies available. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's get back to basics. The aim of the project is supposed to be building a better encyclopaedia. Among other things, that means unbiased articles. Now at present there are plenty of biased ones, for 2 reasons:

1. there are plenty of biased editors;
2. there's no generally effective procedure to enforce NPOV.

Wikipedia's approach, which you seem to follow, is to ignore 2 & try to solve 1. It's obvious to everyone, I should think, that this hasn't worked so far, & it seems obvious, to me at least, that it can't be expected ever to work. Do you disagree? Peter jackson (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

waco

Hi

Unfortunately the sources you give as refs are not the texas rangers or the DOJ reports. I have reverted the edits and hope you can correct the refs, I know it would have been easy for me to do them but think that it is best that you do it as I prefer to copy edit and maintian factual accuracy and wish to remain neutral on such things as the weapons and their use

The refs should be to the/those original documents not really Wikisource docs which could be altered from the original (I know its not going to happen probably)

[47] is the original DOJ document

I would point out though that the document does not itself contain references and there are other sources which state that these were ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long" which would imply they were probably just barrels from larger .50 cal machine guns

To be honest after the lies in that DOJ document, concerning things such as stating there were no incendiary rounds used, it is hard to believe anything other than an original Texas Ranger document that showed what they actually found and the purposes of their use.

It is easy to assume that .50 cal is snipers rifle but this is not backed up anywhere else as far as i know

thanks

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The interim report to the DOJ[48] explained the difference between incendiary rounds and pyrotechnic rounds (pages 49 and 50), that they are usually confused, that the terms were usually interchangeabily, and that the FBi might have tried to cover the use of pyrotechnic rounds because they can start a round by accident.

The original Texas Rangers report is here A Texas Rangers report examining only the CS cartridges [49](I downloaded the 36 megabytes report), says several times that they found only pyrotechnic casings. They did find part of the parachute of a flare (which is "incendiary in nature", note that a flare is not a CS cartridge). According to this source, the DOJ report was not lying when it said that no incendiary CS cartridges were used.

About these sources that say ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long", then please provide a source that are directly saying that there were not barrels or a .50 cal rifle. Reaching that conclusion oneself is original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The original report seems to be in appendix D of the DOJ report[50]. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

OK you are missing the point here - especially in accusing me of OR

THe main points are

1 Quote from original documents, not derived copies or ones from Wikisource - these are much less open to question. I gave you the link for that original DOJ document. Aside from actually putting the link in for you I did the leg work FOR your argument

2 CESNUR is not an originator of the reports or documentation

3 I know the difference between Incendiary and Pyrotechnics - do not try to cloud the issue. Calling a device a pyrothechnic device does not mean that it would not cause a fire. A flashbang is not designed as an incendiary device but the flash part could easily cause a fire if thrown into a room filled with flammable gas.

4 The DOJ was lying if it said no pyrotechnic rounds were used [51] [52] [53] and I quote from the Texas Rangers

"When fired, the projectile disperses CS into the atmosphere by the burning of a pyrotechnic mixture" the report then goes on to state:-

"No reference or fire hazard warning is provided in the manual, so I asked Investigator O’DONNELL to research what he could about tests conducted when the M651 was being developed to determine the realistic degree of hazards of starting a fire. On 08-531-99, Investigator O’DONNELL advised me that he had consulted Ray JOHNSON who is currently the DECON/MUNITIONS Team Leader for the Soldier’s Biological Chemicals Command at Rock Island Arsenal. JOHNSON advised that they had not explored the fire hazard of the M651 because it was known to cause fires. The projectile burns at 500 to 700 degrees Fahrenheit, and is capable of igniting flammable items. JOHNSON also advised that the military had no official definition of a pyrotechnic round but that the M651 was considered a pyrotechnic round by the military."

5 You have not provided a link to the original Rangers report on the weapons collected

6 You have accused me of WP:OR and ask that I "provide a source that are directly saying that there were not barrels or a .50 cal rifle." I stated

there are other sources which state that these were ".50 cal barrels over 5 feet long" and I also stated

It is easy to assume that .50 cal is snipers rifle but this is not backed up anywhere else as far as i know

Do not EVER accuse someone of OR when they are infact simply stating facts, especially when that person's statemen CLEARLY says that they WERE barrels and DID NOT SAY THERE WERE NO RIFLES but simply said that people jump to conclusions about a .50 automatically being a sniper rifle.

I suggest you apologise for the OR accusation before we continue any discussions

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for accusing you of original research. I address the points one by one:

1 you are right, thanks for the link

2 the Danforth report is no longer available in the DOJ website, so we are forced to rely on copies. Several websites have copies since it's a public domain document, and we even have a copy at commons. Unfortunately, I can't find the document in archive.org. (Note that the cernur copy is linked from the PBS website[54], and that it's the same pdf as the one hosted in rickross.com[55] and the one hosted in carolmoore's website[56].), and that the rest of files are linked here, all uploaded by Carol Moore. By WP:AGF, we should assume that the copies are correct until it can be show that they aren't, or until they are reasonable suspicions that they might have been altered. (anyways, I could always cite the reports without giving a link the online source I used, but I have always found that to be a bit silly....)

3 That's true, and the article needs to say that the pyrotechnic devices did have a risk of starting a fire. (it's currently inside of a reference, it should be instead in the text itself) and it should explain the difference between incendiary and pyrotechnic devices. The relevant source seems to be here and we should explain the difference between "incendiary" and "pyrotechnic" since many readers won't know the difference (there is a good explanation in page 25 of Danforth report, inside footnote 31[57])

4 yes, the Danforth report states that the DOJ indeed covered-up the use of pyrotechnic devices. This needs to go into the article if it's not already there (you said incendiary ones, which were not actually used, sorry for the confusion)

5 I can't find any evidence that the Texas Ranger actually published a public document, it seems to have been an internal non-public document. I'm afraid that no links exists. We can still cite them via the DOJ report and the Danforth report.

6 "there are other sources which state (...)" <-- I had a problem with this statement because you are not citing especific sources. The article does not say anything about sniper rifles so I am not going to comment on that matter.

(I have to go now, back in Sunday night or Monday) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I transcluded the discussion to the Waco siege talk page as so much useful info was coming from the discussion I thought, and still think, we should carry on discussion there :¬)
Chaosdruid (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I already replied there the other edit. I'll look at your reply tomorrow. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 13:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

pelase note

Hi

I made a post on the Waco talk page but I don't know if you saw it during your editing session

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was still writing my reply in one of the tabs of my browser, while finishing off a few edits in a different tab :) I have posted it now. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI Notice

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enric Naval. I'm leaving this notice as it appears the original filer did not know to do so TNXMan 16:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm insulted that you're the sock master. Verbal chat 17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

LOLLLL! Well, my account is 4 year and a half older than yours. Also, check my edit count[58], I started editing wikipedia again back in February 2008, and you started editing in May 2008. And check your own edit count, our pie charts are similar[59] XD My, my, what do we have here, so very suspicious XDDDDDD Oh, god, today I had a very tiring day and so much laughing is killing me, my face muscles hurt. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I commented in the SPI page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, we fooled them! I mean, I fooled them. Or you did. This is confusing. As an aside, I've always wondered if it's suspicious when suspected socks start joking with each other after an SPI is filed. It's something I nearly always start to do when accused (is there a barnstar for most frivolous SPI cases?) but then worry it will look suspicious. And then I worry not doing it will look suspicious. And then I stop caring. By the way, one has never noticed anything wrong with your English, I was discombobulated by your pronouncement that your command of English is anything less than supremely superlative to the highest degree. Although "XD" does rather give the game away, old chap. Not cricket. Verbal chat 13:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I know that my English is not good because many people, including new accounts and IPs, feel compelled to go over every text I have ever written in a popular article, with edit summaries like section rewritten to remove grammatical errors and inconsistencies, Grammar and usage cleanup throughout this section, Fixed some spelling mistakes or fixed a handful of typos and spelling mistakes, not to mention Undid gf (good faith) revision 361492520 by Enric Naval that mangled grammar I think it was Hans Adler who said that, in his personal opinion, someone with my level of English shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia :) I have gotten a bit better since then, and now I have a browser with a English spell checker, but I still have a lot to improvement to do.

Wait, if you are my sock, then you are me joking with myself? :) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That could result in self-ejoculation which would render me/you/us blind and lead to excommunication. Verbal chat 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have now won this competition - I am apparently a sockpuppet of WMC. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Workshop#Issue_suggested_by_TheGoodLocust. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Enric, you forgot to log in as me when commenting after I welcomed that new user and asked about them on ANI... (and it's PS in English, not PD). I'm sure lots of people on that discussion could be called Hypocrites... (I hope they don't hear me, and it was a joke). Verbal chat 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

hehe, yeah, I also thought that. Things that happen when two people watchlist the same article (or should I say when one person watchlists one article? Hummm).

(Spanish has both es:Post scríptum and es:Postdata (lenguaje), or Post Datum. I never remember that P.D. in Spanish it's usually for letters) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan map

where does it says that afghanistan ethnic groups include 9.2% other (Pashai, Hindki, Nuristani, Brahui, Hindkowans, etc.)??????? first -- most of these mentioned ethnic groups live in pakistan except nuristani and pashai who are 700,000 combined. second -- 9.2% is nearly 3 million afghans and no where i can find this wrong information putted in this encyclopedia. i ask you to guide me to the website where you find it, show me a website or book that mentions just one hindowan or hindki in afghanistan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasonall (talk • contribs) 14:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there was a problem with the map, see Talk:Afghanistan#inaccurate_map. You could go to the AIMS website and provide the correct figures for the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I putted these government-made maps for afghanistan demography

Ethnolinguistic groups of Afghanistan in 1997

Ethnolinguistic groups of Afghanistan in 2001

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasonall (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

the one u deleted was missing AIMAK group which 4% of population in afghanistan and they are even mentioned in afghanistan constitution seee they show in central part of country near to herat in western section in these maps they show clearly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seasonall (talk • contribs) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've appreciated your comments about sources.

Hi, Enric,

It's been interesting following the discussion of sources in the ArbCom case file for Race and intelligence. I get the impression that a lot of university-educated people don't visit university libraries regularly to get an impression of what the mainstream literature is on different subjects. I hope I have the opportunity to work a lot with editors like you who have a sense of the sources while editing articles in various parts of Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Academia de l'Aragonés

Dear Enric, It has indeed been designated as language regulator by the "II Congreso de l'Aragonés", so it's not true that has not been designate by "anybody". There should be some reference in the media about that. It is not a government appointed language regulator but it is a "de facto" language regulator established in a congress on the language (if it is finally created an official one, I will agree that the official one should be considered the main language regulator). In my opinion, it suits the category language regulators.

Could this be a valid reference for the designation by the II Congress? --62.101.181.180 (discusión) 15:27 30 jul 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.181.180 (talk)

That congress wants to influence the regulation of the language, but it has no authority to regulate language.

There is a law in progress in the aragones language, and that law says that an academy has to be created to regulate the aragones language. Maybe they will designate this academy, or maybe they will create a new one. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote

You should explain your vote better in few sentences, as per propositions of the vote. Main idea is not to ask for previous reasons in TLDR article. And next stage of discussion will start after we finish this vote. --Tadija^speaks 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Burying all the disagreement under loads of arguments are exactly what are we going there. We need Agreement, not disagreement. Also, you should try to explain your vote better, as that past "agreement" you are pointing was not good, so we are fixing it now. Dont look into past. We still have problem to fix. --Tadija^speaks 18:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America up for Deletion Review

Hello! Since you participated in The MfD, you might be interested in participating in the Deletion Review, as well.

LiteralKa (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Barcelona History

There are about 30 researched (Robert Hughes, Jaume Sobrequés, Museu d'Historia…) pages on the history of Barcelona, 2 of which refer to Wilfred. One mentions his role as the founder of a dynasty of Counts of Barcelona. The second, legends compiled by Joan Amades -you may have heard of him. The introduction, language, content and tone of this text make it clear that the content is not factual history but interesting legend and the kind of thing that makes history come alive for ordinary readers. History is interesting but legends are exciting. Perhaps you'd like to delete any references to Santa Eulalia (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulalia_de_Barcelona) as it is known there is no historical truth in her legend. The fact that you consider it a joke seems rather strange. "Barcelona History" contains facts that most English (and Catalan) speaking people are unaware of, most Spanish speaking people would deny including the fact that the Catalan flag was first represented in 1082 making it the first national flag in Europe; the Usatges de Barcelona were the first Bill of civil and Human Rights in Europe, over a hundred years before the English Magna Carta and that the Consell de Cent, les Corts Catalanes and the Generalitat were the first "democratic" institutions in Europe; the Count-Kings of Catalonia and Aragon ruled by consent, not divine right; Catalonia and Aragon had an Empire that included Sicily, Sardinia and parts of Italy and Greece, including Athens. None of this is a joke, but an attempt to provide a human and historical context to those tourists who do not walk around with no shirts on and are interested in knowing something factual and something moving about the buildings and places they see. I know the links don't improve your ranking I also know from my own (admittedly limited) research, that people don't use them very much. So I'm not much affected by the fact of your removing the wilfred link, just your criteria and judgement for doing so. Keep laughing… Peter

Your website has no editorial oversight, and no reputation for accuracy, so it fails the "What should be linked" recommendations in the External Links guideline.

For accuracy, your website omits several important facts and alters some facts. For example: the flag in the 1082 tomb was most probably added by a later king, I think Peter IV of Aragon. You state that Roger de Lluria talked about "the shield of Catalunya and Aragon"[60] when he really said "the ensign of the King of Aragon (...) the safe-pass of the Aragonese king"[61]. For neutrality: stuff like "Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon" says it all. Your website would only mislead readers into a distorted view of history. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Croats

Hello there. I saw on the Croats talk page you were discussing the total population figure. I've started a new discussion on it to try to reach a new consensus and thought you may like to get involved. Check it out here. Cheers. 58.166.186.39 (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

Are they? But they are not official though are they. I mean I can leave warning on their pages, SlOn2 or whatever her name is has been edit warring too. Neutral Player (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are not "official", and anyone can leave them, and users are free to remove them from their talk pages. However, if the problem is real, then it will be considered that Lontech has been warned about the problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo as a cradle

Hi Enric. I've made a few notes you may be interested to read and reply to if you wish. I know that maybe Balkan affairs are outside your general areas of editing but still you are very welcome. All users know that you're a good faith editor. The notes I have made are here[62] and directly follow your comment concerning your edit which still stands. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the issues civilly.

With [63], you wrote: "Abd, stop spreading misinformation and POV-pushing." I ask you to, somewhere appropriate, substantiate this implied claim that I am spreading "misinformation" and "POV-pushing."

The most serious part of this is about "misinformation." After all, I'm a COI editor, I'm allowed to have a POV and to advocate it, though only within behavioral guidelines. But "misinformation" is a serious charge. Examples?

You cited your own page imagining that you established something contradictory to my position. In fact, it appears you don't understand my position, big surprise, because the material you cite doesn't contradict my understanding, nor what I've written. In any case, I decided to respond to you, since you asked me for that on the page, and I did so at Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Controversy. You are most welcome to participate there. Perhaps we can do some good work that could come back to the article here. --Abd (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And again:[64][65]. Sometimes I get the sense that you really don't understand what I'm saying, but you are convinced I'm wrong. In 1989-1990, there were a vast number of papers published on cold fusion, because there was really both great enthusiasm and great skepticism. It's said that half the U.S. discretionary research budget was shoved into cold fusion for a brief period. However, publication declined to a nadir sometime around 2004, and then it started increasing. You can see this in the plots of yearly publication, published by Jed Rothwell in his independent analysis using the Britz data. Why isn't it visible in the Britz chart? Because Britz plots by month, a major increase in publication may only show up as one or two papers per month. When you realize that the whole list for 2005 is only six papers, a plot by month, in a chart designed to accomodate a huge publication rate in 1989-1990, isn't going to show anything as to increase since then! --unless it were to become truly huge, which isn't necessarily likely in this field quite yet. It is difficult research, often, and hopes that it would quickly result in vast supplies of cheap energy pretty much vanished after hundreds of millions of dollars of research funding were poured in, with little improvement in reliability and efficiency. That research didn't come up with a conclusion that cold fusion didn't exist, the opposite, in fact. But it did come up with the conclusion, as the Japanese said, that "results weren't what we hoped for." In other words, no money here, and no money in sight. That has nothing to do with the science, it is about economics and the perceived likelihood of practical application.

Please try to look at what I wrote and whether it is accurate or not, instead of dredging up ways to make it seem imbalanced, by showing something you think contradicts me, and then claiming that I've been misleading. What you quoted in the second comment from Britz is true, i.e., there was an exponential decline. That decline stopped around 2004 or 2005. Enric, you don't seem to be able to synthesize agreement when something looks different to you. I was writing about after 2005.

As to the substance of Britz's comment, Britz has always presented himself as a skeptic. The situation with low-temperature superconductivity is very different than with cold fusion. It was easy to replicate LTS, all you needed was the precise recipe. It was very, very difficult to replicate Pons and Fleischmann, and even they couldn't do it when they ran out of their original batch of palladium rod. Until it was figured out how to fabricate these rods, and that took years. There was no "precise recipe," until much later. F-P cells are still very quirky, but far higher "success" is now achieved, routinely. And when it comes to heat/helium ratio, those mysteriously different rods actually make for very good control experiments. I.e., everything the same, as far as they can make it, but some cells show no excess heat. And the same cells produce no helium. If the cells produce excess heat, they produce helium, in amounts that vary with the amount of excess heat measured.

Enric, you know, I assume, that Huizenga was the chair of the 1989 ERAB panel. He recognized the significance of the heat/helium work, and covered it in his book, Cold fusion, the scientific fiasco of the century. He ended up dismissing it, but only with the expectation that it would not be confirmed. In fact, if we read Huizenga carefully, that result, by Miles, was confirming earlier work, which he in his previous edition has rejected as unconfirmed, and, in fact, it was all massively confirmed later, which is very well covered by Storms in both the recent review (2010) and his book (2007). And that is covered amply in other peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources. It's basically over, Enric. The "negative" sources have disappeared, almost entirely. Mainstream publication, since 2005, other than two papers that are really tertiary sources, that assume that cold fusion is pathological science -- which wasn't tenable by then if anyone had been following the field -- and other than Shanahan's three papers, accepted by nobody -- is entirely on the side of this field as being legitimate research, with known and demonstrated results, multiply confirmed, etc., etc. Please look at Wikiversity:Cold fusion/Recent sources and if anything there is misleading, please correct it! I make mistakes. Do you? --Abd (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite good source for the increase in publication, and then I'll consider it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Enric, you claimed that I misrepresented a fact, and you denied the fact. You are not obligated to "consider it," but please don't assert misrepresentation, which you did, unless you have proof. You don't, because the primary sources, a list of publications, including the Britz bibliography -- count the papers for each year! -- shows the opposite of what you claimed, which was no increase. If I were proposing to put in the article that there has been an increase of publications, you'd be correct, perhaps, to ask for a source to that effect; but sometimes simple counting is allowed as adequate for verification. So how about this, just between you and me: The Britz bibliography shows an increase in yearly publication from 6 papers in 2005 to 24 or 25 papers per year in 2008-2010. Do you agree that this is true and verifiable? --Abd (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Cite a good source instead of your own original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Enric, you aren't getting it. You asserted that I was spreading "misinformation." Sure, there was original research involved. Counting the number of papers appearing each year in the Britz bibliography. If my comment was based on "original research," but easily verifiable, what was yours based on? Do you have a reliable source that says, "Abd was spreading misinformation?" What is the evidence such that you can accuse me of "spreading misinformation"? I highly recommend that you back off on this. You have not understood the issue that I'm addressing, which is not about claiming that there is no rejection, but that the peer reviewers stopped rejecting, and started accepting, around 2005, to the extent that positive publication is now overwhelming. Please don't continue on this course of rejecting what is plain and simple from the sources, based solely on your opinion that this is still "fringe," as distinct from emerging science. You can find scattered recent tertiary sources that consider CF as completely rejected. Nothing of actual weight, i.e., that was peer-reviewed by experts. Please stop claiming that I'm spreading misinformation; if I err, point it out, but I assure you, I have never deliberately misinformed anyone. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Abd-WMC case I spent several hours of my time gathering diffs so I could show your past misrepresentations. You simply discarded all evidence that you didn't like. The same way you discard all sources I keep presenting to you. Why should I spend several hours doing again the same. What is the use of doing that. I'm here to help write an encyclopedia, not to help others satisfy their thirst for endless pointless discussion.

How about you head back to Talk:Cold fusion and you propose specific edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember why I got so worked up. TLDR

P.D.: OK,I remember what got me so worked up. It was the last paragraph of this. a) you neglect to mention your acceptance of GoRight's mentorship, which was a terribly bad idea beyond terribleness b) you said "I'd like ArbComm to assign me a mentor (...) at one point, Fritzpoll, both before and after being an arbitrator, volunteered to mentor me, but he was told, I'm informed, by ArbComm, that this was not allowed" seriously? arbcom rejected the mentorship remedy and then had to pass a separate motion removing a leftover mention to mentors, Carcharot specifically said that you could still get a mentor via standard means c) "That ban has been so much trouble because it was truly -- I guarantee this! -- impossible to clearly interpret." except that people told you that it wasn't and you got blocked twice for making straightforward violations of it (March and January 2010, and probably also June 2010). Because the meaning of certain aspects of the ban was clearly spelled out to you (getting mentioned does not mean that you are an originating party to the dispute!) and still you decided that it didn't mean that and you got blocked for it (in June 2010, for an edit that said in its edit summary "MYOB ban does not apply because of repeated mention of me"). Oh, and in that edit you also violated your topic ban, even although you were told by several people that self-reverting edits were still topic ban violations and that "self-revert per ban" is not going to work. I could spend all day picking at the omissions and misrepresentations that you keep throwing in your posts, but why bother........

--Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Enric, your recent comment implied that "misrepresentation" was continuing. Thus there must be a recent "misrepresentation." What you claimed was my misrepresentation was accurate report, and as soon as that is shown, you don't want to discuss it. If you want to let this stand, that's up to you, but to pretend that you are required to go back and dredge up every alleged misrepresentation from a year ago, to spend hours, no, that won't fly. You are not obligated to respond here, you may, as you know, even delete comments from your Talk. You got "worked up" because, on my Talk page, I didn't mention that transient effort by GoRight? "Originating party" was never defined, and there were no examples of bad behavior given by ArbComm (as to interference in other disputes) on which to base interpretation, so that ban was wikilawyered left and right, mostly to block me for stuff where I didn't expect it would be applied. Seriously, how about focusing on content, yourself, instead of the smears, okay? --Abd (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That comment is from 6 days ago. You were misrepresenting events that happened 1 year ago. And apply your advice to yourself..... Errr, sorry, I was being too confrontational. How about this: let's both go focus on content. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Enric. --Abd (talk) 17:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Britz has actually updated his general info page "These plots do

not clearly show a recent increase in publications, since a low in 2004-5, because of the scaling. I might add a couple of plots starting at 2000 or so, to show this more clearly."[66]. And he has added a new plot where you can see a spike in 2009: "It was suggested to me to add another statistical plot, showing publications per year, which shows more clearly than the monthly plot that there has been a recent rise in publication since a minimum in 2004-5. This is now implemented."[67] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Before, I'd always suggested missing papers to Rothwell, who would forward them to Britz. This was about Britz's summary, so I wrote directly to him, and he replied. At first, he suggested plotting since 2000, but he still used monthly publication, which makes the increase invisible. The serious spike in 2009 was a result of an error, listing the first ACS LENR Sourcebook (2008) in 2009. I pointed that out, and proposed he show yearly publication. Britz was great to communicate with, very responsive. --Abd (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Discussion

Dear User,

You previously participated at the discussion regarding the collapsing of spolier's at Talk:The_Mousetrap. I invite you to comment at a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Proposal.

Many Thanks

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ninja Duck?

I thought that there was something wrong with ninja duck, but wasn’t entirely sure. Good catch! — SpikeToronto 14:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Ninja duck" sounded a lot like the typical Ninja Pirate Zombie Robot trick. (fact: adding "ninja" in front of a word increases its coolness by an order of magnitude!) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see. So perhaps we should call it “ninja duck,” then it would have the same coolness magnitude effect on the activity to which it was claimed to be attached.☺ I am going to start calling bill paying time ninja bill paying time! Think I’ll enjoy it that much more Enric? <smile> Thanks for the comments above. — SpikeToronto 20:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to work at Cold fusion, goodbye, and thanks.

Thanks for the helpful things you have done at Cold fusion. You are also responsible for some less-than-helpful things, in how you framed my activities there for ArbComm, but I've never doubted your good faith. It's now impossible for me to work at Cold fusion, editors who were disruptive before, on the pseudo-skeptical side, have returned, and have free rein. Anyone who was expert has been banned. I hope you've read that Bauer paper on pathological science, and that you can understand just how anti-scientific these framings of scientific research, which has always proceeded through errors and false starts, are. They are not true skepticism, they are belief in dogma. For a true skeptic, read Nate Hoffman, A Dialogue on Induced Nuclear Effects, a guide for the perplexed on Cold fusion, American Nuclear Society, 1995. Storms is, I can say from extensive discussions with him by email and phone, a true skeptic, one who knows the difference between knowledge and speculation.

Wikipedia is largely irrelevant. I didn't come here to "promote" cold fusion. I came to help. The problems are not just at cold fusion, they are structural, and they are deep. Cold fusion has merely, for me, been a clear demonstration of this. What policy would require for that article and what the article actually is are very, very different. I've been wasting my time here, that's clear.

This is the problem: I could challenge what's come down, I know the procedure and I know the politics. But it's not worth it. I could spend months and be "successful" and what is gained? A boulder has been pushed up the hill a little. And then it rolls back down. I spent so much time on the lenr-canr.org blacklist issue, and for what? ArbComm confirmed that the blacklist was not to be used for content control (which, by the way, would include preventing copyvio, for scattered claims, i.e., where a site *might* host occasional copyvio). How much work did it take to get that confirmation? And what has, now, been the net result? There is one link at Martin Fleischmann. After all the discussion there, after revert warring by JzG, where another admin finally reverted him, Verbal returned and removed the link without discussion, while I was away. And so it sat, until yesterday, when I noticed it. The boulder rolls back down the hill, pushed by what is effectively vandalism. POV-pushing. And it takes far too much work to maintain neutrality and usefulness. So ... for my own sanity, goodbye.

I've concluded, with many others, that Wikipedia is hopeless, it cannot succeed in maintaining its "non-negotiable" policy of neutrality, whenever there is serious controversy, the inefficiency is far too high, nothing reliable is being built, it collapses and decays, and the procedures for resolving disputes remain primitive and ineffective. Wikipedia works for non-controversial subjects, but even there it can break down over personalities.

The people who used to be helpful with the article are almost completely gone. I know for a fact that real scientists stay away, and I'm not talking about "cold fusioneers." I'm talking about professionals, who know the protocols of science, who work as scientists in other fields.

In a way, being blocked and banned was a good thing for me. It led me to focus on real learning and real research. The last few weeks have been a waste of time for me, far too much work for far too little result. It would take active cooperation and support to keep me, especially when the strong POV-pushers appeared and there is no protection. Shanahan is a strong POV-pusher, but he's COI and, except for the civility part, follows the COI guideline. He is probably more useful than not. He seems to think I'm out to destroy him. It just goes to show. He is also a demonstration of where the hyper-skeptical position on cold fusion has gone. He's rejected by the editors of mainstream journals. The overall "flip" hasn't happened, but the evidence for cold fusion is now so strong -- do read that Storms review if you haven't -- that all that is left inhibiting broader publication is holdover policy on it. A DoE panel today would very possibly come out overwhelmingly that the science is real. That doesn't necessarily mean that the "conclusion" would be any different. They were tasked with determining funding, for a possible crash program. Until the mechanism is understood, that could be premature, it would be pouring money down a rabbit hole, not knowing how deep it is, hoping to fill it.

Many have confused "real" with "practical." It's possible that cold fusion will never be practical for power generation, the effect is fragile, it seems. That fragility confused everyone for a long time. Heat/helium is what killed that "reliability" argument for me. Lots of science is based on effects that can be replicated only with difficulty and a substantial level of "failure." But statistical correlation is used to demonstrate the reality. Medicine is even more dependent upon this, the physicial scientists are less accustomed to needing it.

If you have any questions about cold fusion, you may email me. I may nor may not see comments on my Talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 13:22, 5 October 2010

Talkback

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients.
Message added 09:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There are two more replies for you on the above linked talk page. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Terrence Webster-Doyle rewrite

After your helpful commentary with this, I wanted to see if you could look at my proposed entry at User:RennaissanceWarfare/Terrence Webster-Doyle as a single, whole entity unto itself (it's only a paragraph in length), and put on your Admin hat and ask the question, "does this merit inclusion, does it meet the standards, does it serve to correct the prior objections that it was overstuffed, spam, non-notable and a vanity page". If you could give it 5 minutes of your time in that capacity, and give me the nod that it's fine, notes to improve, or an indication that it's innapropriate, that's all I ask. If you think it looks acceptable, could you leave a comment on the Closing Admin's talk page to that effect (he seems hesitant to include an opinion, and is suggesting it go to the deletion review process which I think would simply reignite the old discussions, irrespective of the massively different version I've made) Thank you for your time. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The entry is much better written. But I think that it still lacks a clear source that makes him pass WP:BIO. As such, I can't just go and recommend the closing admin to undelete it. Like him, I recommend going through WP:DRV.

(As an aside, I just saw the closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball, which had a similar problem) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the comments, and thank you for looking it over. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

mistake?

You seem to have removed someone else's post with this edit.  pablo 08:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, yes, my mistake. The software didn't warn me about the edit conflict for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo again

WhiteWriter is trying again to gain a consensus on Kosovo to split the article. Unfortunately the discussion has become a case, where the vast majority of supports are from Serb editors without a single argument[68]. When I pointed out that users without a conlict of interest have rejected this proposal about a month ago I got this reply [69]. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I had been seeing it. Note that one of the supporters seems to be greek. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required

A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen discography

Hi Enric, concerning Queen songs, I didn't re-direct any of them, but I re-redirected them back to their individual articles. These four singles which should have their own articles are "Bicycle Race", "Mustapha", "Jealously" and "One Year of Love". These four are notable charted singles in their respective territories, so I saved them. Blame TenPoundHammer for the redirects, not me. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Go ahead with the deletions. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

invite to discuss Kosovo geographic names

I would like to invite you to review my summary of problems in kosovo geographic articles here User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages all comments appreciated. thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my fast response

I was sure that we would have general agreement once you saw that guideline paragraph, but I never considered the possibility that you might find it on your own while I posted. I wish your way of dealing with such situations weren't so exceptional. Hans Adler 22:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo again

[70] I don't even know how many discussions in a row will be started over and over again. Btw he's claiming a 8-to-1 consensus about the split, which is apparently an attempt to create a false consensus effect.---— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

• Hi there. Just to leave a note to thank you for your help with Valencian language. Its a pity that other editors do not follow WP NPOV and Truth policies. Regards. IeXrivâ (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

• News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

• In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

• Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

• Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

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

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hope you don't mind this, Enric. My current topic ban seems to allow me to make nondisruptive comments on user Talk pages, and I hope you will consider this helpful.

The cold fusion article has been edited to add information about pyroelectric fusion, which is completely out of place in the cold fusion, it is also covered in Nuclear fusion#Generally_cold, locally hot fusion and has its own article as well, it is not cold fusion at all. That's a fairly common error, but it's the same situation with bubble fusion (allegedly). Pyroelectric fusion is simply a known and practical method of creating very high effective temperature in a very small space, in this case as with any fusion produced by accelerating deuterons to high velocity for impact with a target, it is exactly the same kind of fusion (as to the reaction itself) as thermonuclear fusion. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mist Opportunity

From this discussion of the Miles-Fleischmann Calorimetry Model:

“ The Miles-Fleischmann Calorimetry Model is the central technical model of isoperibolic Cold Fusion calorimetry. This model has a term, P_gas, that accounts for heat lost through the venting of D2, O2, and D2O vapors. The model assumes that all the vented D2O is in the vapor phase, and none in the condensed (liquid) phase. This does not appear to be a good assumption.

During operation of the cell, D2 and O2 gas is bubbling up. When bubbles break the surface, they "spritz" some droplets into the air, much like carbonated beverages do. When cells are run at elevated temperatures (as they often are), there will also be some amount of steam, fog, mist, or other forms of condensation or precipitation of moisture in the air space. Some amount of moisture in the liquid phase will be swept along with the D2, O2, and D2O vapor as it vents from the cell. But water in the liquid phase does not carry off as much heat as water in the vapor phase. When the lost water is plugged into the Miles-Fleischmann Model, the formula will assume that the amount of heat lost corresponds to that for water in the vapor phase. For every mole of water that was vented in the liquid phase (as steam, fog, or mist), 45 KJ of heat will be left behind, to show up as anomalous "excess heat."

There is no express term in the Miles-Fleischmann Model for heat from nuclear reactions; rather there is a term, P_ex, for leftover heat not accounted for by any other explicit term in their model. P_ex could be from any number of imaginable processes not expressly modeled in their energy budget equations. One possibility is that P_ex could be a placeholder for P_mist, which needs to be expressly incorporated into their model.

You can see this misting if you bother to look for it. There are some videos of CF cells in operation in the documentary, Cold Fusion: Fire from Water, but the best individual close up video I could find is this one.

”

Caprice 15:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822

Hi! Thanks for helping out with the CCI. Just a note though, we can't assume that just because images are taken pre-1923 that they were published pre-1923. When there's no verifiable source for publication it should be tagged as non-free. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the indication. So, should I revert myself and put it again as fair use? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be my recommendation, yes. Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works goes into some more detail if you're interested. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am very grateful with your help with this. Images are not my area, which is why I left so many (especially non-free ones) alone. :) I do think you may have misread one image, though. I left a note at the CCI, but rather than doing something convoluted with talkbacks figured I'd just discuss it separately here. With respect to our file on File:Weston Zanzibar.jpg, according to our article on him, he actually started being a bishop in 1908 and continued until November 1924, hence why its dating seems unclear. :/ (And, like Verno, I think if you believe a valid FUR can be made for any image where we can't positively determine it's free, go for it! I told Richard back when I started this that I'm uneasy with our FUR standards regarding images of dead people, having had one of my own deleted at IfD and another retained at NFCR, when so far as I could see they were identical in function!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I misread those dates. I'm not sure of what FUR I could use here, I suppose that "at the height of his career" wouldn't work :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. :D I've stayed away from people images ever since my first confusing brush. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm better at making FUR about non-people stuff. I find that FUR for people are very difficult to make. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Smiley

Thanks for that exhaustive search! :-) Fences&Windows 02:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! Let's see if I can add some info to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

After failing multiple times to gain a consensus now Alinor decided to make changes that he considers as a status quo[71], which incidentally is similar to the pre-ICJ decision of the article and against the current consensus [72]. Btw now Alinor started another discussion about the same subject[73]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ufff, I have family supper tonight, it's Nochebuena here in Spain. And tomorrow I have the New Year family dinner.I don't know when I'll be able to reply. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I advice that you make a complaint at WP:AE, just copy the comment you made here. Make sure you include a link to the article probation WP:ARBKOS#Kosovo_related_articles_on_Article_probation. Also to WP:ARBKOS#Edit_warring_considered_harmful and WP:ARBKOS#Disruptive_editing. Include his edit [74] and his revert to his version [75], and that he is undoing an edit from July, 5 months ago [76]. Now I'm off, bye. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse

You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

By the time I saw it, it was already archived. I guess that this IP will keep disrupting the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Giovanni Di Stefano.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Giovanni Di Stefano.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I replied in the discussion and updated the permission text. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Enric, I realised after I made the nomination that I should have first spoken to the uploader first,if they were active. Sorry about that and thanks for clarifying the details. I have withdrawn the nomination with a note at the Ffd page. Regards.Off2riorob (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the fast retraction :) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

re your message

I do actually know the rules, thanks; however; I think 3RR refers to reverts made within the same 24-hr period. We are pretty far from that. Regardless, I think beefman is acting against consensus to promote a WP:FRINGE view. NickCT (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give my two cents of advice here. WP:Edit warring also applies to long revert wars that spawn longer than 24 hours, you can get blocked for reverting a few times in a period of weeks.

Also, my advice for avoiding edit wars that bring no good to anybody, for what it's worth: State your arguments in the talk page in a succinct way, and let him time to respond (that can even mean a couple of days or more, since you want other people to see the thread and add their own comments and help establish a consensus. You can attract outside editors with a post in WP:FRINGE/N or similar). Then, after leaving plenty of time for discussion, you could revert his edit. And then, if he reverts once again, then it's the time to go to WP:3RR/N and point out that someone is making a long-term edit war after failing to get consensus in the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I posted in the FRINGE board, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#current_status_of_research_on_Abiogenic_petroleum_origin, it could take a couple of days to get comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Photon belt

The first AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Photon Belt Serendi^podous 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Image

Well, there's no need to get all shirty. I engaged one of the restoring editors on his talk page and noted this in the edit summary, but if you want a more general discussion, fine, I opened a thread on the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but do I know you or something? I'm not very happy that you are dredging up unrelated historical material about me in an attempt to make me look like a bad editor or something. I opened a thread on the talk page, what more do you want? I'm not feeling the wikilove here. Can we not discuss this like gentlemen? I'm perfectly willing to go through the steps of dispute resolution. Herostratus (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That material is quite related, since they warn you about removing sexual images without consensus. It evens mentions that you were edit warring to remove this specific image. You are clearly still keeping the behaviour of rejecting consensus, replacing policy with personal opinion, insisting on removing the image during discussion, and other stuff, so it's very relevant (I suggest you re-read October's warning nad that you take it to hearth). It's only unrelated in that it also warns you about civility, and this time you are doing it in a civil way. Oh, wtf, I just reread your last comment, this is more civil than your previous comments, but still not civil: "C'mon, you guys, play fair. After all, you folks game the system all the time to sneak in bad material. If nobody notices for awhile, touché, you've got your default state." [77] --Enric Naval (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson

copied from the talk page

The crowd has spoken and so has the law. Enric Naval informs of the law. We should abide by the law. This has happened to some degree in history. On the very extreme, mob rule says to lynch someone contrary to the law. On the other end (less extreme), would be breaking of a regulation, not a criminal offense, which is this case. Madrid 2020 (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Eric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrid 2020 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse 2

You're welcome to comment since you just reverted a sock at Oscillococcinum‎. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Davkal?

Who is the User:Davkal sock? ps: where did you get the picture of my cat from ;-? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the sock [78][79]. Is that your cat? :-) It was already like that when I found it, I swear it :-) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah that one. Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"dash" vs "hyphen" in RM

McLarrister has jumped all over your alleged self-contradiction which I believe, as stated, was a "brain-fart", as it's clear that you meant "hyphen" in the opening phrase (before the all caps "ALWAYS"). In case you hadn't noticed, just thought I'd bring it to your attention (I tried earlier in the edit comments, but that was quickly submerged by other posts).....as I said, why else would you have launched the RM - to change the dash to a dash? These people are even worse at debate than they are at logic, or humility....Skookum1 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

di stefano

Hi, just a note in case you didn't notice - I moved the pic to commons as it is accessible to multi projects and suchlike there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

comment on 'Santa Claus'

hey, I removed the section again - it was an apparently misplaced query answered by someone seeking to soapbox their views (see the edits in the article, wherein the user is fighting to incorporate non-neutral language in section titles, despite an alteration to address their concerns of accuracy). Your edit about how the matter belonged elsewhere was removed as well. No offense was intended. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Enric, I'm not sure how writing factual information qualifies as "soapboxing". I have not broken any policies, Jack doesn't want children to see what I have written and discover the objective truth about Santa Claus; however, this is an encyclopedia, not an elementary school and we are bound to tell the objective truth, not coddle children. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenan son of Noah

Why don't we move the information of the page to Islamic view of Noah? The name Kenan can be removed--Imadjafar (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Could you please help with some of the other references on the pages that have to do with Islamic figures? Your edit to the references in Parable of the Hamlet in Ruins looks far better than the previous version.--Imadjafar (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Back in December, you were one of the people who supported User:QuackGuru when a site ban for disruption and POV pushing was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at Talk:Chiropractic. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Discussion

Enric, I left a note for you here, soliciting your guidance and feedback on how best to employ the talk page discussion on Cold Fusion, to make it as educationally valuable as possible for all participants and observers. —Moulton (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Alma-0

I think technically you're supposed to re-nominate, but whatever. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, most probably. But I don't have Twinkle or anything installed. Have you ever tried to make an AfD by hand? It's fairly painful. No wonder that so many newbies have problems making a correct nomination. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you figured it out though. As far as all the hoops you have to jump through to nominate an article for deletion goes, many view that as a feature. It forces those who want to make articles go away to do a little homework first. Imagine how many AFDs we would have if there was a convenient button that any passerby could push if they think an article "sucks"? Also, how many "newbies" are familiar enough with our deletion and inclusion guidelines to know whether or not an article should be deleted? A good example is this AFD which I initially declined to complete on behalf of an IP editor who simply thought it was "cruft". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, all images at Commons have a "Nominate for deletion" link..... --Enric Naval (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)