User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Advice

Hans, hi, regarding the block log issue, it's my recommendation to take a deep breath and relax a bit. Your posts seem to be increasing in stridency, such as to include profanity, plus strong language directed towards the blocking admin.[1] These things, even if you may feel they are justified, are not helping your case. Your best tactic is to continue as you did at the beginning of this, which is to stay calm, professional, and understated. It does appear that BK has made one or more errors here. Other admins are noticing this, so you don't need to beat the drum in this regard. It's my hope that BK will acknowledge the error and fix things. If not, other admins such as myself will assist you. So please, a bit of patience? Don't worry about the real name issue, don't worry about WP:GRAPEVINE, stay focused on what you most want at this point. Which, if I'm understanding you correctly, is an amended block log, correct? Or am I misunderstanding the priorities? --Elonka 17:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Some more unsolicited advice: if we've learned anything from this saga, it's that involved-admins in a dispute over whether something is BLP-problematic should protect the version without BLP problems (even if it is their preferred version) rather than using other tools such as blocking (or in this case, reverting past 3RR) and then report the involved-action to WP:ANI to see where the chips falls. –xeno^talk 19:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC) This was written when I was under the mistaken impression that Hans Adler was an admin. Thanks for pointing out my error CBM. –xeno^talk 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with that. You might not be aware that Hans is not an admin, so he could not protect the page himself. There is a point at which the protection needs to stop, and the BLP argument doesn't win, as with the LGBT template issue earlier this year. But there it was clear that the LGBT issue had been discussed thoroughly; in this situation, I didn't see evidence of strong consensus for inclusion or evidence of a thorough discussion. So I would have protected the page on request, and I'm sure many other admins would have had the same response. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I could of course simply have asked for protection right away. I don't know why that didn't occur to me, must be my natural stupidity. Thanks again, Carl. Hans Adler 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
    • What the heck? Could have sworn. –xeno^talk 22:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
      • For effective rouge admin work the tools only get in the way and make you more vulnerable. :D Hans Adler 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My priority number 1 is actually to make sure that BLP doesn't get hurt in this mess. The one point where I used profanity is precisely the one point that I wanted to stress because it is the most important: That all editors must be able to rely on GRAPEVINE. I took this issue to BLP/N more than two weeks ago, at a time when that noticeboard seemed to be almost dead. The discussion has been going on at a glacial pace, and from the beginning there has been the insistence by certain editors that the article had to stay in the category while this is under discussion. With this poor response rate our process for dealing with BLP problems is clearly broken. GRAPEVINE is the bug fix for that, and it needs to be in full force.

If it is possible for those who don't agree with the spirit of BLP to believe that Black Kite "won" in the sense that the block remains a good one, then GRAPEVINE will be seriously hurt. Even if I should have been totally wrong and a consensus should later establish that this is not a BLP matter and the article belongs in the category – if the application of GRAPEVINE is not predictable then this obviously discourages editors from relying it. As a result, only involved editors will rely on it. Hans Adler 21:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hans, I've gone ahead and annotated your block log. Being incompetent, I messed up the edit summary a little bit (cutting and pasting a link to the ANI thread got cut off without me noticing), but I think the summary is clear enough that I don't need to block you again, for another minute, to clarify my clarification. Hope this helps. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've just read the above; it might be overlapping with some of the stuff I just said at Black Kite's talk. :S Oh well. FWIW, I admire that you at least considered the bit about communication also. If you're up for it, perhaps you'd be ready to help reword the exception at 3RR that I noted in my reply at Black Kite's - that might help avoid a situation like this happening again...every bit counts. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit and re-edit of Lord_Neuberger

Dear Hans, You said "This is a biography in an encyclopaedia, not the "Letters to the editor" section of a newspaper. And it's not even in the source given."

Firstly, the piece that I added to the David Neuberger Wiki page was relevant to the biography page as it was just reporting a fact in the recent professional life of that man. Secondly, I have just second checked the BBC reference links and they both refer directly to the biographical piece that I added.

Therefore, I have again added the piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.9.252 (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Matters that concern only a single article and don't focus on editor behaviour should always be discussed on the article's talk page so that others can benefit from the discussion. I have copied your comment and replied at Talk:David Neuberger, Baron Neuberger of Abbotsbury. I have also reverted your edit once more, for the reasons given in my response. Hans Adler 18:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's your lucky day!

Hi, Just wanted to give you these:

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For some very amusing comments on this 'proposal'. Really did make me laugh. Acather96 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		And while I arrived at your talk page, couldn't help noticing some comments by some 'highly intelligent' (cough cough} pupils and, you really do deserve this. Acather96 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and keep up the good work :) Acather96 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Essay photo

Yes, that works well, thanks. Very considerate of you to replace it. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RfC question

At Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC you are commenting in the involved section (as in: closing admin, please understand that there is some history here). I am passingly familiar with your work in some other areas (and would consider myself WP:INVOLVED if it ever came to that, obviously), but I do not recall off hand seeing any climate change related edits. It is really not a big deal and I have only undertaken the most cursory check, I was just curious.

On an unrelated note, I am scheduled to work with DigitalC this weekend or next on the possibility of reorganizing our Chiropractic articles, specifically with an eye to investigating whether the material in Chiropractic controversy and criticism can be better presented by merging or creating a new article. Would you be interested in a heads up when I find the time to make such a proposal? I think it will go at the AltMed WikiProject, so I suspect that there is a good chance that you will see it anyway. Regards, 2over0 public (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind on the first paragraph, though the invitation stands. 2over0 public (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was just being cautious. IMO I was temporarily involved, although not very long and probably not as a negative factor. First on a page that I don't remember now, where I tried to support Woodwalker when he was attacked by WMC, and then a post on the fringe noticeboard (IIRC) drew me into the CRU talk page, see talk page archives. I was also in a related discussion on Jimbo's talk page which led me to start the ultimately successful move request from "hacking scandal" to "controversy".

I am mostly staying out of chiropractic because I don't half understand that particular drama. I only got involved in homeopathy because I happen to have some relevant knowledge from real life, and that's not at all the case for chiropractic, so I am less motivated to assist there. But I might comment if I feel I have something to say. Hans Adler 05:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

expand all hidden archives - thought you might be interested

Hans, I thought you might be interested in this post, and this solution:Wikipedia:Expand_Hidden_Templates, since it sounds like it is taken from your suggestion.  :) stmrlbs|talk 04:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. See also WP:VPT#Script to uncollapse everything on a page, perhaps even doing so automatically when page title contains the word "Archive". Hans Adler 05:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a dictionary

Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look

Is this OK?

• The saline solution irrigation promotes good nasal health, and patients with chronic sinusitis including symptoms of facial pain, headache, halitosis, cough, anterior rhinorrhea (watery discharge) and nasal congestion often find nasal irrigation to be provide effective relief. In published studies, “daily hypertonic saline nasal irrigation improves sinus-related quality of life, decreases symptoms, and decreases medication use in patients with frequent sinusitis,”[2], and irrigation is recommended as an “effective adjunctive treatment of chronic sinonasal symptoms.”[3][4]

I'd also like to add a section on nasal flush (versus irrigation), which is what I use to keep my nasal passages flowing freely.Yris (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Table

Hi. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Table, you may want to check if your entries for Firefox/IE Explorer correspond correctly for Options 1 and 8. In other words, did you get boxes for IE explorer and good displays for Firefox, as your entries indicate, or are they reversed? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

??? That's exactly the results I got. Apparently one of my fonts is being ignored by Internet Explorer. Hans Adler 05:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Hans. I see from ANI that you feel there is a problem with my behaviour. I know we disagree on some things, but I thought we got on ok and have worked together a few times. At no point did I attack Anthony, nor harass or hound or call for blocks or bans. If you review again I'm sure you'll see this. I am a bit surprised by what you wrote, to be honest, and the apparent vitriol. I'm sorry if I've offended you, and I don't see why genuine differences of opinion have to lead to this. Best, Verbal chat 06:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your pacific comments, Hans. I think it all turned out pretty well once everybody realised the NLT template Verbal used on me linked to an inadequate explanation of NLT (It had been drastically cropped last November). Sarek assumed Verbal had linked me to the full version, so I must know that even innocent use of words like "libel" should be avoided, but the version Verbal linked me to just said "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats..." Since many people had seen what I said and none thought it could be construed as a threat, I figured my usage was compliant, and Verbal, Sarek and all the admins were idiots! And Sarek thought I was a belligerent moron. A reassessment is in order. Again, thanks. Anthony (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that I am not responsive at all at the moment. I am going to have a number of guests in my department next week and must also grade a class. I should have resisted the temptation to get involved in any disputes in this situation. Hans Adler 23:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I even gave Verbal a barnstar! With Hearts! At this rate Verbal will make admin in no time :) Unomi (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck Hans, grading is awful but means it's nearly over... Verbal chat 08:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hans, it's good to see you around again. I myself might not be on much for the foreseeable future - big new project coming up: verbal mk.II :) I hope you're well, best. Verbal chat 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not really here. Still too busy with proper work. What do you mean by "mk.II"? I first guessed it might be something procreation-related, but then I googled and only found Ruger MK II and Mk 2 grenade. Hans Adler 20:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound so sleazy. ;) Happy July 14 as they say over here, but in a different language. Verbal chat 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi. Since I mentioned your name/activity at this AN/I (regarding another editor), I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Vikos-Aoos National Park

Hallo there! Hope you are fine. I remember you were interested in this article. Just inform you that it's on peer review in order to be further upgraded.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bijection

This begins 'In mathematics, a bijection, or a bijective function, is a function f from a set X to a set Y with the property that, for every y in Y, there is exactly one x in X such that f(x) = y and no unmapped element exists in either X or Y.'

Is it correct to have the 'or Y' at the end? Surely if we say 'for every y in Y', there can be no unmapped element in Y. It's not wrong, but it's spurious. I would alter it myself but (a) I'm a banned user and (b) I don't know enough maths to be sure. 109.154.127.184 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. But even for X it's redundant, so I have changed the formulation to make it clear that "no unmapped elements" is not part of the definition but a consequence. It makes some sense to highlight this consequence because the traditional wordings with "one-to-one" and "onto" can cause some confusion in this respect. Hans Adler 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Troy Davis Case

You should be banned from Wikipedia for deleting well-sourced and accurate information from an article because it doesn't correspond to your viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJustice (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a delayed reaction. Fences&Windows 21:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there was also an earlier reaction which is now archived at User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 4#Troy Davis. Also worth reading. Hans Adler 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the case to really help without a lot of reading, but skimming it there seem to be similar issues to the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal - and that's a featured article. Fences&Windows 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is an American living in Taiwan still using an American timezone (even if they label it UTC) anyway? Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another talk page notice caused by edits that you did months ago

• Art student scam (AfD discussion)

You're up. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the notification and for not mentioning that in that case I also deleted "well-sourced and accurate information". I am sure that reflects on my character in some way or another. Hans Adler 22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Hans. You mentioned in the AfD that "by sorting all sources I could find at the time of the first AfD chronologically I came to the conclusion that it is a conspiracy theory". Do you have examples of the more recent sources that helped you reach this conclusion? I've read the ADL account (and used it in the article), and while it does state that conspiracy theorists have picked up this tale with glee - particularly the "foreknowledge of 9/11" part, which is a conspiracy theory and is not really part of the mainstream coverage - it doesn't outright dismiss all the reporting as conspiracy theorising. One of the most recent sources I found is Project Censored from 2005,[5] which doesn't conclude that it's all conspiracy theorising, though I can't access the full text. I think the tone of the Haaretz summary is what we need to try to emulate;[6] their account of the media reporting and their detached "who knows?" approach is pretty good. One thing to note - that report you linked to on Cryptome was not the only DEA document that made it into the hands of the media, according to Insight on the News.[7] Their article goes into details that weren't in the Cryptome document. Fences&Windows 21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, two more comments. Project Censored has been criticised for their line on 9/11 conspiracy theories, e.g. supporting Steve Jones, so they may not be so credible.[8] Also, after his 2002 Salon article Christopher Ketcham went on to connect the 'art students' to the 'Urban Moving Systems' people, in a 2007 article in Counterpunch.[9] Fences&Windows 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. (I was in Davos, completely without internet.) I didn't exactly find later reports that contradicted all earlier ones. Things are a bit more complicated than that. I agree that the tone of the Haaretz piece is about right – except for one important detail: It gives the entire matter too much weight. While we don't have the necessary sources for saying that the thing was blown out of proportion by a small number of media sources, that's quite obviously what happened, and our reporting needs to take this into account. There are plenty of reputable media who quite obviously made a decision not to write anything, and we must give them appropriate weight. Perhaps the strongest witness for my reading of things is the complete absence of reporting in most media and the fact that even where the matter was initially reported, this suddenly stopped around the time when some drew notice to the dubious nature of the original reports that started things. Once the thing had been inflated, we got the usual reactions from officials who industriously show themselves concerned about things the media are concerned about, but this could not be confirmed as something the US government was interested in from officials who had not been fed the news story. [10]

I don't see much in the Insight on the News article that isn't in the Cryptome DEA document. I don't remember reading about photographing of law officers, but given the extremely widespread nature of the scam most likely any of a large number of "natural" explanations applies here. (E.g. an officer happened to be on a photo taken for unrelated, personal reasons; one of the scammers took a photo of someone who they thought might prove dangerous to their activities, to warn the others; or no such photo was ever taken and some busybody extrapolated from the mere fact that a scammer had a camera and was found in a certain location.) Some random observations:

• Note that according to Insight on the News the thing started with Intelligence Online (a dubious web thingy) reporting that "a huge Israeli spy ring operating in the United States was rolled up by the Justice Department's counter-espionage service". This is quite obviously a reference to the DEA's internal security office, distorted to make things appear more interesting. (The DEA is a branch of the Justice department.) Together with the more precise information, a lot of people apparently got the impression that there were two independent sources, the DEA and the Justice department.
• According to Insight on the News the following quotation is a euphemism: "The nature of the individuals' conduct, combined with intelligence information and historical information regarding past incidents involving Israeli organized crime, leads IS [DEA's Internal Security division] to believe the incidents may well be an organized intelligence-gathering activity". Perhaps because it's not sufficiently sensationalist?
• A key sentence in the IotN article seems to be this: "FBI and Justice spokesmen have sought either to downplay or knock out the stories -- even discredit the DEA reports and their authors." With no solid reason to suspect that they are trying to hush up something real (I don't count confirmation of my anti-American bias and of my general mistrust of sources from the Middle East including Israel as solid reasons) we should follow the lead of most other media and trust these spokesmen.
• Regarding IotN's final comment about the NCIX warning about the Israelis three months earlier: That would have been approximately two months after the NCIX' predecessor NCIB was created by Bill Clinton. Most likely they had initial calibration problems that made them misinterpret a widespread scam as a spying operation, and quickly published their findings at a time when they felt under pressure to show they were worth their money. Most likely they soon understood they had made a mistake, but not before they had initiated the DEA guy's frantic activity. (Another, somewhat simpler explanation would be that the IotN author got this information from elsewhere and didn't research it independently. Maybe someone else had expanded "the Justice Department's counter-espionage service" to NCIX and the chronology is a bit confused.) Hans Adler 15:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno^talk 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hans Adler 14:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your post on Jimbo's page

Thanks. Another user has supported me on my talk page and an admin has said "well done" off line. It's unfortunate that Jimbo and some other Wikipedians are unable to distinguish between someone with an extended history of creating featured and good content on Wikipedia and someone whose only purpose on Wikipedia has been to promote himself and his organisation and to attack amyone who gets in the way.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Letter from David Appletree to one of his few supporters here on WIkipedia

(With regard to discussion happening here)

You're one of the few, honest, and objective people on my case right now. There's so much context to this which is being avoided and it seems FT2 is lying. It's annoying. I honestly came back with the best of intentions. I accepted mentorship offers from 3 different people. I was then getting steamrolled. Random WP editors were DEMANDING that I censor material on my website which is critical of WP. I said I would be open to making changes, if specific editors mentioned wrote me about any specific concerns, but that I could not just "bulk censor" my site. Anyway as I was defending myself on the ANI board, I was suddenly---out of nowhere---BLOCKED by Scott Mac, who I had called out on his inappropriate comment just a few hours earlier. I felt that his BLOCK was a punitive "revenge" measure for me calling him out. Then FT2 comes from nowhere, AFTER the block, and says I can get out of it if I agree to a highly restrictive mentoring program. However, again, I had already agreed to 3 other mentors and I was highly annoyed by the block!

Well, despite my honest and good intentions, I lost all hope.

I'm very sorry about my reaction, but between the steamrolling, unfair demands to censor material on my website, Scott's inappropriate remark, the punitive block that came from nowhere and the taunt that I could get myself out of it if I agreed to a highly restrictive mentoring program (despite the fact that I had already accepted 3 other offers to be mentored), I lost it.

Thanks for hearing me out and thanks for being objective and fair about the situation. I understand you're probably risking a lot by not going along with the mob. I wish more people had that type of courage.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by IHadHonestIntentions (talk • contribs) 17:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I must be doing something seriously wrong. Most editors who fight for neutrality complain that they are attacked by both sides. But I am thanked on my talk page first by Peter cohen, then by DavidAppletree as part of his damage limitation effort? Wow. Hans Adler 17:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Erdinç Tekir

Hi, I opened a redirect discussion on Talk:Erdinç Tekir, and I used some of the article's material in Black Sea Hostage Crisis page. You can be interested. Kavas (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hans Adler 11:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are never the right answer

The only misunderstood sentence is the one attributed to her in the un-vetted public comments section of a third-party blog. Her professional, edited and published comments are crystal-clear. I strongly take issue with your baseless bad faith attack (Found Here) on my edits that I am somehow "not the only editor you've seen", followed by numerous slanders. If you have issue with an argument I've presented. Address the argument. If you find you cannot articulate a response and need to stoop to ad-hominem attacks, reconsider your position as your failure should be telling you something.99.141.241.60 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I realize that I'm but a lowly IP, a 2nd class citizen whose existence is seemingly only allowed by the largess of "members". But I do not have, nor have I shown any indication of being anything less than a fully aware, passingly intelligent, reasonably articulate and neutral contributor. I simply resent the take no prisoners, scorched earth and refs be damned attitude of the Climate Cabal©. It is from there that my principled defense of the edit I've introduced into the article comes. That you an apparent non-member of said Cabal have been the focus of this is unfortunate.99.141.241.60 (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Addressing an argument never helps when an editor has a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The article talk page is a clear demonstration of the problem. By the way, are you or are you not identical with User:A Quest For Knowledge? I am asking because I have done about half the (considerable, since I tend to do a lot of fact-checking before going public with a serious accusation) work for a WP:SPI report. Hans Adler 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your status as an IP is of no relevance to me except that it makes it much harder to get a full picture of your behaviour over longer periods of time. E.g. it took quite some work for me to find that you are under a topic ban for a somewhat related topic. At the beginning of the year a real-name account with a huge and diverse editing history caused a huge stir through almost exactly the same policy misinterpretation; obviously that wasn't better than when an IP does it. Hans Adler 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. It appears my status as an IP is the only thing of relevance to you - as amply demonstrated by your witchhunt in which you seek to hang me - all you need to do is find a crime. Your admitted attempts to tie me with numerous disparate editors reeks of Bad Fucking Faith, I'm just the Ed. at the end of the Lynch line as you seek to round up a reason. Pathetic. I have no respect for people that go on witch hunts in search of a crime. Funny thing is - it happens all the time around here as an IP. I couldn't even begin to put a number on the named editors I've been accused of being. 30? 50? You have my "file", why don't you tell me?99.141.241.60 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So you even deny being the anonymous user who was discussed in WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive211#BLP, SPAs, a proposal? Interesting. Hans Adler 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I would still appreciate a clear yes or no. You have edited in a talk page discussion in which AQFK has also edited. Are you or are you not the same natural person? Thank you. Hans Adler 14:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievably pathetic. I made no such denial, I made no comment whatsoever Mr. Interrogator for the Realm. Or are you just Wikilawyering for a quick kill of someone who had the temerity to oppose you on a content issue? My purpose here is to contribute content to all manner of articles, not to deal in back-room emails and the politics and wikilawyering of removing opposing editors from the Encyclopedia. Unlike, apparently, you. 99.141.241.60 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I take this as a "yes" for both questions. Thanks for confirming that I am not wasting my time with the SPI report. Hans Adler 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What a poor display of intelligence and reading comprehension. I make no comment, using the actual English words, "I made no such denial, I made no comment whatsoever" while protesting about your witch hunt - and then you prove beyond all shadow of doubt your bias and guilty-in-search-of-a-crime modus operandi by stating unequivocally, "I take this as a "yes" for both questions." Seriously, do you really expect anyone to passively sit through such a Bad Faith inquisition? You embarrass yourself with such a transparent display, even here where such things are commonplace enough.99.141.241.60 (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I se niether yes or no, I see I refuse to answer. It might be best to calm the siutation if 60 you were to confirm or deny the acusation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A refusal to answer is also an answer, and will be taken into account as such by the admins handling the SPI case. For instance, it's important for the question whether there was an intent to deceive. Hans Adler 14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you believe this accusation then I would suggest you go ahead with it. 60 has (I think) made it clear he will not answer so if you believe this is 'evidence' I suggest you SPI it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot of work in this case because from what I have seen so far 99.*'s precise IP address changes every 1–20 days within a huge range. Normally I only go to SPI after doing due diligence. This includes determining behavioural patterns and the precise extent of the overlap in interests, but also some other, more technical evidence that is available to every user. In many cases I ultimately decide that I have managed to clear someone and so I don't file a report. In the present case the more technical evidence was inconclusive before and, interestingly, became weaker right after I confronted 99.* with my suspicion. This does not prove anything either way.

I am going to monitor the situation and collect more information. I am not going to mention the matter again until I decide to file an SPI report, which may or may not happen. Hans Adler 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Inserted comment) Seriously, What The Fuck are you talking about? "In the present case the more technical evidence was inconclusive before and, interestingly, became weaker right after I confronted 99.* with my suspicion." You "confronted" me less than two fucking hours(1) before you wrote this. What the Fuck has changed? Or is this more baseless McCarthyite accusations that seek to damn with innuendo and slander?99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that response appears genuinely puzzled. I don' think you faked your astonishment, and therefore it seems unlikely that you faked what I call the "technical evidence" (something that wouldn't be hard to do, so I don't want to talk about that). I no longer suspect that you are identical with AQFK. I still think it likely that you are the person behind WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations, but there is no reason to pursue this further. Hans Adler 15:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It would I think calm the air if you were to withdraw what is no an unsubstatiated accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not an unsubstantiated accusation, I merely have relatively high standards and am using "inconclusive" in the same way that a checkuser does. In fact, I expect that if I go to SPI without further research, the result will be just that ("inconclusive"), and thus not clear the air. I am not withdrawing the accusation, but I wish that it be considered as "inactive", if that makes sense. Thank you. Hans Adler 15:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes sence but does not clear the air. It might also (and this is in no way an accusation, but I suspect otherss might make it that this is a kind of sword of Damolcese threat. Its not excatly conducive to a god editing atmosphere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusation withdrawn based on even newer behavioural evidence, see above. Hans Adler 15:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

btw - Have you followed long standing Wikipedia policy and informed all involved editors of the investigation you're conducting, the accusations that you've made and the formal exercise of institutional power you seek to invoke against them? Back-stabbing, malicious unfounded accusations and the non-notification exercise of harmful actions against a fellow Editor are not considered acceptable practices. Perhaps the fact that you've finished your inquisition and temporarily shelved your secret evidence releases you from notifying the accused parties?99.141.241.60 (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked you a yes or no question, and you blew everything out of proportion by refusing a clear answer. That doesn't turn my entirely private, off-wiki actions of collecting evidence to see whether or not it makes sense to use a certain process into something official that would require notification of other users as if I had already started that process. (Also, see my response above to your inserted comment.) Hans Adler 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware (I would ask 60 to point me to policy if I am wrong) the only point at which all involved parties need to be informed is when an investigation becomes official, not when random accusations are flying about.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland

Hi Hans, I just wanted to say "thanks" for all the hard work you're putting in at Talk:Ireland. I'm doing similar stuff at WT:BISE so (a) I'm reluctant to get too involved at Talk:Ireland, and (b) I appreciate how difficult the work is ;-) However, if there is anything I can do to help, do please let me know. Thanks again, TFOWR 12:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that hard actually. The hardest part was getting started with this entire problem area when I tried to help moderate in the naming RfC for the country of Ireland and knew almost nothing. At the time I had to do a lot of research to understand the underlying facts and the various sensitivities involved. This may be paying dividends now. I am sure BISE is much harder work due to its immense scope and the fact that the parties see it as much more critical. I don't envy you for the meta discussions that you are having at the moment. Thanks for the hard work! Hans Adler 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been following that discussion, and I came to your talk to say what TFOWR has already said (minus the "if there is anything I can do to help"-part). Thanks for the efforts you have been making, I hope you want loose patience to soon. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hans Adler 13:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

BadDay?

Though you don't have to, I wish you would (at my talkpage) elaborate on your opinon of my behaviour. The criticism 'might' proove helpful to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

!Vote

Apologies for rearranging your comments, I tried not to change meaning or anything. I was just trying to make the whole thing more accessible to everyone, as it turned into a vote. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's not important. I guess I was slightly annoyed to see the "unsigned" template. It has this effect on me because it usually means that once again I forgot to sign... But I actually guessed the reason, and I didn't bother to look who did it and why. Hans Adler 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The only unsigned template I could see had nothing to do with me, as far as I can tell :/ Thanks for participating by the way, good to hear the voice of a relatively uninvolved editor in this British Isles business Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

My comments

I've replied to your comment at Talk:Ireland. Apologies if I stepped over a line in making my argument and offended your in your good work. --RA (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will respond there. Hans Adler 20:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy Hans Adler's Day!

User:Hans Adler has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Hans Adler's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Hans Adler! Peace, Rlevse 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

13 Sep for you. I was a few minutes early ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

*Blush* ??? Does this come with any obligations such as making five copies and distributing them to random editors, under pain of getting bad breath and losing my remaining hair if I don't comply? Hans Adler 00:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies

I apologise if I wasted your time on the date palm tree. I have now voted to deleted the image of the date palm in the DR you created on WikiCommons. Its a bit embarrasing since I should have noticed this but since the text was all in Persian Farsi, I could not be certain of anything. Some good contributors to Commons like to add watermarks to their images such as in this case but Elen's comments convinced me this was a copyright violation. I was actually trying to catalogue this object...which was when I decided to contact Doug. I am not very active on wikipedia today and I edit mostly on Commons. My health could not take all the edit warring on wikipedia sadly and I was unwell in late 2009 and in 2010 due to health issues like minor depression. (Nobody's perfect!)

BUT...if you like, here are 2 sets of images I got licensed freely from some contacts on flickr: [11] and [12] Those were in 2008 and 2009 when I was healthy. This is actually one of the images I like most since it is a valued image and I have told John about its promotion. He's Canadian like me and he agreed to change the flickr license for wikipedia's article on this pharaoh. Well I have to go now. With kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't waste my time, and it's easy to miss even something obvious when you are preoccupied or distracted by something else. Thanks for showing me your acquisitions, they look interesting. And above all, good luck with your health! Hans Adler 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Mr. Adler for your kind comments. If you are interested, here are the other photos I sourced with John's kind help: [13] His photos of Tutankhamun's chest or Senusret's jewellry are almost irreplacable because they were taken before September 2005 when the Egyptians banned all photography in all their museums and in the Valley of the Kings. Sourcing pictures for Ancient Egypt is almost impossible now but its all the bad tourists fault: they disobeyed the rules and everyone suffers now. You can still visit Egypt and take photos of Egypt's major temples which are in the open...but its not the same experience. The only other choice is to persuade people to freely license pictures they took at foreign exhibitions like I did here of one in France. While the resolution is amazing, the angle is very sharp sadly...as some of my friends have told me. So I contacted a professional photographer who also had account on flickr and he agreed to upload a slightly better angled image here but at a lower resolution. It is a reasonable compromise (Mr. Weinstein) I was shocked though to see that he had a Commons account too but such is life. The world gets smaller every day. Thank you sir and goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IHH or İHH?

As this is a Turkish name (İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri), Turkish letter İ should be used in the article title (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IHH_%28Turkish_NGO%29#Discussion). I thought as it was just a technical discussion, but the editors opposed this. They argue that the English media favors English letter I. However, English media also favors c instead of ć or g instead of ğ. I have found some articles that use Serbian, Crotian or Turkish names like Jelena Janković, Jelena Dokić, Ana Ivanović, Toni Kukoč, Ersan İlyasova and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Why does not this WP policy apply to İHH? Should WP articles always have English characters? Kavas (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That's tricky. I think Western media often have the same problem that I have: I can write â, á, à, ä with no trouble at all, but if I type ć I get either c or ç, depending on the keyboard layout I am using. For ğ or i I wouldn't even know what to type, and I am sure that my keyboard layout can't do it. In fact, any commonly used character encoding other than Unicode doesn't even have these letters. German umlauts are more familiar to an English-speaking public and less problematic. Yet I regularly have to make corrections such as Godel->Gödel (the correct transliteration for people without umlauts would be Goedel), but at least nobody complains when I do it. Personally I think all diacritics should be used, even though it can be a bit of an effort and makes it harder for some people to search for the information (but probably easier for others). But we have no clear rules on this simply because no general agreement could be found what they should say. Hans Adler 08:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might like to know...

I thought you might like to know that I've just had to undo an edit to the NORAD Tracks Santa article. Somebody removed the words "pretends to" and I had to put them back. It's only September too! It looks like I'm going to spend a lot of this autumn and winter struggling to keep that article vaguely encyclopedic. I'll probably get labelled "Scrooge" in the process. Oh, well, that's probably the way it has to be.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an absurd waste of time. We could ask for semiprotection. Hans Adler 06:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent idea to me. Somebody has already changed pretends to to the "more neutral" purports to. It looks like Christmas silliness has started already and, if things go on the same way, the article will become a work of fiction again. like it was eight months ago. Semiprotection seems like a sensible option for an article with a history of problem editing.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we will have to wait a bit longer, though. I don't think the article will be protected before the edits actually become a real nuisance. Hans Adler 12:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD on Razorclaw

Thanks for the cogent comment on the current AfD. It also explains why I can't find that darn article on the famous Vietnamese hand loom screw, the Phi Lyp Hed. (seriously, good comment). --Quartermaster (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanx

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		This is technically for people helping "new editors" but thank you for your recent assistance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry for not replying – I tried to figure out the situation first, but it was a bit confusing. And then it was bedtime in Europe. Hans Adler 07:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Model theory

Hi, No worries, talk is talk and passes - unlike mathematics that lasts. And yes, I still do like model theory. I have been enslaved by the computer crowd for a few years now, but still like those fun days when I used to live in the land of mathematics. I also liked the calm world of model theorists and logicians and their idiosyncrasies - Hodges was in a class by himself there, not just because he kept taking his shoes off, but there were other stories - but we will let that be. And the math Wiki math project is probably calmer for that reason. I will look at the links you mentioned, and as time goes on may try to do something. A lot of my Wiki editing is however, spur of the moment fun edits, e.g. beta encoder which I thought was interesting because setting beta=golden did not work that well. But anyway, I look forward to interacting with you. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Allopathic Medicine and Heroic Medicine

I have replied to your response on the discussion page of Allopathic Medicine. What I have written about is indeed Heroic Medicine and have tried to distinguish Evidence-based medicine from it. The common person does not distinguish between the two terms. The purpose of my endeavour is to differentiate the former as the precursor from which a lot of irrational practices have been radically dropped in order to formulate the newer and scientific successor - the scientific western medicine. I definitely welcome an open discussion on this. Diptanshu^Talk 03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You must have already watched that I had added to the discussion on the talk page for Allopathic Medicine. There is no compulsion for you to answer but I would be glad if you could help shape us reach a consensus. But could you please suggest people who might be willing to join the discussion.Diptanshu^Talk 17:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid there may not be much we can do if you want others to join the discussion. The page is on the watchlists of 62 editors and has been very contentious in the past. Since there has been a strong consensus to leave it as it is, I guess people have stopped looking at the discussions, assuming that it's simply going to stay as it is and any substantial changes will be reverted by someone else. In fact, I was also hoping that I don't have to spend more time on this. Hans Adler 08:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Deep issues

I think the problom is that the US has expressed a wish to use the deeps as nuclear dumps. As the articles Challenger Deep Mariana Trenchread it sounda like all nations have agred to not use them for this purpose when a nation that has specificaly expressed a desire to do so has not in fact ratified the treaties and as such has not accepted this ban. Thus the article mis-leads the reader about the treu situation. Now you have a point that perhaps this section has no value, but if it is in the articel it must present the readear with an accurate picture.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If the US have expressed such a wish they would become relevant to the article. Do you have a RS for that? Hans Adler 15:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure there is this [14] and I have seen some partial referances. So I have seen the claim but cannot really verify it that well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Logical strength

I made a page for Strength (mathematical logic) which was a buried definition with no reference. An interesting thing to show (and you may get a short paper out of that) is to apply that idea to things like Description logic - a hot (yet shallow) topic these days. But it would open the bridge between model theory and web-items. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with description logic, so I confess I am not particularly motivated to learn about it. "Hot yet shallow" sounds like what I would have expected after reading the first two lines of that article.

By the way, like Encyclopedia Britannica most of the writers of encyclopedic content here actually prefer more substantial articles (such as description logic) to many short stubs with little potential for extension. I had to do a lot of tedious merging when I first came here: When you need to learn 10 notions to understand the basics of a field, and they are spread over 10 articles, each of which is written in a different style, different notations and different terminological conventions, then there is obviously something wrong. I think strength (mathematical logic) would fit well into an article abstract logic that would first define the basic notions of this (also quite shallow) field and then give an overview over what is being done there. While that article is unwritten, one could put the definition into mathematical logic#Formal logical systems.

Unfortunately, work on larger articles provides less instant gratification than quickly creating small stubs, which is the main reason why I also often start small articles like omega-categorical theory when there are plenty of bigger ones that need a lot of work. But as a rule of thumb, an article topic is really good if it would work as a book title. Hans Adler 20:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Shallow? Computer people can be shallow? Of course. Of course. Unfortunately much of the useful parts of computing remain shallow. In fairness Dana Scott's work did have depth but not much practical application. As for abstract logic, you are right and I think that page is absolutely needed. I will make a stub for it and expand it over time. Then strength may or may not merge into it. But as is Abstract Logic is about music! So I started the stub and please feel free to add to it. I also suggested on Talk:Abstract_Logic that the musical item should be called "album". Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I also have a bit of experience with and in some fields of computer science, but apparently not much overlap with what you are interested in. I replied at the album talk page. Hans Adler 09:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request concerning math articles

Hi Hans,

If you have time, could you take a look at this Arbitration request? It concerns behavior of an editor on a few math pages (regarding creating a few articles when AFD discussions were going on). What I find strange is that the articles themselves seem to be legitimate, so the whole escalation of the conflict seems a bit stupid to me.

The editor in question, Brews Ohare, will be away for a few weeks and probably not be editing Wikipedia. He is someone I know well and he asked me to look into a dispute with JohnBlackburne a few hours ago before the AE request was filed. He feared that JohnBlackburne would put the quadruple product article on AFD and refered me to Talk:Quadruple product. Count Iblis (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I was under the impression that your opinion is that the tone and the statements of article do not reflect the way the topic is presented in the reliable sources. The main problem is that the article states that there is a single scientific consensus on homeopathy's efficacy, that is only a placebo therapy. From the sources I have produced it is obvious that this is false. Don't you think that the article should be presenting all the views as long they appear in reliable sources?Best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It does so. But some views deserve more attention than others. E.g. systematic reviews of numerous studies deserve more attention than single studies, in the same way that a study deserves more attention than a single anecdote.

The way this topic is presented in reliable sources is only one aspect. The weight of scientific evidence is another, and I can see nothing wrong with the sentence you are trying to change. Hans Adler 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The interpretation of the available systematic reviews differs significantly among major scientific groups (( shang vs jonas and linde )which are cited extensively in the article). Is this true or false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.178.146 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this topic further on my talk page. The question you are raising is of more general interest, and this is exactly what article talk pages are for. Hans Adler 09:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Endocrine Disruption

Since you appear to be a rational, level-headed editor, I thought that, before relying upon Viriditas's representation of the situation here, you might want to read my response when he first posted it to the NPOV NB [15], where even admin Mastcell (who butts horns with me continually) agreed the revert was justified.

Viriditas could have easily fixed the prior version (which wasn't even due to me anyway), but he instantly went into battleground mode, demanding I "fix it immediately", or he would report me.

Regards. Fell Gleaming^talk 00:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that term. Is it a generalisation of the famous problem of female snails with penises that researchers keep finding in the River Rhine recently, due to high levels of Tributyltin hydride originating from ship paint? Or is it another of these environmental scares such as the Chernobyl meltdown, which according to you was merely a PR disaster? Hans Adler 23:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

wt:nor - Conclusion

Hi. There seems to be miscommunication between us, so I thought I would come here to try to get it straightened out.

I agree that editors shouldn't misuse policy to delete worthwhile material but I don't see how that's related to the edit under discussion since the edit doesn't change policy, AFAICT. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 25 September 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 22:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT and "Jewish"

further to our talks on List of Jewish actors I've started a debate on altering WP:BLP to clarify how we handle sources that identify someone as Jewish please have a look and weigh in on either side of the fence. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

confusing watchlist notice

Hi Hans. Thanks for you comments about the confusing watchlist notice. I've replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment#WTF?. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Swansea / City twinning

Hello Hans, I'm sorry for the late reply. I didn't intend to ignore you I just had to 'restrict' my Wiki usage due to urgent work commitments. I also know I've missed the debate, but I've added a final message to Mannheim's talk page[16]. Danke schön/ Diolch yn faw. --Richardeast (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know you are back. I am drafting a post to WT:MOSICON now, as promised. Hans Adler 17:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good and I look forward to helping shape a universal Wiki policy which accommodate the unique political situation here which essentially creates 'countries within a country' [17]. --Richardeast (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being so blunt, but if you think this makes the UK special you are deceiving yourself. The only reason the constituent countries of the UK get special treatment that the two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina or various autonomous regions of other countries don't get is that en.wikipedia has so many vociferous editors from these countries. One could argue that that's a reason for special treatment, but then it needs to be made explicit.

I have started a discussion at WT:MOSICON#Town-twinning and flags. Hans Adler 18:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We're not a special case but rather quite a simple; the United Kingdom is not a country but a political union of countries who've pooled their sovereignty to make collective political decision. When discussing culture, sports or someone's nationality I think there's general consensus that the countries which form the UK cannot realistically be called anything other than countries - For example, Sean Connery is Scottish - yes he is british with an EU passport - but ask anyone and he's Scottish. In regards to town-twinning, as we discussed, here in France if there's a 'Villes jumelees' involving a Welsh or Scottish town - I've only ever seen the respective national flag displayed on signs and on documents (with the town said as being in Pays de Galles or Ecosse) - never with the union flag (or in Royami-uni) [18] [19] [20] [21]- It often takes a while for me to explain to people in France, but Socially, culturally and even mentally, we are an independent nation (surveys say 87% of people born in Wales consider their nationality to be Welsh - and Welsh alone[22]. Only 13% consider themselves at all british or even Welsh & british) - politically the closest entity to the UK is the EU... and, despite the Lisbon treaty, no one is arguing about displaying the EU flag instead of it's member states.

In my opinion Forcing the union flag to be displayed on articles instead of the respective national flag, contrary to every other indisputable source (such as Mannheim's own website!), would devalue the encyclopaedia - by us choosing not to report the realities on the ground we're allowing our political opinions to reflect the article. If a town calls itself Welsh and it's twinned with another town that calls it Welsh - what right do we have to force a different nationality on them? --Richardeast (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"(such as Mannheim's own website!)" – Not that I would consider this a very strong argument even if true, but I have not been able to verify this. [23] I can only see the arms of Swansea. (And of course the Union flag as an icon for language choice, but obviously that doesn't count. The text, by the way, treats Wales as a curious, culturally atypical region of the UK, not as a country.) It's exactly the analogous situation for the twinship Heidelberg-Cambridge. Here you can see that Munich only displays the city arms of its twins, including Edinburgh.

So at first I guessed my personal preference – no flags at all – might be a typically German one, due to our history. On the other hand, the one Polish city I looked at is doing it the same way: [24] Cork is an interesting case: [25] (no flags or arms at all; twinned with a "UK" city and a "Wales" city). Pau's site doesn't say much about twinning and has no symbols at all for twin cities, but it does put Wales as Swansea's country. [26]

But we must really continue this discussion in the MOSICON talk page thread, where people can reference it in the future. I note that there was one earlier discussion about the topic, with very little input (including yours), in which another editor also favoured no flags at all. This seems to be the cleanest solution. Hans Adler 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think, with so many articles dealing with so many towns twinned it's going to be hard to get uniformity - and that's without touching on partially recognised states like Kosovo. But, if you think your opinion is a typical German one... I think my preference of having a Welsh flag may be a very Welsh one! - we're a very proud race... apparently only the Scots and Dutch are more patriotic than us in all of Europe [27].

You're right about not having the debate here - but thank you for starting the one on the MOSICONs page... it could be an interesting one. --Richardeast (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Errors in reporting Egyptian mathematics

Your reference to one or more errors on my part needs to specified. Typos can only be corrected if they are pointed out. Intellectual errors are another matter. Speaking in general terms, allowing a bit of original research on your part, and your friends part, and none of my part, or Egyptian math posts with which you may disagree, reads like a double standard. No one should be getting by with a bit of original research. Discussing disagreements in open ways is highly recommended. It is sad that the Egyptian math scholarly record is filled with major and minor controversies. For example, I wish that today's issue, the 2/n table controversy and connections to scribal division were resolved. But Wikipedia is not the place to paper over the scholarly record by reporting one side of two-sided issues. Best Regards, Milogardner (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand what we here at Wikipedia mean by "original research". It's not about the kind of thing a scholar can be proud of as an achievement. It's about much more trivial things such as claiming that Robinson Crusoe is a book about a man who gets shipwrecked and survives on a desert island. If there weren't any reliable sources who have said the same thing before (i.e. what the book is about), then it would be original research to summarise the book in this way based only on having read it. That is the kind of original research that we sometimes cannot avoid, and even that can be problematic. (Even my apparently harmless example was problematic because it omits the very important religious dimension of the book – something most reliable sources would not neglect.)

What you are doing is much worse and is very far from what is acceptable here. Wikipedia is not a research platform. If you think that scholars are generally getting things wrong, the place to set things right is elsewhere. The general principle is: Change the real world first, then come here and update Wikipedia. You disagreeing with the actual tenured experts doesn't make something a "two-sided issue", and it does appear that that's what you are talking about. Hans Adler 17:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

This is ridiculous; instead of following your own political agenda: why do you not first have a look at the sources cited. Many of the current numbers given in the article do NOT match their source. (see talk) Quotations, ie. cited data has to match its source. That applies also to you, Hans Adler!--IIIraute (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WP is not a dictionary?

Hans, you're encouraging people to link "town" and "city" in articles that list the mayors of a city? Why? Please note that the title to this section is not policy: it is a pillar. Tony (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? As a general comment: If you really think that usability aspects such as linking to trivial articles are on the importance level of the five pillars, then your view of Wikipedia is severely distorted. Ultimately Wikipedia is about facts, not about style.

Here is what "WP is not a dictionary" actually means:

• It gives instructions about the content of articles. They are primarily about topics, not about words. (Except in the few cases in which a word happens to be notable as such and the word is the topic.) This is why our article on town does not start with something like this:

Town (noun), from Old English/Old Saxon tūn (Old High German zūn, German Zaun = fence), often contracted to dūn in place names.

• It gives instructions about the existence of articles. An encyclopedia does not try to have an article on every single word in the OED. It does not even try to have an article on each of the n most frequent English words. Notability must be verified for articles about words in the same way as for articles about any other topic. Mere use of a word does not count towards notability. Mere appearance in thousands of dictionaries does not count towards notability because while dictionaries mention and discuss the word, they only do so trivially. However, a linguistic scholarly article about a word does count towards notability. That's why cancellation is a redirect to cancel, and cancel is a disambiguation page with none of the articles on it being about the word's primary meaning in a general context.
• A minor corollary of WP not being a dictionary sometimes affects what to do about words that we suspect will not be understood by the majority of our readers. In a dictionary a very natural solution (apart from avoiding it) is to link to its definition. In WP this is often also an option because for many words there is an article whose topic and title are sufficiently close that the reader will come away with an understanding of the word. This is usually but not always acceptable as a pragmatic solution because in most cases there is some other valid justification for linking to such an article. In the few cases when there is none, an alternative must be found. If neither avoiding nor explaining in the using article itself works, a link to Wiktionary may be acceptable. I think they are generally frowned upon, but ultimately that's a (WikiMedia-)political and style decision, and has nothing to do with the five pillars.

About the specific case: The argument that we should not link to articles about trivial topics is of course valid in general, and I guess you know that it's an important argument to me. However, it breaks down in articles that are already about trivial topics themselves. Mayors in England is not an article that lists the mayors of a city. It is an article about the concept of the head of a city or town as it exists in England. (Not a good article at all, by the way. The most obvious problem is the principle "one headline per sentence", which someone once also insisted on applying to one of my DYK articles.) We can only speculate why a reader would get to this article, but it's the kind of article that some people might think can be pipe-linked under "mayor" from an article on an English city (I disagree; mayor should be completely unlinked on such an article), and that can have valid links from articles such as Lord Mayor of the City of London or articles about local governance in England. It's ultimately an article about a trivial topic, but localised to England. Therefore links to articles about other, related, trivial topics are certainly not out of place there. These links need to go to the localised version where available (e.g. towns and cities in England; list of towns in England is less appropriate because it doesn't give the same category of information as mayors in England), and otherwise to the non-localised version. The important thing to remember is that we should link similar articles to each other. That's like what Amazon does: If you have bought a book about cats you will probably be interested in other books about cats. If you are reading an article about cats, you are probably interested in other articles about cats, including some that may be a bit more trivial. And in the special case that you are reading the article cat it is reasonable to assume that you will also be interested in the article dog. Hans Adler 10:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans, to respond to selected points: "we should link similar articles to each other. That's like what Amazon does: If you have bought a book about cats you will probably be interested in other books about cats." Amazon is all about making money out of readers by getting them to stay on the site and buy more. It is a commercial ploy that sometimes works. And of course it doesn't involve watering down a reader-oriented functionality such as a wikilinking system, which concerns what might be helpful in increasing readers' understanding of a topic. Similarity is the driving force behind the category system of WP, which is linked prominently at the bottom, after the reader has finished reading (or scrolling/skimming through) the article.

One of the limitations of wikilinking is that is not always possible to incorporate a link smoothly into the grammar of a clause without piping it to an item that is deceptively broad. "List of towns in England" is a great step up in focus from "town", but if it is piped to "town", the reader will ignore it as a dictionary term (and possibly wonder why their reading is being disrupted by it). That is why "List of towns and cities in England" is much more appropriate unpiped, clear and specific, in the "See also" section at the bottom. Wikilinking is not a (dare I say it, lazy) substitute for a well-thought-out "See also" section. Same for "Mayors in England". On the matter of specificity, you may be interested in the other thread I've engaged with, here. (I am intimidated by the goings-on at WT:MOSLINK at the moment.)

Please consider that those who are being branded as "delinkers" may not be the wreckers but the optimisers of the wikilinking system. The system grew like topsy in an undisciplined fashion for the first four years, reaching a peak density of > 6% (first quarter of 2005). Since then, the emphasis on intelligent, selective application has probably been the greatest—although not the only—factor associated with the steady reduction in link density to around 4.2% by the start of 2010. This phenomenon can be seen in all of the WPs, although to varying degrees and and with varying gradients.

Wiktionary: I am concerned about the reliability of that source; besides, it is a slight failure if readers have to divert to another page to learn what on earth we are talking about in an article. The same is true of all items (e.g., names of organisations; abbreviations) that are likely to be unfamiliar to most readers. The brief gloss on the spot, or perhaps a link in "See also", us usually preferable. Perhaps occasionally an on-the-spot link, but not if it's a mystery to the reader without clicking. This is one aspect of linking that has been abused, I think. Tony (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

PS Love the town/fence morph from German! Thanks for that. Fencing was, of course, a major social/political force much later than the etymological fact—at least in England. Tony (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I don't know if you started as one, but you are clearly an unlinking fundamentalist now. We hade huge problems with a general overlinking enthusiasm, and I guess the problem can still be seen in many articles. It was a real problem, and that's why we ultimately got a majority for a clear rule against it. But you seem to think that this majority was a consensus for what most editors actually see as creating the opposite problem. See false consensus effect. The polarisation between overlinkers and underlinkers is no more useful than the polarisation between inclusionists and exclusionists, and both ultimately damage the encyclopedia because they cause a breakdown in communication about the borderline cases. Borderline cases should be decided consistently and after weighing all the evidence, not based on accidents such as the relative numbers of members of the two camps who turn up in a discussion. And since there are so many more overlinkers than underlinkers (rough guess: 20% overlinkers, 2% underlinkers, the rest moderates; of course the numbers don't mean anything because I didn't define a threshold), you are not going to profit from this polarisation.

Amazon is doing the right thing because it helps them make money. We should be doing the right thing because it's encyclopedic and our readers profit from it. A link from cat to dog, or a link from mayor to town and city or vice versa is not "watering down". These links are part of the site's core functionality. They are not even borderline cases. Hans Adler 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought I was a moderate. You are interpreting links as binding articles on similar topics (dog and cat?), without accounting for whether this is useful. What are the categories for, then? Tony (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A link from cat to dog is useful because of the demographics of the readers of the cat article. (There is of course no need to talk about dogs just so that the article can be linked to.) A link from cat to canidae is less appropriate but still makes sense if the word happens to appear in the article. A link from cat to poodle is much less appropriate and could constitute overlinking, depending on specifics.

The important thing to keep in mind is that what is trivial and what is relevant depends on the article. Tent is a trivial link in dog but a relevant link in house. Cat is a trivial link in house but a relevant link in dog. Both are trivial links in doghouse. Our articles cover a vast range of topics and a huge range of difficulty from house to o-minimal theory. Any simplistic rule that decides for an article whether it can be linked to or not, without giving strong consideration to the article where the word appears, will be wrong in a lot of cases. Hans Adler 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Responses:

• "A link from cat to dog is useful because of the demographics of the readers of the cat article. (There is of course no need to talk about dogs just so that the article can be linked to.)" I cannot see this—either the assumption about some demographic scope or the utility of the link for a reader who has chosen to go to "Cat", not "Dog". Nor should other domestic animals be specifically linked, such as "domestic rabbit" or "budgerigar", if they occur in the article. These are "dictionary terms" (here I will use these words, because such targets seem to be either for semi-random browser-readers or for those who don't know what a dog is, etc.). If the point is made in the "Cat" article concerning behaviour, or disease, or food, that is common to both, or different, a link to the specific section in the "Dog" article might make more sense—preferably not piped deceptively (the limitation of wikilinking, as I discussed above), and if there's a temptation to pipe thus, maybe reserved for the "See also", unpiped, where readers are more likely to click on it, I believe. Where you regard me as a fundamentalist, I regard myself as trying to improve linking practice. Sorry to be so blunt, but I really want to see it from the readers' point of view, and I have a healthy doubt about whether readers click on many links at all.
• "A link from cat to canidae is less appropriate but still makes sense if the word happens to appear in the article." Do you mean from "Dog" to "Canidae"? If so, I agree entirely.
• "A link from cat to poodle is much less appropriate and could constitute overlinking, depending on specifics." I agree. But the converse would be good linking practice, probably right at the opening.
• Dog is a trivial link in "Doghouse", but not in "Cat"? You've lost me here. Again, your take is siblingness; mine is the likelihood of utility, defined as increasing most readers' understanding of the anchor topic. To me, relatedness alone is not "relevance" or "utility" in the wiki-reading experience. Relatedness is for our very excellent system of categories; and perhaps for "See also". When relatedness is conjoined with the other criteria as a justification for linking, the system is weakened by vagueness of purpose and an unnecessarily higher link-density.
• "Tent is a trivial link in dog but a relevant link in house." Well, that's where we disagree more fundamentally. I'm looking at "Tent" now; how is it relevant to the article "House"? It doesn't even mention "house", and the converse is probably true. Perhaps if the history section of Tent were actually written, and drew parallels with "House", there might be a case for section linking. But just linking these two articles because they have in common that they are human methods of shelter seems tenuous in the extreme. Am I missing something?
• "Any simplistic rule that decides for an article whether it can be linked to or not, without giving strong consideration to the article where the word appears, will be wrong in a lot of cases." I think "simplistic" prejudges; I'd substitute "simple". Then I agree. But the practical application will always involve a set of (almost all) possible link targets that are easily rejected, a few that are easily accepted, and a few in a grey area that might cause one to think carefully, or to seek/accept other judgements on. These three classes are basic to optimising wikilinking with social harmony. Tony (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this discussion is getting tiresome. If you are unable to intuitively understand that the rule of not linking to trivial topics obviously can t apply to articles on closely related equally trivial topics, then I don't know how to help you. It appears I can't prevent you from running into the wall, so I will stop trying. Hans Adler 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a rude, belittling and dismissive response. I'm disappointed, since I thought we were getting somewhere. It appears that you construct "running into the wall" as disagreeing with you. Tony (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, IMO part of the problem is the false consensus effect. There isn't much I can do if you don't believe me, other than to encourage you to take some specific edits with which you agree and that have already been criticised by many, and then run them by a random sample of editors and a random sample of FA contributors to see what they think. But there is only so much time that I am willing to invest into discussions with any one editor who is pushing an eccentric viewpoint. Hans Adler 06:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't forget, it's my time too; you seem to want to cease communications. Fine, but please don't prejudge ("eccentric"). You will find that FA contributors (and FL, I'd say) will be strongly against the "sibling article" model for linking. Linking in featured content is mostly satisfactory, in my view, so you would regard that community of top content producers as eccentric, I guess. Tony (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

S

Hello. I just wanted to say thank you for your perspectives on S. I don't want to continue the discussion now, but it was instructive. Regards, William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just be careful not to rely too much on my opinion or on others necessarily agreeing with it when this comes up again in a more appropriate forum. Hans Adler 20:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Science reporter (?)

At the CRU emails page you mentioned a widely discussed article; the author is indeed, as his bio states, "a Berkshire-based researcher and science writer", though the piece in question comes under the paper's science blogs.[28] Which leads us to an interesting follow up.[29] Thought you might like the link, . . dave souza, talk 19:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I do. Thanks, I missed that. Hans Adler 19:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My archive fail

[30] Thanks for catching it!  Sandstein  11:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It wasn't hard to miss or hard to fix. Hans Adler 11:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Vandalism warning warning

Trek Boers crossing the Karoo

Blurry humanoid figure with slightly less blurry canine companion crossing Turner River in sight of a picnicker or washer woman

A bunch of moustachioed over-actors crossing the Yalu

I see. And how did you like my category? Got any file to put in it? P.S., I'll have the Tofu-Bratling, please. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, I have no idea where I would get tofu from at this time of the night. I am sure Commons is already closed. But I can offer some pumpkin soup. Please do take a seat while I am looking for my camera. Hans Adler 21:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, just choose whatever place looks most appealing and just move the stuff that's lying there elsewhere. Sorry for the mess. Hans Adler 22:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent finds, how clever—love the "Crossing the Yalu"! Now don't leave the job half done—put your pics in Category:Paintings of people crossing geographical features, pleeze. Do you think it would be safe to move the whole shebang to Commons? I've never quite dared; I worry lest it propel it to WP:CFD—my one and only lovely category. Wikipedia feels, somehow, a bit safer. What is a Bratling, anyway? A fry-up? Bishonen | talk 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Dear Mrs Bishonen, unfortunately I must tell you that I always leave almost everything half done. I would like to make an exception for you, but I am afraid my pictures are all on loan from Commons. I have found no way to put them in a category on Wikipedia – other than by writing articles for them, that is. I share your concern about CfD. Better play it safe and leave it here, where it sits so nicely between Category:Paintings of Napoleon I and Category:Paintings of the Louvre.

In German, a Bratling (or sometimes Röstling – the canteen in Heidelberg used to alternate between the terms for no apparent reason, but some people theorised that the röstlings were supposed to be even drier and more burnt than the bratlings) is literally a roastee or fryee: Anything vegetarian that you can fry instead of a piece of meat. I think I used to buy such things from Somerfields under the designation "burger", although strictly speaking it should probably be called a burger filling because it's a veggie burger without the ersatz bread. In any case my discounter here in Vienna sells them as "Burger". In England the best and cheapest variant was the theoretically most disgusting one. A pity they don't sell this stuff elsewhere in Europe.

By the way, I wonder: Was Napoleon much of a painter? And why are there so many categories of paintings of museums? I am sure Wikipedia must have the answers somewhere, if only I weren't too lazy to look them up. Hans Adler 06:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology.

Whether you believe me or not, I'd like to apologize for edit warring. - Zhou Yu (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't take it personally anyway. Happy editing, hopefully without further conflicts. Hans Adler 06:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:V

Hallo Hans, you commented the other day at the WP:V talk page proposals re science/media sources. The present situation is that a majority of editors seem to be in favour of implementing either proposal 5 or proposal 7, but concerns have been voiced that this will be a big change which perhaps should not be undertaken without wider community input. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status. Your input would be welcome. --JN466 14:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. On first sight it looks OK, but I am unlikely to get more involved in the discussion at this point. Hans Adler 15:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate change denial

I don't know about what you think, but this article's title should be changed and it is struggling with neutrally presenting the topic. I was reverted in my attempt to fix it, so do you think that there is a good compromise?--Novus Orator 07:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What you apparently don't understand is that the entire climate change debate has been manufactured by advertising companies that are paid by ExxonMobil and other large companies that profit from delaying certain inevitable actions. This is nothing new, since we have had precisely the same mechanisms in connection with other issues previously, most notably smoking and cancer. There are numerous cases of people and front organisations that used to claim that science was divided about whether smoking causes cancer (which it very clearly wasn't), and who now claim that science is divided about whether industry causes global warming. And similarly to the previous cases, there is no genuine scientific debate about this, just smoke and mirrors for the general public. As an encyclopedia we follow the most high-quality sources for such topics and we have a lot of editors with a scientific background. Therefore the advertising companies that offer "real grassroots campaigns rather than astro-turfing" (by which they obviously mean astro-turfing that is harder to detect) for huge amounts of money are currently learning that it's a bit harder to manipulate Wikipedia than it is with the average local newspaper. Hans Adler 09:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Template talk:Countries of Europe. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. This edit is unacceptable. Please revert. --Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me of the month. You can't be serious. AGF is not a suicide pact. In particular it does not force anyone to assume that an editor who is trying to add Wales to the following template has misunderstood its purpose:

There is even a footnote saying "Is a state with limited international recognition". Editors from the UK can be expected to have a basic command of the English language and to be part of the general cultural background on which Wikipedia operates. They must know that the constituent countries of the UK have no international recognition as sovereign states, which this is obviously about.Hans Adler 18:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is claiming that the constituent countries of the UK are sovereign states on that or any other page in Wikipedia. The issue which has arisen several times is that any list or template which wants to restrict itself to countries which are sovereign states needs to be appropriately titled. Those arguments have been made. You are free to disagree with them, but the edit I reference above with its accusations and name calling against other editors is a clear failure to assume good faith and addresses the motivation of other editors rather than dealing with content issues. You should strike those comments and focus on the content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 19:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense. You certainly speak English better than I do, and it's very hard to believe that you or the other editors in question don't understand what the term country means in this context. As I said, the problem is plausible deniability: It's impossible to prove that you aren't simply context-deaf. But given the large number of editors with Welsh flags on their user pages who keep pushing Wales into contexts where otherwise only sovereign states appear speaks for itself. A general statement like the one I made is perfectly proper under the circumstances. The plausible deniability applies individually, but not collectively. Hans Adler 19:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever your argument as to the content, you should not make accusations against editors as you did today. It is not proper. You are speculating on the motivations of editors rather than dealing with the content. You really need to get your mind around this. I am happy to accept that we may have a disagreement about what country means. What is not acceptable is for you to launch an attack on other editors without cause. You "we can't get them blocked" comment is particularly crass by the way. I really do suggest you strike the comment, its in clear breech of WIkipedia rules. --Snowded ^TALK 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The only rule my comment has broken is the rule that comments about editors' behaviour should only be made on any of a small number of pages that have been created for that purpose. If that works for you as a compromise I would be willing to move my comments to ANI – even though I think they are proper where they are, because they deal directly with the problem that the proposed move is intended to address. Hans Adler 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make an ANI case based on your comments feel free. I thought it better to give you a chance to withdraw unjustified attacks rather than reporting the behaviour. Its not an isolated case by the way, looking at one piece of advise below and remembering previous comments --Snowded ^TALK 05:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in escalating this further. It was an offer, not something I personally want to do. Hans Adler 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sensible, now if you would strike that comment OR make it clear it does not apply to any editor engaged in the discussion then the matter is closed--Snowded ^TALK 08:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a rephrasing would suffice. "The constant disucssion over inclusion/exclusion on those articles, templates is becoming frustrating. We should begin changing titles from country to sovereign state, in order to end the continuing arguments". GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910

Hello! I will start by saying sorry if, this feels like pushing you. You promised to give some comments still on the Coanda-1910 sources reliability. Would you have time to do so? Thank you in advance!--Lsorin (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit slow with this. This is going to take quite a bit of concentration and I am currently also a bit busy in real life. So I was going to wait a bit to see if Binksternet's promised source materialises any time soon – I think it would be a waste of effort to work through all this only to have to re-evaluate everything in the light of a new source. Currently it looks to me as if we need to find a compromise version that reconciles the different accounts with each other and also mentions the uncertainties. But it's unfortunate that I have only snippets from many of the key sources to go by. Hans Adler 22:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Battleground

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

I've been following some of your recent comments [31] on climate change, a topic in which I don't think I've seen you editing much before although I think we've seen one another around the place. One of the key things to come out of the recently closed arbitration was the "us-and-them" battleground mentality and behavior that may exacerbate that. In fact a whole heap of quite good editors, some of them excellent editors, were topic banned because their behavior was very polarizing.

So that's why I'm coming and asking you to be very careful about how you refer to other editors, even in a general sense, in this topic area. It's easy to set the stage for more warfare and then we all lose out. It would definitely pay you to look carefully through the arbitrators' comments on the proposed decision page of that case, I think that will help you to pick up the vibe that's coming out of Wikipedia on the topic now. --TS 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My comments were the reaction to the obvious cases of astro-turfing that I have seen in a single day. They were all from accounts that haven't edited since September. This is a good example. Of course this may be an ordinary user who happened to become interested in CC on the day the CC Arbcom ruling came out. But it seems more likely that in the 2 years between January 2007 and February 2009 someone did a password guessing attack on abandoned accounts and turned them into sleepers. The first edit in February 2009 was innocuous. Then in September 2009 we have a substantial edit in favour of relaxing rules for testing pharmaceuticals, sourced to the Heartland Institute, as well as one edit writing up a minor Republican candidate. Yesterday the same account added the sentence "There are numerous examples of newspapers printing op-eds from groups attacking Wal-Mart whose funding comes primarily from unions." to The Heartland Institute, but you had to look at the diff very closely indeed to notice, because the account also split a single relatively short paragraph into three for no apparent reason. This user may be an innocent fan of the Heartland Institute and Walmart. AGF still applies. But it does not apply collectively when there is a general pattern.

Nevertheless, thank you for the warning. I will try to take into account that it may be counterproductive if the community is aware of what is going on. After all, there are other ways to deal with the situation. Hans Adler 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're fully aware of what's been going on, so forgive me if you already know this. There is a certain banned editor known as Scibaby who is a prolific sock puppeteer. It isn't the only sock in the climate change topic, but it's the most active. We're well aware of this but the arbitration committee has expressed concern about the dangers of treating every opinionated newcomer as a potential sock. See the arbitration case link I gave above for their official opinion of it. So Assume good faith is more important than ever, while of course being aware that jiggery pokery may also be afoot. --TS 11:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am mostly aware of this, although I haven't got a clue how to distinguish Scibaby and other socks. I certainly agree that we must be careful not to ABF all new editors of a certain POV just because there are many socks active in the area. I have watched a blatant case of this unfold with Unomi when he was new, and I have seen several cases related to homeopathy. I have not observed anything remotely as bad in the climate change area, but this may be simply because I didn't watch the area closely. I think I am generally very careful about accusations of sock puppetry against any individual editor. I have made a small number of SPI reports, and in each case it was preceded by many hours of research. The number of SPI reports I did not file because my research cleared an editor to my satisfaction is much higher.

As I said, you have made me more aware of the problem that a general awareness of the central problem in the climate change area may be counterproductive because it tends to encourage the kind of polarisation in which sock puppets prosper. I have seen the difference at the homeopathy article, where we managed to get from a pro-/anti-homeopathy polarisation to something much more constructive. Nowadays when new editors turn up and make strongly POV edits, we can deal much more effectively with the situation because the established editors trust each other and know there is no chance of subversion by sock puppets. Hans Adler 12:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like your experience in other areas will stand you in good stead. --TS 12:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread restored

The thread you started at ANI a couple of days ago concerning user Terra Novus rolled off to archives before I could comment. I've restored it from the archive, commented, and informed Terra Novus. I thought it would be right to inform you, as well, since you began it. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No pressure 3RR

I'm sure you're aware of the rule, but I just thought I'd remind you that you can be blocked for reverting an edit more than three times in a 24 hour period.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I would not normally have reverted 3 times, but for my personal ethics I don't count the first time because I had every right to assume that when I was first reverted it was in error. Jprw claimed to remove text that was never in the article and gave no real rationale for adding the text they added. This reminds me of the worst kind of edit warring I have seen so far: Reflexive pressing of the "undo" button, based on nothing but edit summaries and editor identity. This kind of editing should never be rewarded, whether it is intentional or not. Hans Adler 13:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that too when I looked at the edit history, but there had recently been some "denier" pejoratives added in the reception section, so perhaps it was an incorrect assumption on his part. Whatever, AGF. Wiki's been copping some heat over climate change articles lately, let's try to keep the editing sane on this one.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be editing like this. I don't think your arguments excusing edit warring would cut any mustard in a discretionary sanctions area. Please read the notice I put at the foot of Talk:No Pressure (film). --TS 14:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this is the sequence of events in article space, and my analysis:

2 October

• Climatedragon adds references to the "skeptical blog WUWT" [32]
• Jprw adds "popular science". [33]

18 October [34]

• I remove "sceptical popular science", explaining in the edit summary that one person's "sceptical popular science blog" is another's "global warming denial blog"
• Jprw reverts with an edit summary that suggests they didn't even look at the edit
• I remove it again
• Jprw adds it again
• I remove it again
• Yeti Hunter adds it again

My first revert did not feel like a revert. A great deal of research was necessary to even find out where the text came from. My second revert was in the spirit of cooperative editing – Jprw seemed to have reverted because of a misunderstanding of the nature of my edit. Of course it looks differently now. The next three reverts (including one by me) were inappropriate and I apologise for mine. Hans Adler 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's edit warring, and taken as a whole it certainly isn't collegial editing by any stretch of the imagination. Anyway, enough lecturing. Please read the arbitration case decision and you may see that it has serious teeth intended to stop exactly this kind of edit war. --TS 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the last sentence for a reason. Hans Adler 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussions regarding Weston Price

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further information: [[:User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 3#Quackwatch|User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 3 § Quackwatch]]

Hans Adler 17:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.. "

"Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. You could also remind the user in question of Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others." - WP:BATTLE --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest both of you avoid interacting at all. Nothing good ever comes of it. --TS 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly good advice. As you may have noticed, we had only three short episodes of interaction so far: One in March 2008, one in August 2009 and one starting a few days ago at WP:RS/N#Is a paper (possible blog) by a psychiatrist valid regarding old claims regarding dentistry?, when I commented in a thread without having a clue that Ronz was involved. While I generally enjoy getting people with robot-like behaviour, such as telemarketers [40], off-script, I am doing my best to avoid this particular temptation on Wikipedia. It may not be good enough, though. If only I knew a good strategy for ending interaction once someone has started applying their script to me. Hans Adler 18:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had this problem and I know how it plays out (which is badly). You're both going to have to try hard to make it work. Avoid the temptation to characterize the other person or his conduct, even in a way that you regard as objectively fair or generous. Forgive and let pass without comment any comment by the other person you find annoying or provoking. Where possible, avoid commenting in discussions on which the other has commented, and when you do so address the subject and not the person. Think generous thoughts about the other person at all times, but don't overdo it, try to see him as a human who finds you as annoying as you find him. Try to live and let live. --TS 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hans Adler 19:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh*. I had completely forgotten Ronz's sensitivity about Barrett. Serves me right for not being obsessed with him. Hans Adler 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. [41] --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:YellowMonkey#Blocked_editor_humbly_requests_explanationsYogesh Khandke (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Names for English places

I am on your side about having English places disambiguated by the county when possible as I have proposed Beeston, Leeds to be moved to Beeston, West Yorkshire and Oakwood, Leeds to Oakwood, West Yorkshire there is a discussion to move Beeston, Leeds to Beeston, West Yorkshire and one for Oakwood, Leeds. There is also a discussion about the issue. Homan's Copse (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my position. It's absurd to disambiguate a locality that is not an independent village with a county rather than the city whose mayor the inhabitants of the locality help to elect. It's particularly absurd in a case such as Beeston, which is geographically quite clearly a part of the settlement Leeds.

While I was under the impression that there was a guideline that intentionally prescribed this absurdity, and that there was strong support for this guideline, I was prepared to support the move on consistency grounds. But it is now clear to me that that is not the case. Hans Adler 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well put

I thought your statement here[42] summed things up nicely. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello Hans: In case you are having a bit of unfamiliarity with sockpuppetry allegations, you might consider reading this once [43], specifically this quote "The tool [Checkuser] should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute."
Your allegations, baseless at best, suggest that you are trying to put unnecessary pressure on me. TheEngineer^Ask 05:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Brown Lady

Hi, thanks for your message. I dispute the allegation that the article is a copyvio. While I accept that I did paste material from a website (which was wrong) and got a Copyvio message from a bot, I removed the tag not because "I was disguising my edits" but because I entirely rewrote the content. Jack1956 (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You did not entirely rewrite the content. You presented the same ideas in the same order, only changing some inconsequential words and superficial sentence structure. Original:

The Pons Neronianus or Bridge of Nero (54-68) was built to connect the westernmost part of the Field of Mars with the Campus Vaticanus ("Vatican Field"), where the imperial family owned land along the Via Cornelia.

Caligula had built a circus on the right bank of the Tiber and Nero used this park to entertain the Romans after the great fire of 64.

The gardens were also the place where –according to Tacitus– Nero tortured the Christians to death (text), and we can imagine that the Romans who went out to see the executions of the arsonists, crossed this bridge.

Your first version, correctly tagged by CorenSearchBot for copy and paste:

The Pons Neronianus or Bridge of Nero was an ancient bridge in Rome built to connect the westernmost part of the Field of Mars with the Campus Vaticanus ("Vatican Fields"), where the imperial family owned land along the Via Cornelia.

The Emperor Caligula had built a circus on the right bank of the Tiber and Nero used this park to entertain the Roman crowds after the great fire of 64.

The gardens were also the place where, according to Tacitus, Nero tortured to death the Christians who were accused of causing the fire.

Your 'entirely rewritten' version:

The Pons Neronianus or Bridge of Nero was an ancient bridge in Rome built during the reign of the emperors Caligula or Nero to connect the western part of the Campus Martius with the Campus Vaticanus ("Vatican Fields"), where the Imperial Family owned land along the Via Cornelia. [...]

The Emperor Caligula had built a circus on the right bank of the Tiber and Nero later used this park, renamed the Circus of Nero, to entertain the Roman crowds after the Great Fire of Rome of 64 AD.

It was in these gardens, according to Tacitus, that Nero tortured to death the Christians who were accused of causing the Great Fire.

This is not just blatant plagiarism, it is also a very obvious case of a derived text, subject to the copyright restrictions of the original. You have nothing to win by lying about blatantly obvious facts. Hans Adler 11:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Three sentences in the entire article? Plus I do not appreciate being called a liar, which is not assuming good faith. I may be mistaken, but I am not a liar. Carry on in that tone and I will report you for your lack of civility. Jack1956 (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition, I was referring to my 'Brown Lady' article. Jack1956 (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Then you're on the wrong person's user talk page. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I'm on the right person's user talk page. Jack1956 (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • CorenSearchBot did not detect your copyvio on the Brown Lady article. Unless you have a much longer and more recent history of reverting CorenSearchBot than is apparent from the contribution history of the account Jack1956, it simply makes no sense for you to claim that you were referring to the Brown Lady article (which has no bot edits in its history [44]) when you wrote the following: "While I accept that I did [...] and got a Copyvio message from a bot, I removed the tag not because 'I was disguising my edits' but because [...]." Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said it for the first time: It is not in your best interest to lie about easily verifiable facts.
    • Additionally, if you want to lie without being called to account for it in plain language, you are indeed on the wrong talk page. I do not believe in making it easy for dishonest editors to deceive themselves about their character. You are very welcome to draw additional attention on yourself by reporting me for my "lack of civility". We will need all the eyes we can get to clean up your copyvios, some of which are probably from offline sources and thus very hard to detect. Han s Adler 12:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• My mistake in referring to the CorenSearchBoot finding a copyvio on 'Brown Lady' - I thought that was what we were discussing and I wrongly assumed it had put a message on the article. I am not a liar or dishonest and I am reporting you for your rudeness and incivility. You are the sort of editor who makes working here unpleasant and you seriously need to look at the way you interact with other editors! Jack1956 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hans: May I enquire what is your rationale for evaluating Jack1956's contributions to this article as a copyvio? You say that his edits are plagiarised from an offline source; if that is so, then what text(s) specifically? Disclosure: My attention with regards to this copyvio has been solicited directly by Jack, on my talk page—though this is my first involvement in this matter. AGK 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't say there were any offline sources, I brought this up as a possibility that would make things much harder to check. What do you mean by "this article"? The Brown Lady article was pulled from the main page (by Future Perfect at Sunrise) before I even got involved. In my first post to this very section you can see my analysis of a copyvio in Pons Neronianus. The source from which Jack1956 copied was pointed out in the page history by CorenSearchBot, but for your convenience, it's [45]. There is also Walter Dew, which includes an obvious copyvio from [46] (which of course might be a copyvio itself, but predates the Wikipedia article, as I have verified). I checked three of Jack1959's over 80 DYK articles and found copyvios in two of them. Obviously that's where the idea of offline sources came from. Hans Adler 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  • PS: There is also Charles Fitzroy Doll, which Uncle G has identified as a copyvio plagiarism from a book by Oxford University Press. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Multiple plagiarized DYK submissions by Jack1956 (not my section title). Hans Adler 20:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It is not an OUP copyvio - it was taken from Answers.com here. My point is that making genuine mistakes does not make me a liar or a dishonest editor. See discussion here. Jack1956 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, Uncle G has identified it as plagiarism from that OUP book (via the web page), not as a copyvio. That would make it slightly better but still not OK at all. But I am not sure he is right. This depends on relatively fine points of American (Californian) copyright law, with which I am obviously not familiar. The fact that you didn't rephrase the extremely odd construction "was demolished in the late 1960s, and, like the Hotel Russell, stood in Russell Square" certainly gives reason to serious concern. Hans Adler 22:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For thinking of a way to use WikiStalk to identify repeat copyright infringers that will make my life better. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. Sometimes what may seem like a straightforward suggestion to you can revolutionize somebody else's work! I have always slowly scanned for notices in people's talk page histories before. This is going to save me a ton of time! Bless you. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you will be able to do even more work while the rest of us stays lazy? :) Let me know if you need further ideas. :) Hans Adler 16:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! We're all busy in our own ways. :D I can't think of any specific ideas to ask for at the moment, but if any spontaneously present feel free to let me know about them! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research

I saw your comment about the expansion of WP:NOR, but I'm not sure what you mean. How has it expanded beyond the "reasonable bounds"?   Will Beback  talk  23:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• The most obvious example is of course Gavin Collins, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive217#User:Gavin.collins. Stonewalling, intimidation, misrepresentation of policies. I am sure he really believes his outrageous OR claims. Although he is only an outlier, it was the fundamentalism of a significant part of the community which made this possible.
• See WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy for the other side of the medal. Apparently Wikipedia has an obligation to lie about itself if only the lies are "verifiable". This fatal ideology may have started with this Arbcom decision: "It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." This was written carelessly, so that it labels even a consensus-based complete rewrite of a broken, rambling article disruptive unless you find a way of including every single tidbit that is marginally relevant to the topic but better replaced by something more important. This is made even worse by the fact that nowadays it's usually remembered in the form "removal of sourced information is disruptive", which many tendentious editors interpret literally, ignoring the obvious restrictions on applicability.
• Rlevse didn't invent the idea that close paraphrasing of sources is required. If you don't do it you always risk getting under attack, and the attackers will never be sanctioned even if they are unreasonable. It takes independence of thought to realise that the negative feedback that you get for proper encyclopedic work and proper summarising of sources is not supposed to make you learn not to do it and plagiarise instead. That this negative feedback comes from idiots who you must ignore because you can't fight them.
• For a recent example of how this works in practice, look at the discussions on Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy about the, apparently dubious, claim that the emails were published "illegally". This has gone for ages, but in the most recent episode Alex Harvey is claiming that a government report isn't good enough as a source for the illegality because some other sources use milder words, and anyway, only a court can decide this. He doesn't actually argue it wasn't illegal (because it obviously is), or that it's not relevant (because many sources use that word), but he is painting it as some form of OR, against all reason and with no consequences for himself. This the kind of tendentious editing that the science-oriented editors are facing in the climate change area all the time, and Arbcom's "solution" is to block all sides equally. Apparently Arbcom is also of the opinion that Wikipedia can't independently decide that publishing personal emails on a hacked website without the copyright owners' consent is illegal, or other similar questions.
• Look at User talk:Roger Davies#Disappointed, where an otherwise very sensible Arb is defending a purely structural approach that completely ignores the sensibility or otherwise of editorial decisions. It is a famous conundrum that Wikipedia has no formal mechanism for ultimately resolving content disputes, yet somehow manages to get the content mostly right. What the Arbs don't seem to realise is that this is because at all levels the underlying content disputes influence the decisions about the behaviour. What we need is intelligent Arbs with common sense, who understand the content disputes and see which side (sometimes both) is being reasonable or unreasonable. Who then come to a fair decision that is informed but not at all determined by the content dispute. What we don't need is Arbs who too successfully fight against this natural inclination. Such Arbs might theoretically be good for Wikipedia as a community, but they are unwittingly working on the destruction of the encyclopedia as such. Their fundamentalism will make the introduction of content arbitration inevitable, sooner or later. I did not argue for a decision about content, and I did not argue for treating climate change as a special case. I argued for using common sense for all topics.

We have a vicious circle in which policies and guidelines are tuned for deciding conflicts and then applied by POV pushers to make disputes about technicalities of policy application where they would lose immediately if things were treated correctly as matters of editorial discretion and subject to consensus of editors on the facts and presentation. As a result, editorial discretion has become almost illegal in the same way and by basically the same mechanism that "truth" has become an invective. Hans Adler 11:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I take issue with your allegation that in the climate change area, Arbcom's "solution" is to block all sides equally – their disproportionate and unequal solution was to topic ban editors with a history of productive well sourced work in that specific area, and as a sort of balance to also topic ban editors with interests in other areas, whose main purpose in that specific area was to restrict the productive editors, as suggested here. It's a clear endorsement by arbcom of WP:PUSHing. . . dave souza, talk 11:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a good overview over the participation and dynamics in that area, especially concerning the things that happened before I really got involved. (I mostly stayed out of the topic until the topic bans made me feel obliged to get involved, but it's so stressful that I am already on a bit of a break.) I simply don't know whether what you are writing is true, although I am inclined to believe you. If it is true, then I still doubt that it was intentional. I am sure that most Arbs are pushing the project towards the abyss in very good faith. (Actually, at least one is generally pushing in the right direction.) It's important to find out why that is happening, so that we can make it stop. Hans Adler 12:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Right now on my watchlist, as if to demonstrate how widespread the problem is: Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson#Needs source. Verifiability is simply being treated as a game with no relation to the goal of writing a correct encyclopedia. Hans Adler 14:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You write wisely. Clearly all the editors I'm discussing have shown imperfection, the question is whether imperfection should be weighed in relation to the aim of producing good article content. The current conventions tend to treat it as a game where conformity to rules of interaction are more important, but it's not an easy decision either and I'm sure the arbiters were trying to reduce the stressfulness of the topic area. Alex Harvey shows how keeping within civility guidelines can succeed, up to a point. . dave souza, talk 17:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW User:Gavin.collins has now been banned from Wikipedia. It seems it was some blatant copyright violations that did it finally rather than his interminable civil POV pushing. Minus times a minus is a plus I believe. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm

This is just to let you know in as friendly a manner as possible that your perception of sarcasm is erronious, and countering the imagined sarcasm with genuine sarcasm demonstrates that a touch of GF would not be amiss. I am quite aware of what's being discussed at the RfA talk page, and I'm not the only one to stumble on Jimbo's page by coincidence.--Kudpung (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page traditionally has a function very similar to the Village Pump. It has practically the same number of watchers as WP:VPP and only about 10% less than WP:RFA. WT:RFA is of course the proper forum for changes to RfA, but it has a strong fatalist consensus that makes it very unlikely to successfully start a reform. It needs a strong impulse from outside. I am sorry you did not like the way I expressed this thought. I did not mean to offend you. Do you want me to strike or correct something? Hans Adler 16:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Hans. Thank you your frank and sincere reply. There's nothing you need to strike or retract, I'm generally a Wikignome but I can be outspoken at times and I can take any flak I get ;) However, I have indeed had some mild success in the past at drawing fragmented discussions about major issues together, and ultimately to a consensus. I'm only too well aware that not all contributions to the perennial discussions at WT:RFA are productive, but as some of our heavyweight users participate in depth there as well as on the JB page, I feel that WT:RFA is ultimately the place to be. The consensus is, like it is on the JW page, very much that the RfA system has broken down, and as a result too few editors of the right calibre are prepared to come forward and run for office. All the necessary comments have been made long ago and are now repetitive; there is no cabal, but I'm thinking of marshaling a workgroup together, so if you feel strongly about RfA, perhaps you are one of those 'strong impulses', and I would very much look forward to working together with you towards galvanising people to some real action. MfG, --Kudpung (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has now chimed in as I had hoped, with a strong appeal to keep the discussion on topic. If this is successful, and with him now in the chair, his talk page may well indeed be the better venue after all. I have no preference where the action takes place as long as some action does takes place, and I would be quite happy to migrate. --Kudpung (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference either. Unfortunately, at this point I also don't have any good input to the discussion. Hans Adler 13:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism discussion moved to WP:VP page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump#Plagiarism_vs._WP:SYN_and_WP:NOR

Thanks! I have taken the liberty of reformatting the thread. I hope that's OK. Hans Adler 21:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Note

I am hereby threatening to bully you into responding to me. And if you don't respond I'll threaten to bully some more. >:)
It's considered impolite to continue to post on another editor's talk page when asked not to. While it would take an arbcom decision to literally ban someone from your talk page (basically an "interaction ban"), it's well within your rights to delete almost anything on your talk page without comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not about an interaction ban. I simply don't want to be bothered with the silly talkback stuff. It's my orange bar that this is about, after all. Since TreasuryTag doesn't get it he is now persona non grata on my talk page. I have no problem with interacting with him elsewhere. As far as I know I have reacted speedily to every single comment of him that addressed me. I would have done the same without the talkback nonsense, but would have been a lot less irritated. Hans Adler 13:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't bother with the "talkback" thing, simply because once I've posted a message on someone's talk page, it automatically goes on my watch list. I've seen a number of editors with lengthy explanations on the matter. That seems like overkill. But it's all personal preference, I reckon. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A little bit o' javascript and CSS, and you ought to be able to disable the banner at will. Might be a workaround. --Ludwigs2 19:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you are probably not talking about a variant of poor-man's page protection but a merely a way to hide the silly things. So this doesn't solve the orange bar problem and the having to clean up after others problem.

Hmmm. Maybe I can transform the talkback template into a huge red template that reads: "User X has ignored the request not to post talkback templates on this page."

well, you can always do what I do with unwanted talk page contributions. refactor them back to the originating user's page with a snide edit summary. I admit with talkbacks that would be confusing (since he'd keep getting talkback items that pointed back to his own page), but as a social engineering project it's not too shabby. --Ludwigs2 22:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A template that automatically adds the following text to barnstars would also be nice: "Thank you for the barnstar. I appreciate it, but unfortunately I do not have a barn. May I ask you to keep it for me until I have rectified the situation? Thank you very much." Hans Adler 19:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm. [The evil little Darwinbish immediately starts to look for a truly annoying barnstar for Hans. ] Or maybe I just bite him on the ankle? That works too! darwinbish ^BITE 20:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Welcome on my talk page little Darwinbish. You look hungry. Please help yourself to a bunny post if you are into that kind of thing, I have a few spare ones lying around here. Hans Adler 22:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

An another, very fat one below. What are you waiting for? Hans Adler 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're trying to get me blocked, Herr Hans! But OK, who cares? [/me moves into position.] darwinbish ^BITE 01:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Aaand... BITE BITE BITE BITE! EAT EAT EAT FAT BUNNY! [/me licks her chops] darwinbish ^BITE 01:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

Close paraphrasing etc.

In Wikipedia_talk:Close_paraphrasing#Feist_v._Rural, I've commented on an earlier post you made at WT:Copyright violations. Please have a look whether I misconstrued what you were saying, and feel free to join the discussion. --JN466 14:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really enjoyed

The hitchiker's guide reference of a few weeks ago. Been away from the computer entirely for a week and was revisiting some stuff here tonight. I laughed -- hard -- and also revisited something that gave me a lot of pleasure many years ago. Thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. For the life of me I couldn't remember what it is I said, but now I found it at WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 81#Parting Statement. For easy reference: "We must import even more hairdressers and telephone sanitisers from Golgafrincham. They are our only hope, because they know how to set up an atmosphere that is conducive to encyclopedia writing." I am sure some day the works of Douglas Adams will be incorporated in the canon of some new religion, and people will start taking everything literally. But they are already a great source of wisdom. I guess I should also do some rereading, especially the (non-Hitchhiker) books that I have read only once. Hans Adler 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Like a light read (from very capable hands) that has the best that satire has to offer? Start here.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

On reliability, verifiability, and standards of inclusion

I thought you might have something interesting to say here about whether it is necessary or merely just plausible that we include the particular book being discussed as a source for the article. There is one user in particular at that page who seems to think it almost requisite that we include the book simply on the basis of its publisher. I've liked what you've said in the past on such topics, so perhaps you'd be willing to opine again if you aren't too busy.

jps (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. When I saw this about a week ago it was already a bit late, and I don't care much anyway. By the way, congratulations for obtaining the robes so shortly after the mob. Hans Adler 20:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Pound (mass)

On 28 October you added to Pound (mass)#German and Austrian Pfund an empty <ref name=hille />. Was this pasted from some other article? Did you mean to add content to it? —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is at Apothecaries' system. I will fix the problem, and I see some other problems have also crept back into the article, such as the canard that "weight" necessarily refers to force rather than mass. Hans Adler 19:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Article rescue

• Inversion (computer science) (AfD discussion)

I've given this a little push. The rest is up to you. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't react earlier because I am mostly inactive and have no idea what I am supposed to do with that article. Hans Adler 20:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There's more to be said on the subject of counting inversions, and possibly more to be said on the idea of presortedness measures in general. Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • At the moment I don't have the time to learn about it, sorry. Hans Adler 15:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

An idle question on closed curves

Reading Lines of equal latitude and longitude (AfD discussion) which makes you twitch more?

• the approximations and discontinuities in File:Lines of equal latitude and longitude FROM (World borders parallel.png).PNG
• the idea that -15 is the same as +15

I'm convinced that there are more interesting non-circular closed curves on the surface of a sphere. Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. Nothing against playing around and time-wasting, but this particular style just doesn't make sense to me. I think the basic idea is much worse than any flaws in its implementation. Hans Adler 15:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know

Earlier this month I had to remove the same kind of child-friendly fiction about a similar website from the article about the Russian New Year character Ded Moroz. In fact, the exact same information in the exact same words was on noradsanta.wikia.com. So far, nobody has undone my edit to that article.

Thank you for letting me know about this new devolpment. At least for now there's not too much "in-universe" stuff and it's only on one page. If links to NORAD Tracks Santa start cropping up again on pages about the Taj Mahal, the Egyptian pyramids and, of course, Bavarian castles, then we'll know that we've got a problem on our hands.

I'm going to do some editing on the Santa Claus article now. I fear I may yet get called "Scrooge" before very long. I also fear that I'll still be editing Santa Claus in April. So be it.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the page and removed all of the fictional fancruft, advertising and opinion about how great those sites are, for now. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of editing war begins, possibly featuring several users with names like FredJones004 and HarryEvans009. Again, a lot of the content that I removed also appears word-for-word the same on the Wikia site where BillJohnson003 is the only editor and all articles are locked to prevent anyone else from editing them. It's pretty obvious what's going on, isn't it?--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

We can add another user to that particular "family" of single purpose accounts, User:ProSanta0001 who has already claimed that there are British and German Santa haters on Wikipedia who can't possibly understand the article's significance.

If I'm going to go through all of this again, I can't do it on my own. You seem to have spent a lot of the past year arguing that there's no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts and no proof that Paul the octopus really had psychic powers. I hope that you can spend some time trying to make the "Santa Claus" entry a good encyclopedia article instead of a bit of a fluffy bit of festive fun. Thank you for your time.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to go through this every year. I am not entirely sure about the relations between the various accounts, but the combination of COI, SPA, spamming and general policy breaking just can't be tolerated. I asked for the nuclear solution at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BillJohnson0003. Hans Adler 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. BillJohnson0003 has been indefinitely banned and so have all five of his confirmed sockpuppets.

However, it was another user who undid my edit to the Santa Claus page. It seems that once again a generally sensible editor is wrongly accusing me of pushing a POV by saying that Santa Claus doesn't exist. The truth is that I'm trying to remove the POV and follow official Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to get the junk removed from the article for now.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to join in. I very much doubt that it's over yet and I'm sure a minor version of this will happen every year. However, with the hardcore spammer blocked it shouldn't last more than a month. Unlike the pseudo-science topics, which people will insist are true 365 days a year, most editors will have lost all interest in Santa Claus related articles by December 26.

Anyway, thank you for your assistance. You're a good man and an excellent Wikipedian.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what happens. I hope we can keep this under control without drawing in Ronz. Hans Adler 12:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's annoying! Why can't more users understand that adding a lot of text is not the same thing as adding encyclopedic content? As I said before, just because an article (or a section, for that matter) is long doesn't mean it's good.

I guess there really is nothing I can do now, at least for the time being. I'll look at the article again in a few months time, when Wikipedia's silly season is over.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)  Redthoreau -- (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I completely forgot that I said that... Hans Adler 14:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pigeon photographer

Hi Hans Adler, thanks for your comments on my talkpage. I might change/tone-down my initial viewpoint in respect of "film"; we will see as the review proceeds. As hardware, in particular, and patents were being discussed, film seem under represented; but as I worked through the details, small but "standard" cameras appeared to have been used for this application.

I will not being doing much work over Christmas myself. I may "pass" nominations that I regard as being compliant but I shan't be failing any over the holiday due to lack of correctives action - I don't see this article as "failing" anyway, it appears so far to just need a few minor enhancements. Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hans, a user has filed a WQA about me (no big deal, particularly since its rather baseless) but now User:Ronz has showed up out of the blue for some reason to start lecturing me on civility. I'm not sure if you remember the one and only (prolonged) encounter I had with him before. I'm wondering if there is anyway or anywhere to request that he does not engage with me? I would not usually ask such things, but it's just that he has a very particular style of discussion that I know you have commented about in the past, and that I know from that one encounter drives me up the wall. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick response before looking into the concrete situation: The right place for asking for an interaction ban is WP:ANI.

And after a quick glance at WQA: Ronz taking sides with Cyclopia? Wow. The two users have similar levels of eccentricity, but in completely different directions. I wonder how this unlikely alliance came about. Hans Adler 08:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it somehow appeared that I was taking sides. Both Griswaldo and Cyclopia have difficulties following our behavioral guidelines. The big difference appears to be that Griswaldo is more dismissive of others, personalizing disputes. Cyclopia took the step of disengaging from disrupting an article talk page and bringing the dispute to WQA, where both Griswaldo and Cyclopia ignored their behavioral problems and instead continued a prior dispute. Meanwhile, the actual content dispute had been fairly well settled. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP policy

I think you misconstrue the BLP policy. It applies to BLPs or "information about living persons" in other articles [italics added]. The material deleted in Criticism of Wikipedia was not "about" the people as individuals -- it was simply about what they are saying. Please restore the information. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"... have argued that Wikipedia articles related to this topic are biased and controlled by a small group of participants including Connolley who do not edit in a neutral manner or may have a conflict of interest. Connolley and this small group have since been banned from editing Wikipedia pages dealing with climate change after another arbitration process was completed." This is a negative statement about a living person (William M. Connolley), it goes beyond the bare, verifiable facts, and it is sourced to opinion pieces. There is no reason to restore this and I will remove it again if someone else does so.

Incidentally, global warming is not the only area on which the article appears to be siding with fringe views. The paragraph about the Cyrus Cylinder has a similar problem, as I explained on the article talk page. But at least that's not a BLP problem. Hans Adler 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well, I fail to see how the policy extends so far as to include what they do. But it is a minor point and I won't get wrapped around the axle on it. But with the policy in mind, how about taking a look at Bradley Manning? It has opinion piece stuff from Salon.com that is pretty contentious. Admin SlimVirgin has done a lot of great work on it, but another set of experienced eyes would be nice. Thanks so very much. --S. Rich (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have watchlisted that page. But I can't promise anything since I haven't followed the news very closely. Hans Adler 10:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Did not realize. Please feel free to correct, the edit. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I did. No problem, just don't make a habit of it, please. Hans Adler 23:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1894 Homeopathy article in Journal of the American Medical Association

Is this the book you were asking Brangifer for on homeopathy talk page? “Modern Homeopathy And Medical Science” in the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 17, 1894. It does not appear in the homeopathy citation section.HkFnsNGA (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. I haven't looked at that book, but it is probably totally out of date and is likely to have an outdated POV that makes it only useful for very specific facts and possibly for quote-mining. I meant Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America, Oxford University Press 2002. Hans Adler 13:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I see I misremembered what Whorton says. I am still sure I read an account of homeopathy and hygiene that had a lot of details, but I don't remember where. Hans Adler 14:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Steve Quinn and the math journals list

I saw your post on Steve's talk page, but after reading your latest comment on the math journals list page, I start wondering about your concept of the word "condescending". I have not re-reverted Carl's edits, I'm not edit-warring, I'm discussing. What's your problem, that I have not let myself be convinced? As far as I know, that's not a requirement of BRD. I have no problem reverting my position if faced with good arguments, but so far I am not convinced. I have remained civil throughout this whole discussion and I expect the same from other participants. Can we now stop using words like "condescending" and continue concentrating on the issue at hand, please? --Crusio (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First, there's a distinct difference between your behaviour and Steve Quinn's, the latter being outright bizarre and yours within the reasonable range but, in my eyes, not constructive. My comment on Steve Quinn's talk page came with a diff which, I think, clearly proves the point ("Yes, you are correct [that...]. Also, I am glad that [...] have been assisting you - these are both very good editors to learn from. [...] So, yes, you are getting the hang of it. [...] I'll be glad to give feedback as I go along - but it seems that you are creating acceptable stubs right now. And I guess that is your goal at the moment, and I don't have a problem with that. If you see something pertaining to my editing that you like feel free to ask about it, or just imitate it." This guy is so full of self-importance that it would be funny if we were not under an obligation to cooperate with him. In some workplaces such people are sacked in order to preserve a reasonable working atmosphere and prevent the productive staff from getting too annoyed. (More to the point: Most people who behave like that would never be employed in the first place because they are way too young.)

In retrospect, it seems likely that Steve Quinn's abrasive behaviour tainted the way I perceived yours, so I apologise for overreacting. I perceived that you were not being constructive. E.g. I can see nothing in WP:EL or WP:LINKFARM that would be relevant to the discussion, yet you seem to be pretending, vaguelt pointing in that direction, that these documents support your position. (Once you ignore the bad formatting of the references, there is nothing in WP:LINKFARM that would prohibit the list in the state in which you found it, at least not under an interpretation that is reasonable in the sense that it does not rule out a huge number of lists that exist by general consensus.) Your hyperbole "that's no reason to let this thing sit around for months" and "that is not a situation that we should tolerate indefinitely" seems to confirm this, but of course it may just be a symptom of your irritation at my irritation.

Meanwhile, that list is not in an ideal state, but it in no way requires immediate action. It is not misleading or incorrect, it contains no spam, no unsourced potentially contentious statements, etc. It is still more or less in the state in which it was started in 2006, except that R. J. Mathar extended it in August 2010, approximately doubling it in size. Given the number of page views (0-2 per day before we started to discuss there) [47], any sense of urgency and pressuring to do things quickly is completely out of place. I am under an impression that CBM is going to need less than a month, but even a year would be absolutely acceptable for such a low-profile page. Hans Adler 20:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• • I guess I also got irritated, after spending a tedious hour cleaning up the list and then being summarily reverted... --Crusio (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Deleting a whole section because it's not inline with you POV is considered vandalism. Please refrain from such further activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveg79 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not considered vandalism. It's also not what happened, as you should know since you must have seen the rationale in my edit summary. However, what is definitely not allowed is accusing others of vandalism in edit summaries or with bogus talk page warnings when they have not vandalised. This is particularly true when someone merely fixed a problem in an article. Hans Adler 12:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have looked a bit at the history of that article and strongly suspect that there is some sockpuppetry going on here. Just a moment ago another SPA popped up, whose single edit strongly suggests that he's not new to WP. --Crusio (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I know. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Steveg79. Hans Adler 13:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • FYI the Russian location is obvious if you see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexandre8/Archive, where Alexandre8's own sockpuppetry is dealt with. Funnily enough he tried the "I forgot to log in" excuse despite the IP edits coming after logged-in edits..... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding assistance

Could you or some other neutral German editor you know translate parts of German version of article Animal welfare in Nazi Germany? Right now the english version seems to be very one-sided while the German version does mention antisemitic and racist aspects of the policy as well as propaganda use by the Nazis.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I have enough time to do that. It's not done with just translating what the German Wikipedia says. They have a radically different sourcing style, in which minor sources that are not recommended for further reading are usually just mentioned in the edit summary of the edit that introduces the fact in question. As a result, some unsourced claims simply stay in an article because they are plausible to a German-speaking audience and nobody realises there never was a source. In other words: In the German Wikipedia "original research" still has its original meaning as just disallowing idiosyncratic fringe theories, rather than the English Wikipedia's interpretation that makes editorial work extremely hard.

I also don't know any other German-speaking editor who I think might be interested in doing this. But I have watchlisted the article and may get involved there. Hans Adler 13:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fundamentalist interpretations of V again

Hans, I was just reading through The meaning of "verifiability, not truth", and "Threshold" again and all the other discussions on the topic. The reason this interests me, is because we've got an issue over at Talk:The_Circus_(film). Since October 2010, Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs) has been misinterpreting the policy (not entirely his fault due to the poor wording), claiming that the sole criterion for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth". When called on this, he claims that "Verifiability, not truth is the litmus for inclusion. That's Wikipedia's rule, not mine." Can you tell me how to deal with these erroneous, literal interpretations of V, and why this has not yet been fixed after all the concerns that have been raised? Jack believes that V enables him to add any piece of trivia, no matter how irrelevant, to any article, merely because it can be verified in a reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't found a good way of dealing with this nonsense yet. A tiny minority (including at least one high-profile admin) actually believes it. Some pay lip service to it without really believing it, as their actions show whenever they are confronted with a real case. And some don't believe it but refuse to accept that there are others who believe that nonsense, or that it is a problem. Together these editors have so far blocked any clarifications to the principle.

The real problem is of course more general. Wikipedia editors are getting increasingly formalist, relying on the technical meaning of the words rather than the obvious intent behind them. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that policies and guidelines have a natural tendency to only cover the contentious cases, to become more and more extreme over time, and to be applied to uncontentious cases by formalist editors or POINT violators.

I often find it hard to stay cool when faced with formalists. I see you have the same problem. Going out for a walk might help... I guess we will have to wait for formalism to become so rampant that a large part of the community realises how dangerous it is. Hans Adler 10:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Many such misinterpretations come about from people forgetting that the Wikipedia project is a project to build an online encyclopedia. There are many other kinds of online writing that may have a fitting home on some other site, but Wikipedia isn't set up for what doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (although currently Wikipedia is poorly configured to screen out unencyclopedic content). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If I may add my voice to this conversation, I'd point out that I don't consider myself a formalist, per se. I think of the polices and guidelines we have currently mapped out comes from the shared consensus of the members themselves; its the mean average of some wanting one extreme and others wanting another, and most desiring something more moderate. This does (and to a necessary extent, must) change over time, and comes from discussions such as those currently occurring in the article Viriditas mentioned, and hundreds of others. Considering these opinions dangerous seems elitist and dangerous in and of itself. After all, the policies and guidelines were created out of one person seeking to change something they thought was wrong, and an eventual consensus growing from that conviction.

The dangerous trend I see growing in Wikipedia is the increasing tendency for editors to couch their personal preferences in inclusive or exclusionary tendencies. Couching the feeling of 'I don't like it' or 'NimE' ('Not in my Encyclopedia') in terms like "triviality" or "undue weigh"t (and these have been used in the argument for The Circus) hurt the encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia "that anyone can edit", pop culture is going to make it in the article (ex. tiberium, Star Wars Kid, Deanna Troi). There is room for everything, so long as it reliably cited, neutrally-treated and eminently verifiable, it should be included. There is no room in Wikipedia for snootiness. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack, that was kind of a snooty thing to say.

Just as an observation, I usually handle this issue by pointing out that verifiability is an exclusionary policy, not an inclusionary. We remove things from the encyclopedia when they fail V, but we don't add them to the encyclopedia just because pass V. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, Ludwigs2, but when the verifiability of a given piece of information is questioned or attacked as being unreliable, V becomes a tool for inclusion. I completely agree that it shouldn't be used as a tool of inclusion but instead a strainer, filtering out those arguments for exclusion as well as filtering in arguments for inclusion when verifiability is questioned and proven. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No, V is not used as a tool for inclusion; that is your misinterpretation of the policy, and you have been erroneously arguing this point since October 2010, and wasting a great deal of time. Please use your time more wisely, starting with visiting the V talk page for clarification and correction. Viriditas (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice. I respectfully dismiss your opinion as having been malformed. Please reread my post; I am not stating that V is a tool for inclusion, unless it has been challenged. In such a case, dismissing claims of non-verifiability usually clears the road of obstacles for inclusion. Of course, there are those who will seek out any obstacle for something they don't like. And you might be unaware of this, but suggesting that someone who disagrees with you is wasting their time is fairly uncivil, not to mention unpleasant and serves as a corrosive factor in collaborative, friendly editing. Maybe you should revisit some of these more basic concepts, before you chase away more editors from the Project. This will be my last post to you on this subject, which detracts from the actual subject of this discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I work with and welcome new users on a daily basis, Jack. What exactly have you done, Jack, except chase the regulars away from every talk page discussion, with your tendentious disruptions of the projects? And how many years have you been at this, Jack? Surely, you should have, at the very least by now, a small grasp on something like V. Please visit the V talk page where regulars who know what they are talking about will correct your view on the subject. We do not use V to argue for inclusion, and you keep claiming that we do. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the policy. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that we're getting caught up in something of a red herring. At bottom what we have here is a video clip that advocates a fringe theory - time travel. All other policies are secondary to this overriding issue. Unfortunately there's been so much bickering and filibustering that this essential fact has been overlooked, by myself certainly until I took another look at the video clip. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, perhaps this is the wrong venue to discuss this matter's specifics, ScottyBerg. You have, after all, two or three other places where you can (and have) discussed this at length. The only reason I am discussing V here is that I was named specifically, and needed to address concerns raised. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think the fact that V is a red herring is equally as relevant as the fact that it is being misinterpreted and misapplied by you. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Scotty. I am not willing to use someone else's talk page to engage with you. Either use DR, RfC or some other venue, but stop stalking (1, 2, 3) my edits. Its pretty much viewed as harassment. Sorry Hans, I won't discuss respond to either Viriditas or Scotty here, and am sorry for the clutter on your page. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, then you should certainly file a harassment complaint. I encourage you to do so, if you feel so afflicted. While you're chewing that over, you may want to reflect on WP:AOHA and WP:BOOMERANG. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Scotty is free to discuss the issue wherever he wants, and if anybody else has a problem with that or would like to start WikiDrama surrounding this issue, they'd do well to cease and desist. Attempting to eject others from talkpages that are not your own seems shady to me. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A thought for your consideration

Hans,

Littleolive oil (talk · contribs) just recently got a 3 month topic ban from an article for what struck me as specious reasons - standard skeptic baiting routine, it looked like. In my few interactions with her she always struck me as a basically reasonable, moderate editor, and I'm kind of tired of watching these power plays succeed, so I came up with a half baked idea that I thought I'd run by you (as another basically reasonable, moderate editor) to see how baked it really is. what would you think about starting up a project - call it the League of Moderate Editors - specifically designed so that middle-of-the-road moderate editors could band together against groups of agenda-driven editors (skeptics, fringe advocates, religious zealots, political partisans, whatever) rather than letting them take each of us on one-by-one as the case is now. People could sign onto it like a project; we could give it a noticeboard where editors ask for advice or help with particular pages; we could act en masse to defend each other from some of the more skanky political maneuvers.

Yes, I'm suggesting that we create an open-air, above board cabal. but I really am sick of this crap. --Ludwigs2 05:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this would ever work, and I am not sure I want to even think about whether it would be desirable if it did work. It would have to be based on self-identification of editors as belonging to that class, and that would probably attract primarily the wrong kind of editors. And it wouldn't attract me. Hans Adler 13:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused: you object to being considered part of 'the class of' reasonable, moderate editors? I mean, it's fine if your not interested, but your reaction makes me think you are hearing something different than what I thought I was saying. can you be more specific about why you think this wouldn't be desirable? maybe the idea is less than half baked, but I'm not yet seeing why, if so. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It's desirable to have a place where (primarily) reasonable, moderate editors will meet. But I doubt it's desirable to have a place where editors meet who self-identify as reasonable and moderate. I do not give myself positive labels that I am not absolutely sure will be appropriate under practically all circumstances. Some others will have the same problem. And again others will suffer from delusions and think of themselves as entirely reasonable and moderate when they are obviously not, from my POV (and that of any right-thinking reasonable and moderate person, obviously).

I think if you want a place for reasonable and moderate editors to meet and support each other, you will have to declare it as something entirely different. Something that is only attractive to reasonable and moderate editors, but does not come with any pretensions. Hans Adler 23:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's very zen. I understand what you mean, I like your idea better than mine, but I have no idea whatsoever how to implement it. It's a puzzler. (it's also part of the problem, I'm thinking - the people without identifiable identities tend to act as individuals, and tend to get run over by groups of people with strong identities). You and I are articulate enough and sufficiently strong-willed to hold our own, usually, but I don't think that can be counted on in the general case.

As Sherlock says, this may be a two-pipe problem. --Ludwigs2 06:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could implement it by creating it as the League of Moderate Intervention, where editors meet to arrange interventions in subjects where they have no POV or previous experience, and thus even otherwise driven editors will have no cause to be anything but moderate and reasonable. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fairness ?

Hans quite surprised to see that you think m also responsible for the canvassing another editor created changing the words and the meaning of question. You brought up a paper published in Homeopathy and you said it might have a place -If i m not mistaken. Some people disagreed saying it is not and I asked simply if homeopathy is a reliable source. It is that simple. If someone else takes my simple question changes it and then goes around without even discussing it with me, I fail to see why I have even the slightest responsibility for this. For asking an obvious question? Please make a correction - if you see it more clearly now- to your suggestion that an administrator should advice me for more caution. I think it is unfair - I have been very civil, nice and careful in this discussion and almost have been "abused" by some of the editors.--George1918 (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry. You are absolutely right. When I created the ANI section and realised that there was a contradiction between how the poll section started and the fact that Ppdd admitted creating it, I should have gone through the details of the talk page history. I apologise for my mistake, and I tried to set it right in the ANI section and on the article talk page. Let me know if anything is still not satisfactory, or if I can help you further with this confusing situation. Hans Adler 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully resolved and satisfactory. Such a analysis pleases even the open minded who disagree - just for the analysis itself. Ah the beauty of logic in everyday life and the privileged who have conquer it or are born with it?! In moments like that I tend to forget Russel and other paradoxes. Very much appreciated. Thanks.--George1918 (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Some help?

Hi Hans, I've started working on the article about early Arabic Liar paradox. I'm writing it using a single source. here it is. It is not finished yet, but could you please take a look at it, and tell me what do you think about the article. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting. I am not an expert on philosophical logic, but I will have a closer look when I get the time. But it may take a while. Do remind me if I forget. Hans Adler 23:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS

Thanks for the context... it explains a lot. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg

Is Luxembourg Airport in proximity to you? If so, I have some photo requests for two buildings on the airport property (Luxair head office, Cargolux head office)

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, sorry. Hans Adler 22:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I am seeking your help on the following matter because, in what appeared to be a conflict between us, it turns out that your POV is so radically like my own, that you thought my even asking the question was insincere, or at best rhetorical, as the answer should be obvious. The question arose as to whether an alt med journal could be considered MEDRS for making medical related science findings, using its claims to be “peer reviewed”. In the case you were involved in, a homeopathy journal published a primary single trial physical chemistry conclusion, “peer reviewed” by homeopathy believers, not physicists or chemists. The issue has arisen again, regarding acupuncture journals, “peer reviewed” by acupuncturists or self-proclaimed believer in supernatural “qi energy”, as to whether or not they can be considered MEDRS for highly medically esoteric bio-medical conclusions. You will likely be surprised that experienced and rational editors who you might already know and highly respect, are taking the position that the answer is “yes”, and will not allow a FAQ at MEDRS talk, or a statement on MEDRS that the answer is “no”. I was about to reference the homeopathy vote that you objected to as being something akin to “idiotic” or “rhetorical”, or “straw man” (not your words, but my own), and the fact that I notified so many pages to participate, that you objected that this was akin to canvassing. In pointing out unanimous consensus on what was notified across many talk pages, I wanted to use you as an pardigm of someone who did not even bother to vote, because the answer was so obvious as to not even merit a vote. I think you were not alone in your view, as many editors similarly did not bother to vote. Before doing so, I wanted to make sure I am in no way misrepresenting your attitude, which seems to be typical of the common sense attitude of the majority of editors who did not demean themselves with bothering to vote on what should be obvious. I also wanted to be advised from your experienced position as to how best to deal with this issue once and for all, so I do not have to keep arguing the obvious. PPdd (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted notice of this [48] at boards I understood you to say were appropriate. Please check my contribution history and if you think I made an inappropriate poting of notice, you have my permission to delete it. PPdd (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't see where the discussion started, and since I am currently editing with my tiny first-generation EeePC, I find it too cumbersome to do the necessary research or go through your contributions. Sorry.

I do see that Colin warned you not to paint things in just black or white, and this looks like sensible advice to me. Your reference to the annoying qi/energy terminology suggests that you may have the usual western bias against Chinese terms that comes from the fact that the translated terminology sounds pseudoscientific and some, though not all, western acupuncture fans equate qi with energy in the sense of physics.

Overall, acupuncture is somewhat more respectable than homeopathy in English-speaking countries. (In Germany homeopathy is actually used by a lot of regular physicians, probably as a placebo, and is or was for some time covered by a small part of the public health insurance system. So I am not sure if acupuncture is more respectable here.) It is certainly respectable in China and has become part of mainstream western medicine for a small number of indications. (Without all the obsolete traditions, of course.) In this situation I wouldn't feel comfortable with a blunt statement that an acupuncture journal cannot pass MEDRS. Our policies and guidelines sometimes give precise yes or no answers, but since they typically contradict each other or even themselves, they are more about shifting the balance of power in discussions. Wikipedia has a strong faction of "skeptic" zealots which don't need more support in the policies than they already have. (Except in the area of global warming, which is under systematic attack from another faction.) Hans Adler 17:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Qi, Blood, and Rice (the symbol for qi is "steam-rice"; steam or breath = "spirit", as in European history), my own NRS view is that Qi is breath , Blood is blood, and Rice is food. So my most proPOV possible interpretation is that air and food are necessary to have life, or a "life force", and blood circulates air and food around the body in channels or vessels. This all makes sense, as when the breath is not in the body, the spirit has fled. I also try to balance radical skepticism with both self-referential skepticism, and radical open-mindedness, citing the oft mentioned supernatural "action at a distance" of Newton;s gravity (now "field", or maybe "particle" or "structured units of quantized space-time"), in which case it was argued that an invisible force by which distant bodies influence each other without touching seemed like supernatural occultism. I have no idea if there is something outside of current physics that conscoiusness has, or whether consciousness is even individuated, as Schroedenger put forth in What is Life?; in fact this seems implausible to me since I am a Singularitarian. In any case, more generally and concretely, I think that biomedical conclusions should not normally be MEDRSd with journals "peer reviewed" or edited only by nonMDs and nonscientists should be in MEDRS, per here[49], and this simple statement in MEDRS would avert innumerable edit wars and interminable talk page discussions. PPdd (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are driving at with blood and rice. I have never heard these two nouns mentioned in connection with acupuncture. Maybe that's just proof that I don't know much about the topic. (This and the fact that I am also not motivated to learn more is why I generally keep out of it.) Or are you referring to an earlier discussion that I don't know about? Hans Adler 18:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, also math phobia in publications

At about the time you lost your glasses (and my reading glasses lost a micro-screw, apparently to match my own head having a screw loose), you made an observation at pseudoscience that seems to have gone unnoticed, but it should be addressed. There is a naive common sense view of pseudoscience, and there are the highly technical and interesting philosophical discussions as to what constitutes science that by necessity include discussion of pseudoscience. I had not really thought about these "two kinds of pseudoscience" before, so do not yet have ideas as to how to delineate them, but I just wanted you to know that I am not ignoring your observation. I am not even sure I yet know how to state your observation precisely, or that I am even thinking along the lines you meant, so forgive me if I have done a poor job in trying to state it here. PPdd (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, I wouldn't worry too much about distinguishing them since we're supposed to follow what reliable sources say anyway, regardless of whether they use a definition we like or not. They use both and everything in between. Some use technical definitions and others use popular, broad definitions. For us to make editorial judgments based on technical differences often risks violating OR. We just use reliable sources. Other than that, discussions about the differences are interesting, but on most article talk pages such discussions are often used to score points and are a violation of TALK. (No one's innocent... ) We just need to determine whether the source is mentioning pseudoscience regardless of which definitional shadow of meaning it uses. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding mathematical illiteracy in journals that rely on mathematical literacy for the conclusions they draw (I am not sure if that is exactly how you put it in the alice in wonderland reasoning section), "illiteracy" is an understatement. It is usually a combination of math phobia together with a desire to veil mathematical/statistical incompetence and ignorance with an air of authority, akin to fraud. It is quite common in "science", not just pseudoscience. PPdd (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gasthof Falkenstein

Hans, have you ever been to this gasthof? It is located in a beautiful location, with a very grand view. I was there in 1990, and it made a great impression upon me. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Never been there, never heard of it, no idea where that is. Hans Adler 17:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I gave you the website, you'll have to figure it out. ;) It's very close to the Krimml falls. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever those are... Austria is smaller than the US, but not that small. Sorry. Hans Adler 20:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you were Austrian. Never mind. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 04:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I merely moved to Vienna two years ago. I see now that the Krimml Waterfalls are the highest in Austria, so presumably if I had grown up here I would have known them. But I am German, and the many vacations I have spent in Austria were in other parts of the country. (I have actually been to the German equivalent, which is a lot less impressive.) Hans Adler 06:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe you should plan a trip there. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/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/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Good laws cover hard cases

Hi Hans! I am surprised by your endorsement of the legal heuristic, "Hard cases make bad law". Examples and counter-examples advance legal reasoning as well as mathematical reasoning, imho! The Dirichlet funciton, the Cantor set, the Sorgenfrey topology, Brownian motion---these are a few of my favorite things!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 11:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course hard cases are generally useful for fine-tuning demarcations. But in law the focus on hard and unusual cases can create situations in which it becomes almost impossible to live one's life without becoming a criminal. For instance in some jurisdictions raising a child to become a responsible, self-determined adult has effectively been outlawed because it requires giving the child a degree of freedom that can be interpreted as criminal neglect. Maybe the problem is not so much the focus on hard cases, though, but the focus on problematic cases while ignoring the vast majority of perfectly healthy cases. As when a jurisdiction criminalises sex between an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old as pedophilia. Hans Adler 12:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, again, sir!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I'm open to suggestions on phrasing (and not being helped by Headbomb wanting to calculate uncertainties for his baryons, which I don't believe is the same issue at all). I don't believe that using substitute examples of the same kind is OR, but what happened periodically in Monty Hall (and in a few other physics and maths problems) was people saying 'scrap the sources, look this is how you derive it from first principles'. That way lies chaos. I don't want to overstep, but WP:V demands published sources, not a bunch of mathematician editors claiming their way as how you do it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did not follow the situation at that article, and just looked at it to the point that I think I know why I am not envying Arbcom or anyone who got involved there.

Actually, I think Headbomb's example is quite instructive. Granted it's a bit less obviously acceptable than my linguistics example but it boils down to this:

A few of our articles are only useful for readers with a graduate-level background in a subject. There are more articles for which this is partially the case. Readers who don't have a sufficient background can only help the development of such content by giving feedback on whether it degrades gracefully for readers like them. (The numerous complaints about inaccessible articles that we are getting at the maths wiki project are in part caused by the failure of articles to degrade gracefully, in part by unrealistic expectations of readers who expect Wikipedia to be the Royal Road to mathematics, and in part by the fact that it is very hard to make articles as accessible as possible.)

As a consequence, in some cases there is an expectation that everybody who is reading and contributing to an article has a lot more relevant knowledge and experience than the average Wikipedia reader or editor. (It's not just an expectation, it is what happens in practice and it is why mathematics generally has a harmonious editing environment marked by frequent unanimous decisions. I believe it is similar for technical articles in many other fields.) If, on such an article, someone doubts a statement, we respond with a proof or derivation rather than with a reliable source citation. Not just because we are too lazy to follow policy, but because that's much more likely to satisfy the person who asked, who is typically a colleague.

In such an environment the calculation that Headbomb proposes is totally uncontroversial and should be allowed. Forbid it and you will be ignored. Enforce the rule and we will lose many valuable contributors. Still, I am not sure that Headbomb is right: List of baryons is the kind of article that attracts plenty of non-technical readers and editors, and some of them are not prepared to believe a community of experts as it exists in the physics projects. I am not sure about the implications of this. Hans Adler 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's that last point that's the problem. I'm sure Headbomb can do his sums OK, but I believe it is a step too far to expect the more general readers to trust that it is so based only on that. Those less familiar with the field might also argue that we do not know whether there is some other factor influencing the outcome in the non-published figures (Maxwell's Demon perhaps XD), and it might be equally tedious to source that the calculation is always right. It would also raise the concern that Wikipedia would be the only source of this information (not the only source that has all the information in one place, which is a frequent occurrence), which is the very definition of original research in the eyes of some members of the community. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether that would make Wikipedia the only source for the information is actually open to interpretation. From the point of view enthusiasts who collect information about baryons like others collect stamps this would probably be true. For cranks who like to connect physical constants with the dimensions of Egyptian pyramids in order to draw conclusions about aliens that would also be true. But the main target audience -- readers who know what the information means -- it would be just one source among many, and only slightly more convenient than the others, in the same way that it's convenient when a source has conversions between miles and kilometres.

But this kind of discussion should really happen at WT:NOR (where many similar discussions have happened before), not here or in an Arbcom case. Hans Adler 18:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have not a clue what you guys are talking about, but it sounds very interesting! Could I please have a link to the discussion? NW (Talk) 15:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See:

• WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Proposed decision#Original research (Mathematics)
• WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Monty Hall problem/Proposed decision
• WT:WikiProject Mathematics#Arbcom decision on MHP: OR vs exposition in mathematics

Hans Adler 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom decision on MHP: OR vs exposition in mathematics

Hi Hans,

After I left this note (and more) on David Eppstein's talk page,

The arbitration of the Monty Hall problem is nearing its decision phase.

Two (updated 12:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)) four proposals for the arbitration committee's decision concern Wikipedia policy on mathematical articles, especially original research versus secondary sources.

Kiefer, you should ask User:CBM and User:Hans Adler to comment. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I was reminded that I should alert you. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 12:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't understand the social dynamics of the case, and I trust the other mathematicians to judge things correctly. I have been watching the case pages, but didn't comment further as it doesn't look as if I am needed. Hans Adler 12:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that the crazyness of the MHP case has no resemblance at all to what happens in normal math articles, and arbcom shouldn't go creating remedies that can make it easier for actual math articles to get screwed up. I thought that you (Hans) and CBM might have some thoughts about how to prevent the MHP debacle from creating toxic fallout that affects other math articles, which mostly do just fine by ignoring wikipedia policy almost completely. Unless you count Carl Hewitt (a much different situation), I don't remember EVER seeing this level of DR over a math or science article involving disagreeing experts. Things usually get sorted much more easily and are typically about someone's lame self-promotion, like User:Egbertus. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with what you say about the mathematics articles. 11.4 looks like it's going to pass, but unless you can convince me otherwise I think that's not a big issue. "If editors disagree", "novel", "likely" -- I don't think this is going to encourage anyone to go around removing "original research" from mathematics articles left and right, and it's not very convenient for wikilawyering. And in specific cases like the one that they have in mind it's probably not such a bad thing to have a formal rule like that, even if it may mean sticking closer to the sources than we would normally do. Hans Adler 07:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy of the fringe People's Front of Judea organization will not be tolerated

Your pithy comment here pretty much sums up my feelings when I walk away from those disputes - good editors missing the point. Unfortunate, really, as usually situations are best defused by input from fresh editors. Ah well, maybe next week. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The People's Front of Judea? I knew there was something I hated about you. --Judean People's Front 02:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru's edit counts

75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, thanks. Looks like you have a useful script at your disposal. Hans Adler 05:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

!! ...and that's just the ones with this present account....-- Brangifer (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that (in spite of your comment to the contrary on your userpage) your email isn't activated. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is activated. But the software only displays the link to users who have activated their own. Nothing I can do about that. But you can just use my work email address if you need it. (My homepage is linked from my user page.) Hans Adler 06:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's strange. Mine is also activated and I can't see the link on either yours or my pages. Odd! Can you see the link on my user page? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Now I've fixed mine. I had to clear my cache, including cookies. I checked my preferences and it said it was a legitimate email address. I then received an email which required me to check a certain confirmation link. Once I had confirmed the link, my email link appeared on my user page. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I was totally on the wrong track. Will try that too now. Hans Adler 07:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not do anything about the cache, just forced a confirmation email by removing my email address and adding it again, then confirmed it. Does it display now? Hans Adler 07:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine now. I'm pretty sure the problem was on my end, but I don't know why. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

wow, what tool did you use? and will that tool make diffs instead of just edit counts? --Ludwigs2 07:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I am also slightly curious what tool 75.* used. I have long considered getting a Toolserver account so I can do such things. Hans Adler 07:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just a script on my laptop that pulls user contribs from the API and counts them offline. It could make diffs but the output would be awfully large. On toolserver there is contribution surveyor which works a little differently and shows diffs and their sizes. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)