User talk:Crum375/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

User:Wassermann

He's still busy adding Jew categories: [1] Jayjg ^(talk) 05:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And more [2]. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The golden rule of Wikipedia is: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" (WP:IGNORE). Crum and Jayjg: I'm IMPROVING Wikipedia and you both choose to block me? Talk about rampant administrator abuse...I'm most definitely being mistreated here in your not-so-subtle campaign to silence any and all opposition to your oftentimes unchecked administrator powers (nevermind that I was trying to point out and prevent the massive amount of reversions of valid material that was occurring here, not to mention the upcoming attempt to make Wikipedia "Judenfrei"). That being said, I now propose a new rule to fit this situation: WP:If high-level administrators disagree with regular editors that are trying to improve Wikipedia they can block them using any means necessary, including unethical ones. --172.166.34.87 03:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. :-p SlimVirgin ^(talk)

OH GOLLY! I continue to improve, organize, and clean up Wikipedia unabated [3] (yes, I'm reporting myself to save you all the trouble). So what's next...a Wiki-flogging? ;) In all seriousness though, please unblock me (I'd much rather be using my proper username). I am doing nothing wrong, my constructive and helpful edits from these IP addresses are not a big deal and are entirely appropriate since I have been inappropriately blocked, and I can assure you all my past flirtations with incivility and personal attacks are just that...in the past. --172.164.80.216 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And another — Sam 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sam -- why are you being such a such a tattle-tale? Please see WP:No tattling. Seriously though, I'd like to propose a new policy: Wikipedia:Three-block rule [or WP:TBR] (similar to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule). A user has three chances (blocks; MINOR infractions) before being perma-blocked. Makes sense huh? Three strikes and a user is out? --172.166.173.245 08:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Tattle-tale? Grow up. I have had enough of you and your complete disregard for others. Good riddance. — Sam 12:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An edit like this one certainly doesn't improve the credibility of Wikipedia. In fact it was downright insulting to the Scandinavian peoples to try to connect a cultural movement emphasizing the shared history and religion of the three Scandinavian peoples with Hitler's insane dreams of racism and world conquest 100 years later. Unfortunately, we sometimes see nonsense like this from non-European IPs (e.g. an IP in Virginia made equally controversial edits to the Norsemen article). Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They are semi-related topics; in no way did I mean to imply by adding the link there that Scandinavism (a form of nationalism or regionalism) is the same thing as the so called "Nordic theory" (which is a form of ethnic or racial nationalism/regionalism and in Hitler's time was a racist ideology). I placed it there because they are semi-related topics, and someone reading about Scandinavism would very likely be interested in reading about the other similar topic known as Nordic theory. It is a "See also" section, not a "Same as" section. I also added a link to "Nordic theory" to the article because the alternate name for Scandinavism is "Nordism" as the article clearly notes in the first sentence. Also, I'm not in Virginia...since I use AOL it shows up as such though (because AOL's servers are apparently based in Virginia). --172.166.173.245 08:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The topics aren't related. Hitler tried to abuse the history of the Scandinavian Viking Age for his own perverted means, but that is German history, not Scandinavian history, as such notions were never accepted north of Germany. The goal of the Scandinavist movement was to end several centuries of strife and an untold number of wars between the three Scandinavian peoples. It was born out of a feeling of dire necessity as Sweden feared that it would be annexed by Russia and Denmark feared the same from Prussia. Sweden had already lost Finland and Denmark would later lose Schleswig and Holstein but was saved in the 11th hour from complete annexation by Prussia. Scandinavism is defensive by nature, and many Scandinavians are very proud of the way that our ancestors put centuries of strife behind them, and replaced it with a feeling of kinship. Relevant links from "Scandinavism" are the Kalmar Union, the Scandinavian Airlines System, the Scandinavian defence alliance, the Scandinavian currency union, the Royal League, the 1914 meeting of the three kings, the Nordic Economic Union, Foreningen Norden etc. but the "Nordic theory" is not appropriate. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann: It's funny how you say you believe so much in Wikipedia and yet continue to completely disregard its policies: Yet another sock puppet. — Sam 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE. This is the first (and the best) "policy." --172.166.173.245 08:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion about this account... The user just got an account June 26 and is already going on edit sprees that completely ignore the consensus about a particular category. — Sam 11:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request for a checkuser on the account. — Sam 17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see this. ElinorD (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User:72.38.219.40‎ is very likely a sock as well. Wassermann more or less confirmed that he was the one making controversial edits to the Norsemen article and here we go again, only this time it is about trying to connect Norwegians and Germans. The recent edit about the Chinese zodiac also points in this direction. Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not a "sockpuppet" of me. Many users have these 172... or 72... IP address because they are AOL users. I just tagged a couple of other IP addresses that were used by me, and that's all I can think of right now. So Crum: could you please restore my account now? --172.148.40.130 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And another... — Sam 13:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the tag on 72.38.219.40‎. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And Wassermann's socks keep making the same references to Nazism on the article aboutScandinavism. I'll continue to remove this disruption. Valentinian ^{T / C} 16:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop slandering me. I'm not making 'references to Nazism' in that article -- I am trying to make a DISTINCTION between Scandinavism and Nazism's racist "Nordic theory" (because "Nordism" is an alternate name for "Scandinavism" and the two could easily be mixed up). Do you understand? This is all that I am doing. And I will tell you again that I am NOT User:72.38.219.40...look at my edit history: User:Wassermann -- do you notice any evidence of me editing articles about dogs, snakes, pills, and soap operas? Or another solution: you are a sockpuppet of someone here and love to read me squirming....hmmmm, are you a sock of SlimVirgin/Crum375? What about Sam? ElinorD? Jayjg? Yeah, I bet you are one of those users. --User:Wassermann

You've got us, we're all the same person. That's why each of us has a plethora of edits, write in different styles and tones, and have entirely different contribution styles... Oh, and did I mention we're all censors out to get people like yourself? — Sam 18:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann, if you wish, feel free to go through my edit history and compare it to that of the other editors editing this thread. I've dedicated 50,000 edits on this project to topics on Danish history, Denmark, politics of Denmark, stub sorting and general cleanup and it is not the most common editing pattern, you'll find on this webpage. Neither is some of the typos I frequently make or the fact that I consistently write British English. But of course this could all be part of a giant conspiracy (take your pick: CIA, KGB (forgive me President Putin, I mean "FSB"!), Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, Mossad or Marvin the Martian). Stop trying to circumvent your block and stop making controversial edits. Your edits to Scandinavism constitute disruption by a user banned from editing and will be treated as such. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it again: I AM NOT User:72.38.219.40. It is true that myself and this user have edited a few of the same articles, but I can assure you that we are not the same person. Similarity of IP addresses doesn't mean much. Regarding a similar situation, I just made it known on a couple of IP userpages (a person that posted on Jimbo Wales' talk page about 9/11 conspiracies or something) that I am not the same user even though we share very similar IP addresses. Additionally, I still don't understand your irrational reversions of my small yet helpful additions to the Scandinavism article, especially since those edits are meant to make a clear distinction between "Nordism" and the "Nordic theory" (which is the exact opposite of what you accuse me of). By the way Valentinian -- you are indeed a good editor, but you might want to refresh your memory and review WP:OWN. --User:Wassermann --172.145.151.161 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Sharp edit summary

Sorry, my last edit summary on The Holocaust came out harsher than I intended, and a bit abrasive. Ignore it, if you don't mind, and just look at the edit. Thanks. Jd2718 02:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

???

The 'big deal' is that we unfortunately have an infestation of Trojan and sock admin and would-be-admin accounts, and they typically rely on open proxy to carry out their schemes ... ... Crum375 17:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, man. Seriously... ouch. An "infestation"... wow. I've seen some massive generalizations from single isolated incidents in my time, but that one really was something – Gurch 21:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Can you explaim how putting in section breaks messes up the RfA? I am not sure i understand. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, look at this. Then look at other versions in the history. Every time someone tries to make support, oppose, and neutral have separate sections, the parse fails, and that page is transcluded onto the bureaucrats' noticeboard, and is watched by many people. How it fails, I don't know, but that it does fail is certain. I've seen it happen with other RfAs as well. Many RfAs are quite long, but the standard template for them is formatted in a certain way, and it's best to leave it that way. Hope that helps. ElinorD (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It does, as I didn't know that there was such a template in operation, as the RfA pafe doesn't indicate any such automation occurring. I wasn't trying to cock it up; I was just trying to make things a bit easier to read. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser ban

I unblocked because the contribution history did not match with the block description and no warnings or checkuser evidence was listed on the talk page. Was a checkuser done on georgeh and this user came up? — Ocatecir^T 00:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I did consult the checkuser page and saw nothing about editor in canada. Could you point me to that checkuser page where he was confirmed a sockpuppet? Thanks. — Ocatecir^T 00:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Please, what is your problem? Do you not believe me that there are valid and honest concerns over those changes? Do you not believe that we should be careful with a policy page? Why do you feel like forcing these changes in? -- Ned Scott 07:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re [4]:

Care to actually say why? And referring to which edits? Even if you have no issues with the changes, is it not reasonable that other editors would like to discuss such rewording and interpretation before a change is made? You can't just force what you think is right. This is BLP, something that many editors have many different feelings on, and it's not ok to just ignore the community at large. It is not ok to change the meaning of policy via rewording things, and then calling it "tweaking". Editors such as yourself and Slim do not "know better", so don't assume something like that. No matter how right you think you are, no matter how simple you think it is, and no matter how much in good faith the changes are, people are objecting, and you need to stop and listen. -- Ned Scott 15:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I shouldn't be so confrontational. It just kind of feels like you or Slim aren't listening. -- Ned Scott 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re [5]:

I did a few individual edits, this is not an all or nothing kind of thing. For example, what is the objection to this edit? And again, is it not reasonable, even if you feel differently, that others might wish to discuss rewording on a policy? -- Ned Scott 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Editor in Canada

You might want to look at the unblock request above. SGGH ^speak! 19:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Crum, first of all, thanks very much for your support at my RfA. I know some people dislike boilerplate thank yous, so I was waiting until I had a reason for posting on your page anyway. I hope I'll live up to your trust. With regard to the editor mentioned above, I have declined the request. If an admin with checkuser access places a checkuser sock tag on a user page, I take that very seriously. Additionally, before I was sysopped, I saw some strange things going on, and I recognised a pattern. Anyway, thanks again for your support (I still have about a hundred people left to thank!), and I hope to see you around. ElinorD (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How stupid I am. My reason for coming to your page was to bring this to your attention, and I pressed "send" before I had pasted it in! ElinorD (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to protect, when my internet access was suddenly cut off! ElinorD (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

about this, it seems that Gorge He/EndoExo could be the banned User:Mike Garcia, just the same harassment of a long gone user and some other of his sock's behavior all are very similar. for obvious reasons i won't mention them. --MichaelLinnear 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

factory farming

Your recent changes are contrary to the consensus determined on the talk page. Your changes are falling to the level of vandalism. Please restrain yourself so that we can move forward civilly; if you wish to make changes contrary to the current consensus, please first discuss those changes on the relevant talk page. Jav43 18:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussion page. People unanimously oppose the image of sows. That is consensus. Jav43 19:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't state a clear opinion one way or the other in the opinion-gathering section, so I don't see where the confusion lies; you obviously didn't care enough to support the sow image. Making disputed changes to the article without conversation on the talk page is just wrong; why can't you see that? Jav43 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I never opposed mediation, so I don't see why you keep bringing that up. If anything, you have opposed good-faith argument, as you refuse to engage in talk-page discussion. Jav43 19:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You said nothing here [6]. That's all that seems to matter. Why do you refuse to discuss this issue in good faith? Why do you seem to desire a revert war? Jav43 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

It should not be my job to teach an administrator proper etiquette. [Here] you reverted three edits, with this edit summary (Rvt - remove vandalism, victim's face is more imporant, and d-day is relevant)

I ask, no, insist, that you reread WP:Vandalism. Ill-considered accusations, such as what you put in your edit summary, are a form of incivility, WP:ICA. No editor should be asked to tolerate them. Jd2718 22:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You were reverting vandalism at the same time as reverting me. I read the vandalism remark to be addressed to me. But several admins cleared things up. I am glad that the comment was not intended for me. Having said that (the rest might go on the article talk page better) the photo I would be happy to ask for comments about. I see your point, though I still disagree. Are you sure we can't just take out the D-Day? That seems a real stretch? Jd2718 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Original research is Italic textde factoItalic text allowed in wikipedia's discussion pages. Actually, pretty much everything in the discussion pages violates the NOR-rule (i.e. it does not give any sources). Why not say so explicitly?

Sensemaker

User:Wassermann indef block

Hi Crum. Hope you are doing great. Could you please guide me to a report about blocking indef the above user? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi FayssalF, User:Wassermann keeps editing despite his indefinite block, creating serious disruption by the combined set of his socks. For general history, see here. For more recent complaints (mostly using anon IPs in violation of his block), see here. After originally being blocked for incivility and personal attacks, he keeps evading his blocks with multiple IPs, totally refusing to accept responsibility. Crum375 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Crum. I've seen and noted most of the controversial aspects of this issue. I just consider an indef block to be too harsh for such an established user. He's got many good edits. Blocking someone indef after his first block is not recommended, unless it is vandalism or repeated bad offenses. I've seen worse cases (Gone even thru ArbCom and User:Mike18xx cases) where both users are still editing. Please reconsider shortening your block. I hope you'd not mind if we discuss a block review at the AN/I to see what other admins think about. Thanks again Crum. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already had several ANI reports on him - if you'd like to start a new one, that's fine by me. Crum375 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw two reports on him. But this is about an indef block review. Thanks for your understanding. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He is still in indef block. He was offered numerous chances to show he understands and accepts our rules (see here and here). Instead, he keeps editing from anon IPs, ignoring the block, claiming we "can't stop him from improving the encyclopedia". He was told that each block evasion resets the block duration, but he just ignores us. Crum375 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the point is that block evasion doesn't warrant an automaticat indef block. In cases of block evasion, i usually block the IP for a long time or indef the sockpuppet account while extending the block for the main account (like doubling the period of block). It is just that the policy doesn't warrant an indef. 2 weeks or 1 month would have been fine. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies. See also here. The point is that he was (last) blocked for a week, with the hope that he would agree to follow the rules. instead, he keeps evading the block with socks, editing the same topics with the same general pattern, claiming we can't stop him. So his block was extended indefinitely pending his acceptance of the rules, de facto and de jure. He is still ignoring the rules by evading his block on a daily basis. Crum375 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

:) Yes but going from 1 week to indef is a bit harsh Crum. I am not questioning your block (which is legitimate) but the duration is inadequate and too harsh. We won't lose anything if we'd try to get other admins' view anyway. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think you are missing the point, Fayssal. He is blocked indefinitely pending clarification. This means that his block can be reviewed and reduced at any time, if he demonstrates understanding, acceptance and compliance with the rules. As of now, he has never abided by any block - he keeps editing and ignoring the blocks. If we gave him a 2 week extension or a 2 year extension it wouldn't matter - he keeps editing the same general topics immediately with anon IPs, claiming we can't stop him. So the point is not block duration - it is the fact that he ignores and refuses to accept any block of any length. Crum375 14:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I wish i could have been a real Rouge admin ;) I am on that list but not sure if i am rouge enough. I totally agree that the user needs some type of rehabilitation as he is not a vandal or a high profile POV pusher. There are hundreds of users who act like him but we rehabilitate them instead. It takes time and patience but what to do! The transition from 1 week to indef seems punitive and not corrective. Sockpuppeting would not stop w/ indef blocks but may stop w/ a corrective block. I still think getting other admins' feedback would be helpful. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'punitive' aspect at all to the 'indefinite pending clarification' block - it is simply a holding action pending his understanding, acceptance of and compliance with the rules. Once he gets to that point, his block can be reduced, he can show he can actually comply with a block for a change, and he can be given a chance to demonstrate his new behavior. Unfortunately, up to now he has totally ignored the rules, editing by anon IPs almost immediately. Other admins are of course more than welcome to review this case. Crum375 15:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't punitive at all as i know very well your good faith intentions Crum. It just has the punitive characteristics due to the lenght of the block. I am not questioning your block action at all as your admin actions are always respected (at least from my part as a co-admin). We are not sure that if we reduce his block he would stop the block evasion attitude but why not give it a try Crum? I've just started a thread at the ANI as most of the indef blocks are reported and reviewed there. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks, Fayssal. I would support an immediate unblocking if I were convinced he was totally rehabilitated and would not regress to his old abusive editing pattern. So as I mentioned above, the current block duration is immaterial - I'd like to see him respect any block - up to now he just ignores them all and keeps on editing the same general topics. I tried to explain that to him, e.g. here, to no avail. He feels he has a god-given right to edit here, come hell or high water, and 'improve the encyclopedia'. Any editor or admin who stands in his way is just obstructing his important mission. Anyway, if there is a way to rehabilitate this person, I am all for it. I must say that my own optimism on ever being able to achieve that is waning. Crum375 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you as well. Well, i have just left a note at his talkpage. Let's see what would be his reaction before taking any action for now. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I unprotected his talkpage so he can respond without socking.--Isotope23 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, buried in the middle of the AN page is my response buried in request for advice - if you dig out the dirty laudry quote you'll see I responded in situ. I'm not keen on these disembodied discussions. I'm sure you'll be content with the general response, and the comment on your role is a genuine concern, not an attack. If you are genuinely not clear about my point, then I am happy to discuss privately by gmail (obvious address), it is just an observation bourne out of experience. Ian Spenny 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on my page - it makes the point a little less pointed - feel free to delete this hint in case you missed the watch. Spenny 19:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

your revert

READ THE LOG FOR MY EXPLANATIONS! Jav43 14:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 13:18, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,011 bytes) (→Opposing view - not specific to factory farming; cities do the same thing, to a larger extent; all farms have this effect) (cur) (last) 13:15, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,223 bytes) (cur) (last) 13:14, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,231 bytes) (cur) (last) 13:14, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,241 bytes) (provide alternative unbiased lead image) (cur) (last) 13:13, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,261 bytes) (add link to article discussing general practices so those interested in more than confinement systems will have relevant information at hand) (cur) (last) 13:12, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,219 bytes) (cur) (last) 13:11, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,107 bytes) (cur) (last) 13:08, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (26,902 bytes) (→Characteristics) (cur) (last) 13:07, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (26,897 bytes) (→Characteristics - 7.5 square feet or feet square for 20 hogs is impossible, unless they are piglets.) (cur) (last) 13:06, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) m (26,926 bytes) (→Characteristics) (cur) (last) 13:04, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (26,926 bytes) (→Characteristics) (cur) (last) 13:03, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (26,926 bytes) (factory farming discussion, not corporate farming) (cur) (last) 13:01, 3 July 2007 Jav43 (Talk | contribs) (27,551 bytes) (→Opposing view - mad cow disease is not a factory farming issue)

What is wrong with you? Jav43 14:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that you obviously have not bothered to review my edit, since if you had, you'd realize that I did not remove "mass sourced content", but rather re-instated an edit I made on July 3 which removed irrelevant content. Reverting without reviewing is simply irresponsible and demonstrates problems with your editing habits. Jav43 15:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I... did. Again, you are not reading my edits. Jav43 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I already copied that into this section of your talk page. Again, you are not reading my edits. Jav43 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian article reference disappeared because it wasn't in the edits that I made on June 3, which you and SV had reverted. Jav43 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No open proxies

Why do you keep reverting my addition of the {{disputedpolicy}} tag? I'm not "declaring any policy I disagree with as disputed". Read the second sentence of the policy: The current wording is disputed. I didn't add that, and it has been there for some time now. So it's not me that's doing the declaring. And if that's not enough to satisfy you, read the policy talk page, the Meta policy talk page, and see the many other discussions in just about every place such a thing can come up (RfAs, VP etc.) – Gurch 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre and extraordinary claims

Hi there, to help us see your point of view, could you add some examples of bizarre and extraordinary claims that would be in danger of being unfairly excluded by the proposed wording? Unfortunately the Einstein example you proposed earlier is entirely hypothetical, some genuine real-world examples would help us focus our efforts on dealing with your concerns. All the best Tim Vickers 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good approach in general, but to help me grasp what kind of trouble you envisage this wording causing downstream, could you give some specific examples of the kinds of problem you anticipate? I have given some specific and concrete examples of the kind of thing I am thinking about, but for me to fully appreciate your position, it would be very helpful for you to outline some similar examples. Tim Vickers 19:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you think that if, for example, an obscure medical journal makes a bizarre and extraordinary claim, this should be given no more weight than if an obscure health and fitness magazine makes such a claim? Please note that this is an exclusionary wording, not an inclusionary one. It does not state that if a claim is published in an academic source then it must be included, as in the example you make of "one bad paper". Instead it says that if the only sources for a bizarre and extraordinary claim, such as a new theory in physics, is in non-academic literature, rather than academic literature, then this claim should not be included. This is entirely consistent with the NPOV policy, as such a claim would obviously also fail on the "prominence" criteria. A reasonable argument can be made that this wording is redundant with the NPOV policy, but not that it contradicts NPOV in any way. Tim Vickers 19:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the problem I have with this hypothetical Washington Post example is that it appears to me to be so far-fetched as to be unbelievable. When would the Washington Post publish a bizarre and extraordinary claim about science or medicine that had no basis at all in the academic literature? What might such a claim be? Could you think of an example of when they might really do this? Tim Vickers 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic journals do publish bizarre and extraordinary claims, but if they do, they always have some facts behind them. The concern about non-academic publications is that they have no such requirement. For example, I would consider this Nature paper from 2005 as a bizarre and extraordinary claim. However, I would have been happy with somebody adding this to the article on genomes as this had some factual backing. However, if the Washington Post made a similar claim in an article that there was a parallel RNA genome to the conventional DNA genome allowing plants to "remember" genes that were in their grandparents, but not their parents, then I would not be confident that their fact-checking expertise would be adequate to deal with the topic. Would you regard a Wash Post story making this claim as of equal reliability to a journal article making this claim? Tim Vickers 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, the RNA genome model has now been disproved, and a simple explanation is now known Link, but this is still a good example. Tim Vickers 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I regard non-academic sources such as newspapers making novel claims about science as a simple error. For example, if the New York Times published what they claimed to be a new advance on superstring theory, or the Washington Post published a new explanation for how enzymes bind substrates, this would be so far out of their area of expertise that this new and academically-unsupported claim would rightly be regarded with great suspicion by the rest of the world. This is probably why reputable newspapers would never do this, they recognise that they would not be able to assess such novel theories properly - OR just isn't what they do. Indeed, in the very unlikely case that an previously-reputable newspaper did this, it almost seems an argument to stop regarding it as a reliable source in the future. Tim Vickers 21:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking carefully about a way around this disagreement, I could live with your rewording of the policy "The appropriateness of such sources depends on context, but the highest quality sources should be used to support extraordinary claims" if it were strengthened to "The appropriateness of such sources depends on context, with only the highest quality sources being acceptable as support for extraordinary claims" Would you agree to this compromise? Tim Vickers 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never liked the "extraordinary sources" wording, Nature isn't really an extraordinary source, I cite it all the time, however The Weekly World News is certainly extra-ordinary! :) Tim Vickers 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, you indicated only an hour ago that you were happy with the new version and we had removed the last concern you had with the new compromise wording. What has prompted this sudden change in opinion? Tim Vickers 01:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the statement that in most cases, but not all, the most reliable sources in science are academic and peer-reviewed sources? Tim Vickers 01:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unprotecting Brian Baird

Hello. You semi-protected Brian Baird in March because he was getting lots of anon vandalism. Since it has been nearly 4 months, there doesn't seem to be anything controversial and before that there hadn't been any other vandalism in 4 months, it seems unlikely that there will be more vandalism than any other page, and so semi-protection no longer seems warranted. As per policy, I'm asking the admin who made the protection to unprotect it; since I'm not really following that article and am just trying to clean out semi-protections that seem no longer needed, I'm unlikely to pay attention to this again, so thanks in advance. Cheers! Telso 03:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)