User talk:Enric Naval/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

"Cradle"

Hi. That Kosovo was the secular and ecclesiastical centre of mid to late medieval Serbia is beyond dispute. The capitals were there, as was the archbishopric. See added reference. That it was the "cradle of identity', of course this was a Serb belief, subjectivity is the norm when it comes to national heritage and historical narratives (no different for any other country). The point is Serbs beleived and saw it as their "cradle" - & this belief is a reality. The sentence is not there to judge whether such a beleief was historically justified, or if other countries also believed this. Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are valid. I thought it was implicit that it meant enshrined by "Serbs". I will add that, just for clarity; and will also make sure that it is clear that Kosovo became the centre of Middle Age Serbia (indeed, later, its focus shifted toward the Danube) Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of season one episode articles of House for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Croats

Well since a discussion is brewing down there you might be interested in the History Channel documentary on the person :). Its the only documentary ever made about him outside Yugoslavia (and I think the only documentary ever made about any Croat outside Yugoslavia :)), and features such published experts as Stevan K. Pavlowitch (Emeritus Professor of Balkan History at Southampton University, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, etc...) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

24.116.75.36 "reference does not check out" edits

Seems to be an astute form of vandalism. I'll check the one he removed at electric shock (print-only), but I suspect he's bullshitting us. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I also find those edits suspicious (I could say more, but I have WP:BEANS in mind). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence he had removed from electric shock was actually present ad litteram in the source. It's true that it needed a bit more context to be less surprising. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just curious

Is there a particular reason why the Cold fusion article seems to generate more controversy than other science related articles on wiki? There seem to be several RfC's and arguments Pass a Method talk 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's because there is a very vocal group of people who keeps defending cold fusion. And they decided that the wikipedia article was "wrong" and that it had to be "fixed". And when one proponent is banned, another one takes the turn.

Also, cold fusion promises a lot of things, see Cold_fusion#Announcement. People make a Pascal's wager and they decide to bet a lot of effort on cold fusion. In the very improbable case that CF is correct, the return on investment would be fabulous (solving all energy needs of mankind, forever, all for a few millions of dollars in research. And a few years of being ignored and insulted while you pursue it, in exchange for immense fame when you succeed, saviour of humanity and stuff). So, there is always new people who hears about CF, and they become proponents, and they replace the old proponents. An endless trickle of "true believers", who are doing it for the wellbeing of humanity. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a consensus in the scientific community on whether cold fusion is correct or not? Pass a Method talk 12:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus that there was nothing ever in those cells, and that it's pathological science, and that it's not worth looking at the new results presented by cold fusion researchers. Except

a) as a curiosity and

b) just in case they discover some small new phenomena that nobody noticed before.

In short, nobody expects a sudden discovery of a new energy source, since all those experiments should have already uncovered it.

Note the small detail: it's not that they think that it's wrong or right, they simply think that it's so out of normal science that it's not worth entertaining its correctness.

Most scientists simply haven't passed judgment because they don't think that there is anything to judge. They simply assume that the CF phenomena was only a flawed experiment, that it died time ago, and that's it's a fossilized example of bad science. And then they are surprised that CF is still an active research field.

And then there is a (very significant) share of the scientific community that simply thinks that CF is utter crap, that it won't be solved by any amount of research, and that sends into ostracism any scientist who decides to investigate CF. Which is why some CF researches got their carreers severely damaged. Because they were told to drop it, and they refused, and the other scientists blocked their funds and promotions because they think that researching CF is a waste of resources that only crackpots would pursue it. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning

You are now warned against pushing your personal agenda at Mexican–American War. I will report you to ANI if you persist. Tony (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see that you chose to remove my warning from your talk page[1]. That's fine with me. My warning still stands. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal concerning the lame "Mexican-American War" hyphen/en-dash dispute".Thank you.  Sandstein  20:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry to have ever involved Sandstein at this point. I feel his involvement is simply unhelpful and making things more painful and more trouble. :( -- Avanu (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, don't feel bad about it. When one requests admin action, there is always the possibility that it backfires badly. You couldn't know that this would happen. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not what I see; not how library catalogs list it. But if you disagree after consideration, put it back - if you think that the best thing for the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean the actual scanned pages. Look inside the book in Amazon and check the first visible page with text in it. There is a hyphen, an endash and an emdash in the same page, and you can compare their relative lengthz. That book uses very short hyphens. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

Can you somehow use all of the government links and references and citations to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US accreditation agencies, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM.

Hundreds of news articles have been published about AAFM. Interpreting the one negative article as a negative event is Black Washing. Please do not black wash the AAFM Article.

Most of the information that is included in todays article was OK with you last year. Not sure why you think it should be deleted at this time?

Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied in User_talk:173.17.102.39. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

NOR

rather than RfCing it at this point I brought the issue up here at wp:NOR for further discussion. maybe we can resolve this just by talking it out. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I will comment there. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org

It might now be impossible to edit this without removing or altering the link, as JzG just repeated his action of more than two years ago, unilaterally blacklisting the site, ignoring multiple decisions about copyvio to the contrary, and ignoring ArbComm's prior remedy about his use of tools while involved. I will not be able to handle this here. Thought you should know. He's also trying, again, to globally blacklist the site at meta, I suspect that won't fly this time. I'm not at all restricted at meta, and almost certainly will not be.

I've mentioned you, as I recall, very peripherally, at RfAr/Clarification. This was purely a request for lifting the topic bans for myself and Pcarbonn, but it was obviously necessary to mention JzG, as he was behind much of the mess. He seems to be pushing his point, however, with today's blacklisting. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've requested delisting,[2], but I'm prohibited from my topic ban from what it would take to allege usability, if that's needed. You might want to take a look. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added nowiki tags. The link will no longer trip the blacklist. Thanks for warning me that you mentioned me.

I am watching from the sidelines. Recently, I have decided (for the nth time) to dedicate more time to hardcore content editing and less time to arguing about bans. And I have already broken that decision three times in the last three days..... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mexican-American War

The revert-warring continues. The idea of a binding RfC has gone nowhere, although you persuaded me to agree to it.

Would you be interested in cosigning (since two people have to agree to the existence of a dispute) a User RFC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But a user RFC on who? You have also been edit warring on this matter..... It should be a RfC on all editors involved, including you and me. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want a content RfC, try a format similar to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I want them to stop being disruptive, and accept that nobody but their own handful agrees with them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Argh, I have already replied in your talk page. I always keep too many tabs open in my browser..... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Incident

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Insulted

I do not appreciate being treated as a krank-supporter. On Dowsing: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Other topics: [9] [10] [11] [12] --Otheus (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(This is probably because of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Warn_1_editor_of_discretionary_sanctions). I didn't want to insult you. But, if you arrive at a stable article that had lots of disputes and compromises in the past. Then, bold changes are not going to be accepted unless you have solid sources which talk directly about the subject and which directly support your edits. This was not the case, so you were understandably rebuffed in the talk page. And, as someone commented in AN, if there are many people watching the page, then there is a high chance that several of them initiate independent courses of action to stop perceived disruption. So, the new editor can find himself suddenly as the object of several initiatives that come from different perspectives and noticeboards. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Prod

Okay, the article should stay. But then perhaps it should be cleaned up a little to make it more obvious that it's not dealing with theories that are not mainstream science. I don't think as it is now is enough. Bstoica (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

replied in your talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Radiation

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Geofferybard's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you are not out at break yet you might wish to weigh in on modified proposal.Bard गीता 02:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice job - IMO your coinage hits the nail on the head.Bard गीता 05:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much :-) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Not OK

You wrote on my talk: "when editing wikipedia, the most important goal is that the articles are improved. Everything else is just a means for this goal"

Yes, I absolutely agree, which is why I rarely log-in, let alone deal with policy pages anymore. The best I can do is dive-bomb in and try to WP:Point out when some policy has gotten utterly ridiculous as flamboyantly as possible.

I was particularly disappointed here, because I spend a week convincing User:Blueboar that banning minority views from the 'pedia would lead to more or less insane results.[13] But then to see that, while he's still actively editing these policies, I check back a year later and WP:NPOV was completely SNAFU'd again (WP:PRESERVE actually seems ok though upon cursory reading).

Anyway, I'm not checking back just now to see if I slapped any WP:COMMON sense into the active maintainers of NPOV, but I hope I did. You gotta do what you gotta do. Like Mr. Wolf says in Pulp Fiction (movie) "if I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor." I have far more passion for the innards of the project than time these days. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hindu Pashtuns

Hello Enric, I really appreciate all your contributions to Pashtun People. The references didnt have to go. The Hindu Pashtun topic needs some discussion and consensus from all users especially Pashtun users and there is also a lack of good references for it. It will take some time to put that info in. On the talk pages there has been much discussion about it, though without a conclusion. Please give it some time. Take care. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

All those references were about the Kappor family. If we don't mention the Kapoor, then the references don't need to be there. By the way, I see that editors decided to remove all ethnicity from Kapoor family, because there are several contradicting claims. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:sock identification

Dear Enric Naval, I apologise for the delayed reply but I have been very busy! I believe the the IP Address is a sock of User:Bk2006 or User:NHPak. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Senyera Vs. Flag of Catalonia

Hi there... Long time no see. I was taking a look at some of the edits I made some years ago and I fell into this conversation we had (together with User:Dúnadan) 3 years ago. The main problems pointed out are nowadays solved (I believe) and I would like to continue with that idea of splitting both articles. Would you like to give me a hand? Cheers. --Maurice27 _{About Me, Talk, Vandalize}. 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have been working in other articles. I don't work so much in nationalism-related articles. If you start the split, I can review the text and try to fix stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles

Hello Enric Naval, I hope this message finds you doing well. I would like to inform you that many of the articles regarding Pathans in India have been moved, resulting in the name change from Pathans --> Pashtuns (e.g. Pathans in Uttar Pradesh article). In my opinion, this was not a wise idea because throughout India, the ethnic group is referred to by the name Pathan and not Pashtun, although both are acceptable English words. I would appreciate if you could kindly look into this matter and consider reverting the unilateral changes. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well... the most used word seems to be "Pashtun", and we use Pashtun people, not Pathan. I can see an argument for using "pathan" in articles that are about Indian groups, but you should talk it with that editor. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Talk:Reincarnation_research#This_is_better.2C_isn.27t_it.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Talk:Reincarnation_research#This_is_better.2C_isn.27t_it.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What wikipedia is not

Hi Enric,

I think I have read a lot in the last months on CF and feel that I am able to tell a nice story. The WP article is not the place to tell that story, but luckily there are some very well written press articles that already do. I came to the conclusion that there are already enough sources available on the internet for interested readers to be able to paint there own picture. So I asked myself the question: why keep plowing through the WP-article ? Where is the benefit for me ? Well, I conclude that there isn't. My phD friend, who happens to be a true ignorant CF non-believer also has a clear opinion on the Wikipedia project. He told me many times that he is convinced that WP doesn't work and that it is a waste of time. I see his point now.

Keep up the good work, I really appreciated it. Regards --POVbrigand (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Its not personal

I really don't know you, and so I wanted to make sure and drop you a line after my reply to you a moment ago on the 'Surturz AdminWatch' MfD.

My reply was a bit terse and a bit annoyed, and a bit surprised, but I really don't have anything against you personally, I'm sure I've appreciated your input on articles in past, and I didn't want to leave with the impression it was just a bit of snarkyness or something against you personally.

I notice above, someone quotes you as saying "when editing wikipedia, the most important goal is that the articles are improved. Everything else is just a means for this goal". I'm not an admin, but if I were, I think I would try and work with people who start a so-called 'shitlist', to see if they just had a crappy encounter with someone. One of the first lines on the Administrators page here in Wikipedia is that admins are never required to use their tools, and I think what that line is really saying is that being an admin is about being a leader. Peacemaker, guide, counselor, mentor, you name it. I know from my own experiences that leadership is mostly about simply being gaining support from others and that in many ways a volunteer organization has a lot in common with a paid organization because most of the time the same techniques work for managing either.

That's why I don't understand why we don't have more people saying that we don't override complaints with orders, but with a positive engagement of the person complaining to help them see things better. If we just order them to get the complaints off Wikipedia, they still have complaints, we just don't have any idea. At least having them out in the open let's us look it over and address them or not. Happy Editing. -- Avanu (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I think that the page, in its current state, can't help improve wikipedia. I made some suggestions on the MfD on how it could be refocused. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A comment like your last one is a lot more positive and encouraging than the simple "its a shitlist" refrain. Thanks for the thoughtful addition there. -- Avanu (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For your guidance regarding Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries over at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. It's very much appreciated. Faustus37 (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all :) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Comets

Enric, I saw your edit to MoS (and Noetica's revert). One problem I had is that this distinction introduced a complexity that will leave many editors befuddled (including me, as to where each might be used). I should say that I'm probably on the side of doing dashes for comets named after two scientists, since that's the signal used elsewhere in WP, and it's consistent with a number of stylistic authorities, too. WP has increasingly come up against this tension between one professional group and WP's house style: whether to make an exception. It's a particular problem in punctuation/typography. There's no simple answer, but may I ask whether you think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Allowable_typographical_changes is bad advice in principle? It seems to have a bearing on broader matters of our house style, don't you think? Tony (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The "replace dashesand hyphens" line looks like a bit of bad advice. I vaguely remember discussions in WT:MOS about how the meaning of a compound could change depending on whether you use hyphens or dashes in certain places of it. That would make it the only item in the list that could alter the intended meaning if you are not careful.

Also, this would permit inaccuracies like using dashes in a quoted telegram (one would think that people would apply common sense and use the original characters, but after visiting WP:MOS I no longer have doubts that people can and will do it).

And it also permits this nifty practice of dashing the title of every single source in the article, regardless of whether the original sources used dashes or not. I have never understood the point of this practice. It certainly hides from the reader any inconsistency between the article and the sources.

I guess that, for me, indiscriminately replacing hyphens with dashes (and viceversa) is going too far. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring?

Did you notice that this edit of yours changed the text case to disagree with the linked IAU source? This, and your late warnings after Trovatore and I talked it out, suggest that you are more interested in provoking an edit war than in preventing one. We can talk. Which document did you get the comet example from? Dicklyon (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please wait, I am trying to open a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters), and I am still checking the sources to make sure that I am making a good edit. I was searching for examples just as you were messaging me. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The conversation is already started at the bottom of that page. Please do join. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Web app nominated for deletion

Hi. Letting you know that Web app has been nominated for deletion (or redirection to Web application) because the contents attempt to duplicate the already existing and industry-accepted term Rich Internet application. Please share your thoughts here:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Web_app -Object404 (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No

First, do not template a regular. And do not place threatening posts on my talk page.

Second, one reversion of text that was ungrammatical and included at least one example of an article name you have been arguing about was a reasonable call. Get your edits in basic good English and perhaps they won't be reverted. I don't have a dog in that Halley's Comet thing, although I don't agree with the capitalisation; but it's no big deal to me.

Third, I apologised to you somewhere—I can't remember the page—for reverting. I expect more courtesy that you've given. You are actually the one who stands to be blocked if you carry on like this. Tony (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

At least this time you didn't go and revert back immediately, thus saving me a trip to WP:3RR/N. I hope that Noetica doesn't pop up on that page and reverts back again.

If the text had grammar errors, then I suggest fixing them. The text was "and "Halley's Comet is the most famous of the periodic comets." and "The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy."" Where are the grammar errors, maybe there should be commas instead of periods? Maybe there is a more proper ways of listing examples after a semicolon?

About basic courtesy, I am going to leave a message now in your page. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have written the message, but I'll wait a few hours and revise it before sending. I want to make sure that it's not my bad mood that is talking. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be in a bad mood generally. Please don't leave another angry message on my talk page. I suggest that both you and Dicklyon leave the caps page and the argument for a few days at least, to cool. The full points didn't work in the stop–start addition. The text needed to flow more smoothly/logically. I can assist when the time comes, if you want (or there are examples of examples at MoS). Tony (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Tony, the point is this. When someone opposes your opinion, you insult that person's intelligence and make implications about their general level of knowledge. In particular, some days ago one user left wikipedia after you left her a message implying that she was an ignorant that she had sinked to the lowest level of grammar, and that experts are "particularly bad at punctuation" and "lazy" [14]. You had previously implied that she was illiterate and ignorant. I am sure that she didn't take it well, given that you were telling her how to spell names in her area of expertise and that she had just cited you the relevant specialized RS[15]. Your insulting of editors just cost wikipedia one female expert editor. I think that it's you who has a courtesy problem.

In the last arbcom request, arbs said that they expected better behaviour from parties. I strongly recommend you to recognize your problem and fix it before the whole MOS disputes thing gets dragged to arbcom again. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the schoolma'am lesson, and the falsifications (I called no one ignorant, and if she wanted to leave, fine: you can't assume why, so don't). Your behaviour is the problem, as you've roundly demonstrated over the past few days. The less I have to interact with you, the better. Unwatchlisting this page, and please no posts on mine. Please take your unresolved anger elsewhere. Tony (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

*sigh*. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Look, instead of sighing and steaming at each other, we could try different ways that are more positive; and with Dick Lyon too, don't you think? Let me know if you have any ideas, and whether I can be of any assistance. There's no reason we can't all collaborate in an unruffled environment, so I guess this is an olive branch and a plea. Tony (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Tony, are you going to start treating other editors better when they contradict you? Are you going to abide to the advice of editors who are familiar with their area of expertise? Are you going to stop editwarring to push your own spelling/punctuation against the advice of major contributors to the article/area? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping my post would be taken in good faith, not with another lecture as though you haven't been edit-warring and as though your accusation at my talk page was vaguely reasonable, that I was edit-warring by reverting your bad grammar, once. But instead, it's an aggressive, negative reply.

Could we start this exchange again? I said, "we could try different ways that are more positive ... there's no reason we can't all collaborate ...". Now, if you can't recognise goodwill, I suppose I can do no more, but the suggestion is still open. Tony (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Tony, above I showed how you had run out of wikipedia one female expert editor by telling her stuff like "(...) it's illiterate not to have a hyphen there (...) some hyphen-hater had removed it and moved the title to one without the necessary punctuation (...) No, do not edit The Signpost to remove necessary punctuation. (...) Well, don't link to the RfC, please—it's impossible to locate—WProj. dog editors seem to operate in a secret corner (note: the RfC was plain visible in the talk page of the wikiproject[16]) (...) and that it is in usage, even if not by your treasured sources. Just to point out how ignorant the move of that article was 10 months ago, the RM refers to a "dash" ... it's a hyphen. The title is going into The Signpost with the proper hyphen, and that is that. Please brush up on WP:MOSDASH and the section on hyphens above it." here. Also "Here is a site that's not ignorant of the need for a hyphen. (...) WP doesn't usually sink to the lowest level, even where it sadly seems to be majority usage among experts. Experts are particularly bad at punctuation—they get lazy because they easily recognise a string through familiarity. (...)" [17]. She left wikipedia after you replied to her last message, I think it's highly unlikely that she had left for unrelated reasons by pure chance, asking to garble her name and protect her talk page. You have acknowledged no failure on your part, you don't appear any problem at all in the first place, and you have made no promise of treating editors better. This makes me think that you will just continue this trend of making comments that other editors find highly offensive and dismissing, possibly causing other editors to leave wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I flicked through that long post very quickly: she can leave—that's fine, but don't blame it on me. Now, I said I came with goodwill; if you really are determined to remain on bad terms, that's your choice. I've tried. Tony (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please make no more illegal reverts on page Autofellatio

The offensive image on [[autofellatio] was removed for violating U.S. federal law, as you'd know if you read the comments on edits and/or the discussion page. Reverting to again show the image will be an illegal act that will be imputed to Wikipedia, but also to you. Google on "2257 record keeping requirements" to learn more. Please, no more edit warring. KirthMersenne (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Case

Enric, I see you have a lot of trouble accepting WP's style of only capitalizing proper names. I've reverted some of your recent over-capitalizations, and see that some other editors have as well. I hope you'll reconsider this, and work instead toward a sensible consistent style. While admitting that such capitalization is common in sources, we don't need to follow that; only in cases where the evidence really supports interpretation as a proper name should we be capitalizing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

On the ring road thing, I asked for help (and mentioned you) here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Hi, I don't mind the other reversals you made, but "Cognitive process profile (CPP)" seems to be upcased just because it's abbreviated. So, you do a cognitive case profile on someone; it's weird to write that you do a Cognitive Case Profile on someone. (BTW, does the title have to include the abbreviation? I don't see the point.) Tony (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a specific set of tests, not a generic type of assessment. Any new test that wants to receive this name has to be validated by certain specific entities. In some cases you have to pay to use the tests (in CCP's case you need to be "CCP accredited" by a certified trainer). Similar to Raven's Progressive Matrices or Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

The problem is that some specific products have generic-sounding names.

P.D.: In order to protect their trademark, the creators purposefully choose names that have no generic meaning. So, yes, we can get rid of the "(CPP)" thing, since it's not helping to disambiguate anything. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the italicising and the removal of the initialism. Tony (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ring road (Cairo) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ring road (Cairo) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring road (Cairo) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

"Also, is there really any encyclopedic usage for "schedule" in the context of construction?" do a google for "construction schedule research" - all in good faith but you should know Granite07 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess someone could write an article called Schedule (construction). I would do it myself, but I have never touched that topic. I wouldn't even be able to write a short stub, to get the ball rolling. Someone familiar with the topic could take a look at how Schedule (project management) is written and make up something.

The worst that could happen is that the topic is not differentiated enough, and that it's merged into Schedule (project management). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

causa sui (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Messy title and article situation

Enric, here's an instance where I'd appreciate your advice. I leapt in, probably too soon, and downcased The Evolution of Cooperation, BTW forgetting that "The" shouldn't normally be the first item in a generic title. I was fooled by the very opening of the article text, which is firmly generic (until you get to the third point, which is about the eponymous book). Then I realised the mess: there's a book infobox, and the article title is italicised (I can't see the template for that, either). Could you advise on a possible solution, since it's now uncomfortably between two roles. I've raised it on the talk page. I think the lead needs to be rewritten, at least. Thanks. Tony (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The infobox italizes the title automatically, I added a parameter to stop it.

The article is clearly about more than just the book, so we can just get rid of the "The".

I'll try to rewrite the lead so it's about one topic that was named after one book title, --Enric Naval (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Another messy title and article situation

Enric, I didn't understand this edit. How can you on the one hand preserve capitalization, and on the other hand describe the topic as a generic, and all without so much as a source in sight? From a quick look at books, I'd say this one is probably the proper name of a program, which seems to be what Noetica is saying. You agree, or not? Want to revert your edit, and try defining the topic as a proper? Or some other direction? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't touch the capitalization, neither in my edit nor in my page move, in case I broke something or got started another dispute.

I think you are right, see sources from State University of New York Press (SUNY Press) "'(...) 'in Public Achievement, an international youth civic engagement initiative."[18] or Greenwood "(...) is Public Achievement, a youth initiative (...)"[19]

I have no problem with capitalizing the name and changing the lead to talk about a specific program. I don't have preference for any specific wording. If you don't mind, I could try hammering the article a bit into shape using some sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

what is a journal?

hi, I was curious. When a bunch of university professors start a journal together[20], what wikipedia mechanism makes it not a journal? It is covered in the news as if a journal.[21] I was wondering if you knew, (assuming this[22] is correct), what makes it not a journal? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Being (consistently) called a journal by reliable academic sources. Being listed among other journals in serious lists of journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rossi could also go and redefine the very concept of scientific journal, but first he will need to get his E-Cat working as advertised: "(...) but if his e-cat invention turns out to be a revolutionary source of nuclear energy there may be a lot of rethinking about the way scientific publication takes place in the future."[23] --Enric Naval (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hot Girls With Big 'Uns Who Think Oswald Acted Alone could call itself "A Journal of Feminine Pulchritude and Skepticism"; that wouldn't make it a peer-reviewed journal of anything unless serious scholars in the field(s) decided to treat it as such. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the holy grail of peer-reviewed-ness. Remember, the Journal of Scientific Exploration and the Homeopathy journal are both peer-reviewed, you know. One day I have to rewrite Homeopathy using only papers from the Homeopathy journal, just to see the faces of the other editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply, I was doing a huge ramble then my browser crashed. Probably for the better. lol Thanks for the reply anyway. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Please just revert anything you don't like. I'm not going to war over it. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please copy your reply from here to the article talk page or should I reply on my talk page?84.106.26.81 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

copied and expanded. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, (better late than never)

I was curious what you did wrong here[24], it must have been horrible because everything has been deleted by 5 users.

I had a vague attempt towards adding content to the article[25]

There is also this[26] eh..

And this even[27] haha no divs obviously, it never happened.

The topic was of course highly note worthy at the time. The problem is that we don't seem to have any many mainstream scientific publications. At least not without doing original research on Mileys papers. And to make things worse, it seems most of the media coverage was on the TV. In their current form the youtube links are obviously not acceptable as sources. Using the TV programs is of course fine but that does require a bit of investigation.

I think it would be cool if you took a look at "my" version of the article and turned it into something you consider properly sourced.

I'm hoping for a version with more than 1 line of content. haha.. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:POVbrigand/list#List_of_LENR_researchers

Hi Enric,

can you have a look over this list I am working on. Please feel free to modify or leave comments on the page. Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics

Hi, Enric. Do you mean about the diacritics change, or about me not finding the Romanian diacritics in the character map? or both? Dahn (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Will do. Dahn (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

Could you clarify what you mean by "move them" (Talk:Evolutionary biology). Do you mean move the talk page content of a deleted article to the talk page of another article? I am only asking because I have seen the talk page of deleted articles redirected to the talk page of the merged article without moving any content. e.g., Talk:Neurobiology. As far as I am aware, this is standard practice. Besides, if readers want to read past comments, they can look through the history section. danielkueh (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, with "move them" I only refered to moving an article and its accompanying talk page to an unoccupied title.

Replacing the talk page with a redirect sounds like a bad practice because all those conversations are hidden from view, and they can't even be found via searching. There is no established way of handling these situations (that I know of). As far as I know, this is handled in a case-by-case basis.

One solution I use is archiving all the discussions, then leaving in the talk page a "softredirect" and a link to the archive pages. Sometimes, also a link to the archived merge discussion. The discussions are searcheable, and people can now see that the page has been moved and why. People following links to old discussions will still be able to find the discussions. If you only leave a redirect then they get sent to a page that never held the discussion they are looking for, they won't show up in the history of the page they landed in, causing much confusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your rationale. It is just that someone has just left another comment on Talk:evolutionary biology even though you had already left a notice earlier. My fear (real or imagined) is that no one notices the new comment and the new commenter then assumes his/her comment is accepted and therefore undoes the consensus that was reached, resulting in a long, unnecessary, and protracted argument such as this one. danielkueh (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This proves my concerns. danielkueh (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the comments that people are leaving, you should consider the possiblity that there was only a local consensus by a small number of people. Or that maybe they are actually two different topics, and shouldn't be merged.

Part of the problem is that nothing appears to have been merged. The article should redirect to the section where the merged content is now, but there is no Evolution#Evolutionary biology, no history of the discipline, etc. Someone tried to merge in 28 August 2011 after the redirect, but you reverted because it was too long[28]. Just redirecting the page is not enough, you need to actually merge the parts of the article that are salvageable. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this issue. The consensus was that the material should be restored as "Current Research in Evolutionary Biology." The rest of the evolutionary biology is really the same as the evolution article. So it is the duplicated material that has been deleted. danielkueh (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, you bring up a good point. You should make a suggestion on the Talk:evolution about research methods used to study evolution. I am sure there will be some enthusiasm for it. danielkueh (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is now another long discussion, and I have left a comment on it. Honestly, I don't see why Evolutionary Biology cannot have its own page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

And honestly, I don't appreciate you calling me out for edit warring when a) you don't understand the context of the reversions, the first being a while back ago and b) You ignore the edit warring behavior and outlandish language used by the other editor while singling me out. Disappointing. danielkueh (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you realize how this dispute looks from the outside? You are restoring the redirect against other editors, then reverting the merge of content instead of trying to adapt it, then insisting that any leftover content is placed in Current research in evolutionary biology, a title doesn't make sense unless there is a corresponding Evolutionary biology article, etc. Because of this, information in "Evolutionary biology" is all over the place. I can't find anywhere a definition of the field or a description of its importance. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"How it looks like" is irrelevant. What is relevant was that there was consensus. Current research in evolutionary biology was an independent article and was merged into Evolutionary biology. It is now splintered back into its original state, which was not even my suggestion. It is clear that you have misunderstood the entire context of this debate and are making unsubstantiated comments. Why do I even bother to respond. danielkueh (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that there was a consensus in the past, but I think that it was mistaken / less than ideal / had too little participation / has resulted in bad organization of information / etc, and that a new consensus should be formed. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair comment. Then wouldn't you agree than the proper way forward would be to do what Kim did and reopened this discussion in a civil and polite way rather than arbitrarily reverting and making baseless accusations about vote-stacking or vandalism? danielkueh (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. But doing so many reverts when newcomers have pointed out good reasons for the consensus being wrong could also be seen as arbitrary reverting. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the policy is called WP:BRD. danielkueh (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, but here I would apply Consensus Can Change, since you keep refering to old consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It can but it hasn't yet. And the way to achieve a change in consensus is to discuss it first. Anyway, it is obvious you are not going to agree with me or acknowledge the merits of my arguments. So go ahead and have last word. danielkueh (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article

Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DZBN (Biñan)

The article DZBN (Biñan) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Part of a series of articles on radio stations in the Philippines tagged as possible hoaxes by Bluemask (talk · contribs). Please add reliable source references to verify the existence of this station.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 5, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Practice direction

What's the deal on practice direction upcasing? Many sources use lower case for the generic, and only capitalize specific named ones. Dicklyon (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hummmmm, yes, you are right. It already happens in the only source of the article[29] and in books.google.com. Yesterday I looked at some court websites that used uppercasing, but now I'm looking again at them, and I can see what you are saying. My bad. I'll take it into account next time I find the name for a type of laws. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Another look at Personal Equity Plan and National Security Letter might also be in order. Dicklyon (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I already commented in Tony's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing discussions on Talk:Energy Catalyzer

While I would agree that the discussion was off-topic that you removed on this page, it was already collapsed and "put away" without the need to go to the more drastic step that you went to here. It is sort of a pet peeve of mine when people start to remove content from talk pages, even if the content seems to be slightly off topic or going places that doesn't make sense. At least what was written could be somewhat tangentially said to be related to the topic at hand and certainly was not blatant vandalism. I would appreciate it if you would revert your own action, but that is up to you if you want to do that. It certainly is an action I would never have done. --Robert Horning (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hum, I don't know enough physics/chemistry to assess if it was really relevant. I have restored it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Creditably of Wiki

I previously provided a three paragraph explanation (requiring no scientific background to understand) of not only why the (second) statement in the perpetual motion controversy section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman was inconsistent with established rules of logic, but that there is no actual question of whether or not the machine is a perpetual motion machine. This section should be removed.

The creator/inventor of the device does not argue that it is such a device, nor do any of the cited sources within that section. This statement, "Skeptics argue...", can not be attributed to the source cited. This statement is attributed to a book written by a scientist (PhD Physics), using language that indicates a lack of understanding of the underlying scientific principles and is improperly imprecise as to be meaningless. I already explained all of this. This source was likely included to avoid deletion of this statement, as it cannot be cited. This statement should be removed, and section deleted.

Disordered.information (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, The Science News sources says that most scientists consider it a perpetual motion machine, despite the inventor's claims; you can search the article's name in google. I don't have right here the other source, but it was written by Robert L. Park. Do you have any reliable source saying that Park doesn't understand the underlying scientific principles? Or do you have any reliable source saying that Newman's machine should not be considered a perpetual motion machine, and explaining why? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My statement to Elen

My statement to Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem with your statement at ArbCom

Enric, I am disappointed by your statement at ArbCom (see this section, and this edit). You have included an incorrect comment about me. Please amend the section by striking that comment out (so that it remains visible as an amendment), and leave a brief explanation. That is a very serious forum; inaccuracies and false impressions are to be avoided at all costs. I will await your apology at my talkpage.

Noetica^Tea? 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I struck that part from my comment so it remains visible. But Tony1 did ask you to participate, and you did comment on the issue on a derisive manner. And I still have more comments about your behaviour in MOS pages. (but this time I'll check every name instead of relying in memory) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Enric. But you still have it wrong. Here is what Tony said:

"It's an interesting issue, Pyro, and one that I recently discussed with User:Noetica, who doesn't have an immediate answer; but I asked him to think about it and get back when his timeframe is freer (I hope soon)."

I do not think that Tony asked me to participate in that discussion; he asked me elsewhere for an opinion on a general issue. Is there a problem with that? If so, please report that problem accurately at the ArbCom page. Also note (and amend your remark about this): to shlep (or to schlep; note your spelling error) as an intransitive verb means "to proceed or move especially slowly, tediously, awkwardly, or carelessly" (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary). Please amend your report to ArbCom of my pun in the conversation with Tony at my talkpage (which you link). It is misleading as it stands. Noetica^Tea? 22:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you say "it means other thing in this dictionary" instead of "I meant other thing when I wrote it". Sorry, but I find it really difficult to believe that you were not aware that it could mean "clumsy and stupid", and it fits the context way better. Also, in that context it's not an intransitive verb, it's an adjective to "geant". And since, it's a joke on "sleeping giant" (aka, resting, staying in one place), I find it difficult to believe that you wanted to mean "moving" or "proceeding". In other words, your explanation looks good superficially, but a closer look finds lots of holes. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Enric, if you're interested in making your statement accurate, you might also want to review things like "Dicklyon then tried a 'compromise' by inserting the hyphen anyways, after the RM failed"; I can't see any failed RM. And "you have Tony1 telling an expert that he doesn't know how to spell names in his profession" for a conversation that never mentioned spelling, and where Tony didn't impugne the knowledge of the guy who inquired about why the hyphens. And "Dicklyon changes the rest of the article anyways" for . And "After this RM failed" for an RM that was deferred with "close for now with no move, pending outcome of RFCs. Once these have closed, a new discussion may be initiated", and the characterizing subsequent discussion as "badgering" and "trying to force". I understand that we have differing strong opinions on where to draw the line on caps, but this kind of misrepresentation can hardly be expected to be a useful part of resolving that. Your bolded suspicion also seems inappropriate; have you seen other editors give up in disgust over hyphenation? It seems so unlikely. Dicklyon (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Details, details. Indeed, the RM didn't fail, Tony1 didn't like the result, and he tried to change the text in the article to the old title without going through RM. Doesn't change the facts that Tony1 tagged the article out of spite, insulted the other editors, made an editor retire from wikipedia, and that you continued his edits.

"my insertion of 4 hyphens into compound modifiers that were not among those being discussed" is a plain misrepresentation. You re-inserted the same disputed hyphen into the name of the article, including the bolded name at the first sentence in the lead.[30] You were very clearly continuing Tony1's edits, against the result of the RM.

IMHO, "The RM didn't result in the desired move" == "The RM failed". --Enric Naval (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation case

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Remove sentence from Conferences Section

hey Enric Naval, waddya think of my edit proposal? Any questions? Please read the paper and the book sourced in the sentence I propose to remove. Let's open it up for discussion (I thought I did) and post comments to: discource one, discource two, and summary on this edit request (no new sources are referenced). I welcome your input and clarifying comments or requests. Simply put, the sentence takes the authors (of referenced material) statements out of context and should be removed.--Gregory Goble (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Questionable revert

Hello,

Revert is supposed to be used only in cases of obvious vandalism. Could you explain why you used revert here? Thank you, — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry, I didn't revert that on purpose, and I never intended to revert. I must have clicked by accident in the rollback button while looking at my watchlist. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday Mail (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognizability poll

Enric Naval, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Lupercalia and St Valentine's day (or not)

Thanks so much for your thoughtful post at my talk-page, and kudos for checking the source credentials so thoroughly. I think it's probably OK to use as reference. As far as I can see it's not been subjected to a published peer-review - at least, none that yields to a Google Scholar search - but it gives a fair summary of the scholarly consensus position, and justifies itself with a fair smattering of relevant sources. Ideally, we'd read and cite those sources too, hopefully without citation-overkill. All in good time. I'm afraid I've gotten to the point where I won't even sneeze without a WP:RS. I'm not proud of that; it killed any confidence I ever had in my own writing.

Anyway, yes, lazy round-robins and the regurgitation of errors in journalism and the popular press (diatribe warning ahoy!) are always with us. Especially on the net. But so's historiography, and scholarship, and both are littered with the once-respected, now-discarded and hugely unfashionable consensus opinions of magnificent scholars, living or dead. On the whole, I don't think we need be embroiled in all that; but see how the excellent and exemplary Charon's obol article deals sotto voce with an even more prevalent error. For contrast, take a peep at the nest of controversy and grief that is Sol Invictus - you might wish you hadn't, and I no longer watch the page. In general, I think we can address "common misconceptions" obliquely, by simply writing articles based on reliably sourced scholarly opinion. If the scholarship addresses specific errors, so do we. Most of my specialist sources on Roman society and religion are pretty well up-to-date and I've glanced through the index of one or two, but no mention yet of St Valentine. I'll keep looking.

I'm just wittering on now, and will shut up. Briefly; I think St Valentine's non-connection with the Lupercalia merits a brief sentence on Lupercalia's extinction, with a footnote reference to St Valentine. In the St Valentine's Day article, Lupercalia's of historiographic interest but I'd certainly avoid lending it undue weight, or its own heading. Best regards, Haploidavey (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am still working on it. There was a full section in Saint Valentine full of errors, primary sources, and direct contradictions of the only secondary source, and copyvio of said source. Just wow. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit

Your change to Li Hongzhi has made the section incomprehensible again. I explained why on the talk page. Would you please fix it, such that the section actually makes sense, and also explain why you believe the Time quote should be paraphrased, rather than simply quoted in full? Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Homunculus (duihua) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I was already trying to repair the section when you messaged me. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, thanks for actually reading a book and trying to edit accordingly. It is refreshing. Your edits to the anecdote about the Changchun faction certainly made it more accurate. I am not sold on notability though. It was a relatively minor incident, all things considered, and takes a lot of words to do the story justice. I'm concerned that it's given undue weight. Do you think there is some way to shorten it, while retaining the essential information? Also, on the quote from TIME magazine, I don't necessarily think it needs to be used in full. The middle section about men being women and so forth can be redacted. My concern is that the paraphrase is not strictly accurate. It currently says that Li called the accusation a "smear" by people trying to destroy him. But that's not exactly true. In the quote, Li says "It's natural that when people want to smear you, they will dig out whatever they can to destroy you." The difference is subtle, but the paraphrase can potentially be misconstrued (namely, it sounds much more paranoiac). Your thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

OhConfucius moved some of details somewhere else, but I can't find where. I have asked in his talk page.

I have rewritten the whole thing again. It's shorter, goes more directly to the grain, and has more details. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's better now. I appreciate your reading Palmer and Porter, really. OhConfucius had put the Changchun faction anecdote into the "Falun Gong" section, but since you restored it elsewhere, I just removed it from that section. It was much too long anyway.Homunculus (duihua) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Can you please tell me why are you doing this. These "votes" will not be counted, as only uninvolved editors will agree on new name. None other should comment here. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment in Talk:University of Pristina#Break ASAP! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I replied there. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Saint Valentine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pope Julius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Army of Darkness issue

Hi, Enric. This is the Shadow Fighter, the much talked-about "9 year-old Wikipedian". I'm 13 now, and I've been editing Wikipedia more productively. I'm writing to you because I'm having a bit of a problem with a guy called MikeWazowski on the Army of Darkness article. I try writing messages to him, but he just erases them and ignores me. It's kind of a trivial issue and my dad doesn't seem to care about it, but I definately need someone to back me up on this. So the thing is, on the Army of Darkness article, It says "Also known as Evil Dead III: Army of Darkness or simply Evil Dead III or Bruce Campbell vs Army of Darkness", and I find that grammatically innacurate, so I tried to change it to "also known as Bruce Campbell vs Army of Darkness, Evil Dead III: Army of Darkness or just Evil Dead III", which is accurate. But whenever I try to do that, MikeWazowski keeps reverting me. What's the deal with that? You know, it's not even realy that issue that I need your help on, it's also just that, well, maybe you could talk to him and inform him of my age, or tell him to take it a little easy on me. I don't mean to act like a sychofant, but I didn't know who else to turn to. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a minor point in the article. A reader is not going to be less informed because of this. I suggest that the best course of action is letting it go. Focus your attention on actions that really improving the article: looking for reliable sources, reading those sources, then adding them to the article, finding important information that the article lacks, making sure that the article is accurate by checking it against sources, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Enric. I'm not really all that concerned about that issue, it's also that he seems to be reverting all my edits, seemingly regardless of whether or not they are reliable. But worst of all, when I try to leave him a message, he deletes them off his talk page, even when I'm really polite. I mean, I know that big-time wikipedians are really busy, but simply deleting my messages is just plain assinine. (did I spell that right?) The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

( I am not an English native speaker. But the spell-checker in my web browser says that it's spelled wrong. I trued several spellings in google and I found "assassin")

Well, you did make a few mistakes:

For example, [31] It doesn't matter if not all the article is a copyvio. Even a single sentence copied verbatim justifies the tag. Anything verbatim copy needs to be quoted and attributed. You can't remove the tag without solving the copyvio problem.

You have made many minor edits to other articles, and he hasn't reverted them. For example [32]. He is simply reviewing your edits and making sure you don't break anything. At most, he is being strict. Just remember that he doesn't do this to annoy you, he does it to protect the quality of the articles. Relax, take note of what he reverts and what he doesn't, and learn to edit wikipedia with stricter standards of quality. You are no longer in easy mode :-)

One advice. Genres are always a battlefield in all articles about films, books, etc. Specially films. You will find lot of resistance to change. My advice: never change the genre of a film without providing at least one good reliable source. For recent films, go to news.google.com and search the title of the film followed by the word "review" or "film"[33]. If you can't find anything then click in "Archives" in the left column. Pick the highest quality sources and go with what they say, even if you don't agree with them. For older films, try books.google.com. Always cite the source with full details (never forget the page number when citing a book! It annoys the other editors when they are trying to check your edit!) If you have problems, explain them calmly in the talk page instead of reverting, without accusing anyone of anything, assuming that the other editors see some failure in your edit that you can't see, then drop the issue and go on to other thing. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank's again Enric. I understand what you mean, about me not being in the easy zone anymore, since I'm a teenager now. And I don't think MikeWazowski is doing this to be mean, and I didn't intend to say that in my message. And I understand that all wikipedians need to be strict, but now I've got a bigger issue: He says I'm about to be blocked from editing because of some things I've done to Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 Asylum film) (I've been trying to write that it's also known as Journey to the Center of the Earth: The Core). But what he doesn't seem to be understanding is that the only reason I can't cite a good source is because my source is filmratings.com. But the thing about that website is that you can't cite sources for specific movies you look up in the search box there; all you can do is cite the website. i tried to explain this to him, but he just deletes my comments off his talk page. And it's not just him that's giving me a hard time; there's also Debresser, TheRealFennShysa... it's just a bit much. While I understand that my edits may be disruptive in their eyes, could you please talk to MikeWazowski and maybe tell him that blocking me is a bit extreme and that I'm still a bit of a newcomer? Please. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You have already +4500 edits[34], so they are not going to treat you like a newbie.

He won't block you if you simply stop trying to insert the information. This is again a minor issue. Stuff like alternative names, order of sentences, genres, etc, are usually minor issues. I tried to google that name, and I can't find it any direct reference, so it's very likely that it's a minor issue.

If you still want to make that change, then leave a short message in Talk:Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 Asylum film), explaining in a neutral way why you think that the alternative name should be listed, without blaming anyone.

Just learn to drop the issue, and to leave a message in the talk page instead of reverting again until people menace you with blocks. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll drop it. But here's the thing: MIKEWAZOWSKI DELETES MY COMMENTS OFF HIS TALK PAGE. And when I write to him I'm extremely respectful and very considerate of his high authority. But no matter how polite I am, he deletes them off his talk page, without any present reason of why. See, for a really long time now I've been trying to do the things that you've been telling me to do, but they just all seem to be failing because, apparently, MikeWazowski is either #1. so freaking busy that he can't take a reasonable amount time to read my reasonable comments, #2. he doesn't know that I'm a kid, or #3. he's just a jerk. (My dad thinks it's door number 3). I didn't mean to sound extreme on that last one, but the situation at hand is very odd: why would a highly respected, high-class wikipedia administrator just delete my very respectful comments off his talk page without any trace of why? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking from past experience, he is probably burned out. Film articles get lots of unsourced edits and bad edits. Hummmm. Looking deeper, they are burned out because you are repeating actions after being told that you are doing it wrong. See User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_42#Alabama_Moon_.28film.29, the text in Alabama Moon (film) was a copyvio (a copyright violation) from a website. Please click in the history of the Alabama film [35]m in 16 January, Catfish removed with the summary "removed copyvio text". You must never restore "copyvio" text, never. Please pay more attention to what people are removing, and don't restore it. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well that's all well and good, but how am I supposed to make an agreement with this guy if he won't even talk to me? My dad looked at his talk page and saw a lot of seething comments that have been left unresponded to. He's come to the conclusion that Mike's basically just a jerk and I shouldn't bother reasoning with him (again, that's my father talking, not me). I am no longer concerned about the army of darkness issue at all, I am simply concerned about him deleting my comments off his talk page. My dad says he'll try leaving him a message about it, but Mike may dang well delete [my dad's] comments too, since [my dad] is as minor a wikipedian as I am, if not less. You are as high of an authority as Mike is, if not more, so if you talked to him, he might respond a bit better. Could you please talk to him? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

information

I feel the need to inform you that I've put your comment under a different header here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion#Section:_Publications

Some of it's relevance to previous comments may be lost but mixing topics in a talk page section isn't likely to be very productive.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia

I am not following you around, I came there through WT:NPOV

User_talk:MesserKruse#Re:_The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia

I am amazed that you give this guy this advice. When I follow your advice "make a reasonable educated complaint in the talk page", the promised effect never materializes. On the contrary, I am dragged to Arbcom over it. How come ? --POVbrigand (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Because you didn't make one good edit with good sources, followed by one reasonable educated complaint.

What you made were a few edits of questionable relevance supported by low quality sources, followed by many repetitive complaints, and by refusals to acknowledge that the sources were low quality and that they didn't support the cited facts. (yes, I am talking about "NASA has an official position/program on cold fusion" with the Bushnell interview, patent video, etc) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are making comparable comments as MesserKruse's peer editors.

I recognize how MesserKruse was treated and think there are parallels to how I am treated on cold fusion.

Instead of immediately accusing me of using "low quality sources", YOU should AGF and reflect whether YOUR conduct is similar to what MesserKruse is describing.

I have argued against you in that Bushnell gave his interview as a chief scientists of NASA Langley, not that he was a spokesperson on the official position of NASA. Possibly some of my early statements could have been interpreted differently, but I have explicitly stated several times that I do not think that NASA - as an institution - endorses LENR.

There is a host of Self Published Sources including a direct quote from the video: "researchers at NASA Langley Research Center are working on another way of producing energy efficient nuclear power". And there are secondary sources that have highlighted this also.

Undue weight of truth:

• NASA has issued a patent - true and verifiable
• "researchers at NASA Langley Research Center are working on another way of producing energy efficient nuclear power" - true and verifiable
• NASA has made Technical Memoranda on the topic - true and verfiable
• NASA held a LENR Workshop at Glenn in September 2011 - true and verifiable

You fail to recognize any of this. So yes, you are (at least partly) what MesserKruse is talking about and you are not alone.

If you are incapable to AGF and cannot see my side of the story even when more RS evidence is continuously appearing, then you are definitely part of the problem that MesserKruse is addressing and if you fail to recognize that, then further discussion with you will be futile.

As I have expressed several times in the past, I actually think you are a valuable editor. So I have hopes that we can discuss this. But I recognize that you might be just tired of talking to me, which I could also understand. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I, and other editors, have already explained why we think that the sources are low quality and why this is not worth placing in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"Low quality" is nowhere defined in the policy. "Not worth placing" == "undue weight". Read "'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia". --POVbrigand (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You were already told that your edits went against WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. WP:RS does mention high-quality sources in a couple of places. WP:REDFLAG does explicitly demand high-quality sources for exceptional claims (in part to avoid this sort of situations).

Now, are you saying that "low quality" sources are OK, and that nobody can remove them, only because they are not explicitly disallowed in policy? Because that is WP:LAWYERING, concretely adhering to the letter of the laws instead of its spirit. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not wiki-laywering. Kindly explain why wired.co.uk is "low quality".

Why are you summing up all those policies ? What exceptional claim are you referring to ?

Honestly, this discussion is pointless. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Man, you were promoting low quality sources weeks before the Wired article was published. your last edit in the matter was pushing minor recent events from low quality sources just so a mention of NASA could appear in the article. That's against UNDUE and RECENTISM. It is an extraordinary claim to say that NASA is making cold fusion research, officially or not, given the history of the field.

If NASA doesn't have an official position, like you acknowledge, then these are only the personal opinions of scientists that happen to work at NASA. The weight problems and quality problems with NASA, MIT's course and others, were explained several times here, here, here, here, and here. Someone also warned about WP:CRYSTALBALL here. You are again trying to squeeze blood from stones here today.

Now, you should start interiorizing what people tell you about using high quality sources and giving proper weight to material. Also, not every advice is good. Take editors like, Selery (Nrcprm2026), Harald88, Aqm2241, or 84.106.26.81, who keep trying to bend the article in a certain direction, using their advice is a sure way to get yourself topic banned. Take people like Binksternet, Short Brigade Boris, IRWolfie, SteveBaker, Olonirish, etc, all of them are long-time good editors, if you find yourself disagreeing with several of them, you should start thinking that it's you who is mistaken. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I didn't think that mentioning MIT's course in the article would be a good idea.

In the links you provided it was explained several times that "NASA does not endorse LENR", but I already agreed to that fact. Some of the links do not concern me at all.

"Crystal ball" has nothing to do with a self published statement that "researchers are working on ...", because that statement describes the current situation: "are working".

"promoting low quality sources weeks before..." - I think that SPS from NASA is a reliable source, a direct quote from a video hosted on a NASA server mentioning "researchers are working on" - and secondary sources discussing the video. I think none of that is "low quality".

"extraordinary claim to say that NASA is making cold fusion research" OK, I can understand that point. But I find the NASA self-published video stating that they in fact do that, high quality.

"if you find yourself disagreeing with several of them" then I consider whether I am mistaken and if my position is in line with WP-policy, or if I have run into an unwillingness to get a consensus. Disagreeing with several editors always means disagreeing with several different complaints. Some of those complaints will be without merit.

"squeeze blood from stones" That is a very uncivil way to describe my conduct. We happen to have another reliable source available that discusses NASA and LENR in detail. Consensus can change, you know, but getting consensus on cold fusion normally means getting outside opinion. On the talk page alone consensus is near to impossible. If consensus is only possible with outside opinion, you should start thinking that it's you who is mistaken.

btw, I am also a long-time good editor.

And also note that Bushnell also discussed research at NASA in his interview: "And so at that point, in 06-07 we became interested and started setting up a set of experiments that we’re just about ready to start finally, where we’re trying to experimentally validate this Widom-Larsen theory to find out -- or not -- whether or not it explains what’s going on. And in the process, we've used the quantum theory to optimize the particular surface morphologies necessary to do this." and "We looked at using LENR to power a space-access rocket and it had better performance conceptually than a conventional fisson nuclear [unintelligible] rocket."

--POVbrigand (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And you are again defending low quality sources (the patent video and Bushnell's interview). You are trying to insert low-quality undue-weight material in the article, that's why you aren't getting consensus. There is no "unwillingness to get a consensus".

The Wired source can be used for some constructive edits, like saying that DARPA has been secretly carrying out some research. But digging up again the same low-quality sources to push the same NASA undue content is only going to get your suggestions rejected. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And you are again dismissing perfectly rock solid self published sources as low quality. It is clear that I cannot see your point and you cannot see mine. So let's see where we do have a common understanding and work from there. As wired is RS and they mention NASA, maybe we could write a one liner on NASA with wired as reference and get this topic settled. I haven't seen the budget plans of Darpa yet and I do not yet understand where their research is performed. I have to understand this first before I can make a proposal. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You are seriously confused if you still think that those sources are rock solid. Wired is better, but let's discuss it in the article's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I will think about "rock solid". I started the thread on NASA on the talk page, so we can continue there --POVbrigand (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

forum?

nothing like it, i was discussing about changing the pages, you should not have removed my writings--Frizstyler (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Review

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:

1. Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
2. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
3. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
4. Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
5. Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

University of Mitrovica listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect University of Mitrovica. Since you had some involvement with the University of Mitrovica redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mobile_security

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mobile_security. Karl.brown (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

Hi. When you recently edited Crop circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copycat effect (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Enric Naval. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

The source you cited only mentions majority of Christians being sided with Otomans and not with Lazar. Also it mention that during a period of Milutin and tzar Dusan it was common for them to hire Turkish mercenaries. But both Dusan and Milutin died decades before Battle of Kosovo. You should read it better. I don't care if you "posted false info" on purpose or by accident, but i advise you to edit article or i'm going to do it. Even your source confirms my point. Danilo018 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

The source you cited only mentions majority of Christians being sided with Otomans and not with Lazar. Also it mention that during a period of Milutin and tzar Dusan it was common for them to hire Turkish mercenaries. But both Dusan and Milutin died decades before Battle of Kosovo. You should read it better. I don't care if you "posted false info" on purpose or by accident, but i advise you to edit article or i'm going to do it. Even your source confirms my point. Danilo018 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, just be bold and change yourself the text so it fits the source.--Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Wikipedians who like Atlantis

Hello Enric Naval. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedians who like Atlantis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Category:Wikipedians who like Bewitched

Hello Enric Naval. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedians who like Bewitched, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers 4

There is no doubt that this article is premature, but as the topic of a planned Transformers 4 film IS being spoken about in reliable souces,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] might you not agree that a merge and redirect per policy instruction for such premature articles to either Transformers (film series)#Future OR Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Sequel per policy instruction for such premature film articles might be worth conideration? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for finding those sources, I changed my comment on the AfD. I have no idea of which article would better for merging. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. KarlB (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ViSalus Article

Thanks for the work on the ViSalus article. I see your tag and will be looking for additional references. In the meantime, please let me know what you think of the article. I saw it while doing research on Blyth, Inc. and see that they purchased the company. The old article that was submitted I was able to get a copy of (read like an affiliate site). Either way, let me know what you think of the posted revision. --Morning277 (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I have noticed that the article lacks the history of how the founder (heroically) saved the company from the worlwide financial crisis[50]. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get that information incorporated into the article. He does have his own Wiki page so I will incorporate some from that with the addition of what he did with ViSalus. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

J. Marvin Herndon

Hi, Enric. My inexperience here perhaps will be evident. There are some wiki complications that I would like be able to speak (email) about with one knowledgeable of the wiki system. There are general considerations and a specific concern as well, namely as to why the article "Georeactor" was removed. Contact by email would be helpful. In advance, thanks for your attention. Marvin Herndon (talk) 17:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Marvin Herndon

I will send you an email. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

hmm just a office in caymens island or what did happend to this stuff ?

hi you was in the new utopia article but suddenly quiet in the discussion page any idea what happened to new utopia ? the official website did say that in did start construction now maybe it should be update the wikipeida artickel but at the same time it need to update its pasport infomation... the links have not been updated to maybe its should be added in the wiki artick? l I also found by look up new utopia citizenship or something like that a investors bank in Antigua get closed because of fraud was used to transfer fees and money by the new utopia project... one of the owner of the domain name was made bankrupt in Florida fort Meyers court if it get sued for fraud in Florida why did the charter citizens get their office in Cayman island (that shows in the YouTube video )now when Cayman island can give information abut Americans convicted of crime ? when many of the cariben island did give clients lists the last 5 years why did not charter citise get there money back (if it is a fraud) because look like many of them(investoer/conslats/govounoers have money offshore? got sued ? what happen to charter citizens? Investors’ did sue them for fraud and made the project somewhere else ? because all the business /project did stop in 2007/2008 and the site did move to Florida then to uk (just look it the dictionary that was the domain name ) sorry for my bad enghlis82.147.38.2 (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)murkaiam sorry if i typed this before start ti be a bit and sunny here in europe :)

I'm afraid that the charter citizens lost their money. You remember when he got sued by the SEC? The judge said that Lazarus should return the money. But Lazarus was too poor to pay it, so he got away without having to return any money to investors.

Also, some other guy tried to build in the Misteriosa bank, using some sort of oil rig thing. He had it blown by a hurricane before he could place it[51]. If Lazarus tries to build there, he is going to run into lots of problems.

And, of course, the government of Honduras is not going to like that someone is setting a new country so near their coast. It could become a source of troubles, and the new country could make territorial claims, and eat into Honduras sovereignity. And it could be used as base of operations by rival nations, or taken by pirates, and the pirates could then attack passing ships. If Lazarus builds anything, it's very likely that a nearby government takes over the construction site. This article is very interesting. It explains the problems with micronations.

All in all, I seriously doubt that Lazarus ever builds anything. I think that investing money in his project is like throwing money to the fire. It's beautiful, but you get nothing solid.

hi what abut this if you look this foks up (eh sorry for bad enghlis and eh puns :) mayeb you get more facts http://web.archive.org/web/20040123024638/http://www.new-utopia.com/

and this http://web.archive.org/web/20031221195119/http://www.mccbuilds.com/index2.cfm

yes to build a island that use a russian constuction comapny fram a tax heavn is at best risky :) but can you look this foks up since as a usa you porbely beeter acces to places too look for them me ? hmmm do you think that 3600 ppl (if not the whole think are totaly made up... )of rugged indvulist capitlsit walk away from there mony ???can it be that they get sued a place that dont have income taxs and those foks like it that way and let the mony stay therte ;)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.189 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can get a recent source talking about New Utopia, then you can add it to the article. But we don't usually add stuff without a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not from the USA, I am from Spain.

Suing companies takes a lot of money. Those people who lost the money probably don't want to lose even more money. They are now selling property [52], and the Charter Citizenship is just a free give-away when you buy property. To sue, you need to demonstrate that the New Utopia propietaries never intend to start construction of those properties. This could be difficult to prove. You probably have to prove intention to commit fraud or something similar.

If a investor is gullible enough to invest in New Utopia, then are probably gullible enough to keep waiting for years while the owners of New Utopia keep making promises of future construction. Maybe they have a clause saying that they won't start construction until they have a certain amount of money.

By the way, their page says that Lazarus died in 26th April 2012? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

soryy a bit messy replay but this guy dont look poor just look new utopia on youtube... yhe new utopia website says he are dead a prove a farud are not to say to sec your pennylsees but have a office in caymensiland and can affored to go there (ther are probely not cheap there...) a fraud in itself ?

i did look on a form of pasport of a frind it did not have any agreemen abut time tabel just check if you wanted bussnis or house (the was a notice on the abut 2002 new utopia webiste (a proof that they got sued ?)that they could not promise anything but it was not there in the 2004 and beyond website hmm guibel if they not allredy settelt outside court somwhere and theyn sued later by class action in outside usa his office was in caymen his trust was in belize and the counstrcution comapnys did have adres in texasa and florida is it not fraud to promis constrction by a date and a membership orgazation (i guss thats what micornation are that have fancy membership cards)thats promis to build and close dowen the citizenship program first by 1400 memebers then by 3000 members and then by 4000 members? when they change there bussnis paln and what they want to cosntruct are not that allso a fraud ?flordia did make the infmation actarnes act(a stronger version of patroit act/anti terroer/fraud act )so i think they have good tools to use if they want... you can use the way back machinne and you willl look that they change ofen (the new utopia flotilla company but the adres changhe twice was sued they guy was in court papers online in north florida court for banckrupice closeed dowen the comapny and mved back to tulsa look like on the website )since lazerus moved form oklhahoma to a probely more expensiv state ( fort meyer then too sarisota or somthing like that in florida he must have mony somwhere ) hmmm guilbel will not a aritielc in a boradsheet like indepentent/times/guardien/dallas morings post (i guss a sd reputaityon as el pasi and el mondo??)be realisitc ?its not a tabloid newspaper and the boardsheet are not read by with trash or those that want to earn money fast...

they did look for main bilogys and tax lawyer and ennginerigers in abut year 2000 (even if only 5 % citizens are i means abut 150 ppl that are university and phd foks this are good eductated ppl they will not by fraud and not strike back, some of the so called conslates did say its a fraud and they allso have insed info too bew usefull in court case....

not hard too proove i think when those constction build and golf and hotels comapnys that suposed to build are at best newliy start trust in tax hevans/ a hotmail adres and resdientl adreses or inisit they have a mulitbillion planb but have a office in a waht look like a watorage house on gogel map thaht would nto been hard to provwe . a certian bharing breivik did have fake passport and school diploma bussnis but got closed dowen in florida for id fraud will not not sombody sell pasports that actuly promis to build a place allso be the same ? hmm how many of this investoers are from ppl that have nothing to lose ?reffuges and freedom fighter ? after 16 years they also probely do somthing else now and have saved up or build there way up somwhere else so they have time and mony to invest .. im not sure alle the investoer do this oute of greed or stupidetey that can be that they nothing to lose just look at ajamn project in uae a lots of middel class (to us poor?) invested in aperments in buildings in the new planned citys of a emirate becuse they could get visa and work premitt in a uae state (but the sheik closed dowen the whole thing and now they want to sue ) ppl did allso invest in duabi not all of those proejct got eh a flying start they sue or they get comapnys to change ther aperments/offices to projects that are going to be build , a gated comunity in nevada was got sued becuse he did not bild his gun owners (shooting range rhigt to carry armens ) paredise but failed,

if you are a higer middel europen class you maybe dont care but if your 1500 was 2 years salary and can join some amricans law erperts that lost 200 0000 on a investment and put that into a projects that got build on the pices of new utopia (bunch of contatcs, ideas, enrtuopners and ppl) a agted comunity somwher or permant resident deal in a conutry like honduras or samoa just look at freesatte proejct usa end up i 3 difrent projects (wioming montana new hampsire, paulvill as got a projects in texas and nevada and seasting got 2 proejcts offshot one in blize and one colmbia a other is blusead or what it was called a ship that have permenat ressident geeks oustide silicon vally to me 3700 some of them would do the same ? sorry got a bit long :)82.147.33.189 (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)murakaimi

IMHO THIS http://web.archive.org/web/19991104104005/http://www.new-utopia.org/plan.html and this http://web.archive.org/web/20010721220305/http://new-utopia.com/ look very difrent from waht they promis now ... fraud ? (just read the constuion and the info artickels .... look like they moved from a gated comunity in a nomral island tax heavn too some kind of dubai mixed whit nevada and alabama/the south/redneck laws that it are now... would not that make unhappy cousntmers ;)82.147.33.189 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)murakaimi

like asking for a lawsuite

just look at thise form ther website

Anyone with expertise in the areas of law, banking, insurance (including re-insurance), architecture, engineering (all disciplines), sciences, medicine, marine biology, law enforcement, customs and immigration, and who would like to be a part of this grand undertaking are invited to E-mail info@new-utopia.com or write to:

http://web.archive.org/web/19991104120951/http://www.new-utopia.org/principles.html refferance

and then make the exucse that ther invesment deal was in a computer in investement gruop that could affored office space in world trade center that not had a backup somwhere(1. if you can affored a ofiice there you will backround check the invmesntements paln and not invest in a project dealyed 4-5 times that operated form a post box 2. who investment bank that havea office in a well know new york building dont have backup tape and copyed bussnis matrial somwhere else...)82.147.33.189 (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)murkami

But they can only be sued by a) the investors, or b) the government, acting in behalf of the people.

By the way, that artist rendition is awesome. The buildings are so low that the waves of any small storm will flood the first floor of every building in the city. Imagine what will happen in big storms. Or hurricanes. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

will not they use the alredy statement from the sec to sue them ? i guss a charter citizens would be a inevstoer?

eh could you anwser my quastins since they was real quastines pilosphycal quastins not just statmens whit quasteins markes

murkamaim82.147.33.187 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea about that question. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm?

Hey Enric. I'm not here to give you a hard time, but just wanted to ask a question. I was a bit surprised by your comment at AE. To be honest, I only recall having one interaction with you, and it was one where I found your contributions constructive and helpful, and I came here to say so. I think I thanked you for reading books or something. If you ever feel that I am somehow not sufficiently nice, or you want to talk through something, or whatever, let me know. I think I may not always be too cognizant of how I come across maybe. Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I was kind of baffled at being called a wolf too. Any further explanation or examples of where I have behaved improperly (or wolfishly) would be welcome. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure "sheep" is the most descriptive analogy... perhaps "Sheepdog" or "Alsatian" might be more appropriate. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • There is always a place in my hearth for Pyrenean Mastiff. If only they didn't drool so much.... --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put dogs in a hearth. Dogs are not for cooking. Homunculus (duihua) 04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, this is the sort of thing that makes English-native people cringe when they read my additions to articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubious tag on RMT

You added the tags, so your input would be good at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recovered_memory_therapy#Dubious Thanks! --76.180.172.75 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm bowing out of the article at this point to avoid conflict that I have no faith would be justly dealt with. Thank you for your efforts to improve the article and for treating me like a real editor. I very much appreciate both. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

RFAR Perth opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful picture

A crop circle with the logo of Swedish Railways.

I realise that we have a slight difference of opinion. But can I just say that this picture is a beautiful addition to the article? It is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia both informative and a joy to read. Thank you. --Andrewaskew (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I was just lucky that someone uploaded the picture to Commons :) . There are more in commons:Category:Crop_circles. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Posters

Thanks Enric. This isn't about the MikeWazowski issue, I'm actually wondering something else: I recently created 100 Tears and I want to post an image on the page but I don't know how. Could you help? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(TI assume that you want to post the official poster of the film, or a DVD cover)

• First save the image in your computer, it you haven't already done so.

• Then go to the menu on the left side of all wikipedia pages. Under "Toolbox", click on "Upload file".

• You will be given a list of options. Choose "It is a cover or other page from a book, DVD, newspaper, magazine, or similar source" or "It is a promotional photo from an advertisement, press kit, or similar source" (they both go to the same page)

• In "source filename", click "choose" and find the image file in your computer.

• In "destination filename", put a descriptive name, for example "poster for 100 Tears film.jpg".

• In "summary", fill the data. Look at how it's done in File:Batman_ver2.jpg

• In "Licensing", if it's a cover choose "Promotional material", it's a DVD cover choose "DVD, Blu-Ray Disc, videotape, etc. cover". Make sure you pick the correct one!

If you still have problems with the templates, you can simply copy/paste the templates from File:Batman_ver2.jpg (to see the wikicode just click the "edit" tab), then put your own data.

(To post a screenshot, you can simply follow the same steps, but in the last step choose "Movie screenshot" as the license. But then you will have to justify that the image is relevant by finding "critical commentary" about that specific image, and using sources in the article to explain why the image is important. This is quite difficult, and the screenshot will probably be removed as "decoration". Most movie articles don't have any screenshot, like The_Day_After_Tomorrow. Even Avatar_(2009_film) has only a handful of carefully selected screenshots. Right now you shouldn't add screenshots, it would only land you into trouble.)

Tell me when you have uploaded the image, and I'll check that the templates are OK. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get my dad to help me on that. Oh, and one last thing: I've moved a few pages by cutting and pasting, and lots of people have been griping about how that's not the same as move. How does one move a page? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Enter your account and go to the page you want to move. On the top right, at the same height as "Article" and "Talk", there is a tab called "Move". Sometimes it's hidden, and you have to click in a little arrow that points down.

Once you have clicked, enter the new name in "To new title:" and the reason on the other field. Then click in "Move Page".

Some pages are protected against moves, or it refuses to move because there is a page already under the new name. Then you go to the talk page of the article and put there {{subst:Requested move|New name}} My reason for moving is , blah, blah, blah. --~~~~. Other people comment on the move, and a week or two later someone will close the discussion and move the page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh and another thing about movies: do associative producers belong in the "producers" section of a film's infobox, or is that just for producers and executive producers? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea about that. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sooo.... I don't get how the file upload page works--once you follow the upload steps, I don't see how you finish the process. It's this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&?withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js --this page looks different from how it did the last time I tried it, btw.The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see that you didn't upload any file yet. (I go to your talk page, then on the left side I go to "Toolbox", then to "Logs" [53]).

Wow, this must be a new process. Let's try again:

1. "Choose your file", pick the file from your hard disk.

2. "Describe your file", just put "100 tears promotional poster.jpg" without quotes. Then put a description in the other field ("This is a poster promoting the film 100 Tears.").

3. "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use.", click it.

4. "This file will be used in the following article:", put the title of the article 100 Tears.

5. "This is the official cover art of a work." Click it. A few extra fields will appear.

6. "Please select one...", open the list and choose "Movie poster".

7. "Author", put the name of the movie company.

8. "Source", put the website that you downloaded the poster from.

9. "This image will be shown blah blah blah". Check the box. There should be a little black tick Y inside the box.

10. "Please explain how the intended use of this file meets this criterion.", just write "Visual identification of the film for readers, using the material that promoted the film at the time."

11. "Upload". Click it and wait until if finishes. If everything was correct it will show you the new image page.

If the image is very big, (bigger than 1 megabyte), it might take a long time to upload, you have to wait until it finishes.

Good luck. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I finished. Check the link and see if it's OK. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful :)

(Only one small correction. I removed the "image size" parameter. Some people use phones to browse wikipedia, and they set a very small default size. If you fill the "image size" parameter, then the template can't use the default size. It's better to let the template determine the size by itself.) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for the info. I was just wondering: Battleship has a budget of $209 million, so I want to add it in to the list of most expensive films. But every time I try, it comes out all messed up. Do you know how to add one in? The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I did it. This is just a disguised HTML table. They are always difficult to make, specially when you have cells that span more than one row. The trick is using the attribute rowspan="2" to make a cell that spans two rows, then in the next row you have to include one less cell to compensate.

In other tables you will see the attribute colspan="X", to span several columns. It has a similar trick: you have to remove extra cells from the row to compensate for the spanning.

See this tutorial [54]. Of course, real men read the official specification from start to end [55] :-) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have one last favor. Could you add Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides to the list? It has a budget of $250 million, but the reference is the box office mojo, so it's not an "officially acknowledged figure". I am trying my best to figure out how to make the boxes, so I may not need your help anymore after this. Thanks! The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Noncontroversial moves?

Enric, at Talk:Chief_mechanical_engineer#Requested_move.2C_re-opened you seem to suggest that a move of List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway to lowercase the CME job name might be controversial. If that's how you feel, perhaps we'll need RMs for those. It would be easier if you'd agree with everyone else that it's not controversial. What say? Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

But it is controversial. If your argument was not controversial then it would be easy to downcase all those "List of Presidents of X" in Category:Lists of presidents. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you are the only reason it's controversial, I think, so I thought I'd ask. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've started by fixing List of presidents of Galicia. Is there any reason to think this one would deserve a capital? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course, you can always resort to moving every article in the category except the one that you can't move (List of Presidents of the United States), then claim "consistency" to move it. But I think this borders sneaky tactics.

Anyways, the closer of the RM explicitly said to open a move RM to move the lists. I quote "moved, with the caveat that there is no consensus to move the subsidiary list articles – they should go through their own RM" So, I have moved back that article, since it's the plural of a capitalized name. Please start a RM to move those articles and let people comment, instead of trying to reach around and make the moves via the backyard.

If this is so uncontroversial, then you can start a RM in Talk:List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States and get consensus very easily. Once that one article is moved, all the other should be easily moved. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Enric Naval. You have new messages at Talk:Piri Reis map.
Message added 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

sorted, my apologies for not having fixed this earlier. We need more mainstream sources on this Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This [56] copied from a 1966 book is copyvio, right? Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. I used www.tineye.com to find more websites that use the same image. This website claims that it's from Charles Hapgod Earth's shifting crust: a key to some basic problems of earth science, 1953. This might be used under fair use, since Hapgod's claim are what made the map famous among pseudohistorians and their followers. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need to ask Moonriddengirl, we don't link to sites that contain copyvio, and we certainly couldn't use that much material in our article and call it fair use. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hum, I have a few books that criticize Hapgod's analysis of the map. I'll see if I can add them over the next days. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan

What do you mean by "edits that go against sources, strange unexplained removals" [57]? Did you view the references like I did? It appears that you didn't because if you did you wouldn't have reverted me.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Hi. I have been tracking down most of the missing citations for this article. Could you please add the citation for Close 1993? You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see problems with the harvard templates... Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The citation only had an incorrect year. I have added that script to my common.js.

I'll try to remove some of those ref=CITEREFxxxxxx parameters. Most of the time they are the result of me and others fumbling around, trying to make the references work by trial and error :) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hum, what is the difference between Template:sfn and Template:harvnb? Is there any benefit for switching to sfn? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick update. This tidying up was prompted by IRWolfie's comment at Talk:Cold_fusion#Referencing_Style. Probably good to join that discussion before any major reorganisations, but tidying up the explicit CITEREF parameters is something else which will be generally helpful anyway. What you have just started to do is fine for single-author references, for multi-author references you need to list the first four with each harvnb call (for example {{harvnb|Reger|Goode|Ball|2009|pp=814–815}}).

sfn wraps harvnb in ref tags so the wiki source is shorter when the inline points to just one citation. It also consolidates inlines to the same citation and page range fully automatically, so there is no need to worry about when to use named references. That is the major advantage. The CF article currently uses {{citation}} which does not end in a full stop. Changing that would certainly require agreement on the talk page, until then we should use {{sfn|ps=|...}} to suppress the full stops in the short form inlines. The current use of harvnb where there is other text or more than one short form in an inline reference is fine. --Mirokado (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I removed most CITEREF. I have a few corner cases. For example, in Saeta 1999, we are quoting only one of the authors. Maybe we should uniformize all the refs and mention the specific author in "loc=". In some of the refs the author is "US Department of Energy". I'll try to fix this. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

For the Department of Energy, the harvard documentation suggests organisation initials, so for example: |ref={{harvid|USDE}} in the citation and {{harvnb|USDE|etc}} for the short forms. I'll have a look at Saeta now. Nice recent changes. --Mirokado (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll use USDOE. But I'll wait until later, to avoid edit conflicts. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead with USDOE now if you like, it will take a while to sort out Saeta et al and I will try to avoid colliding with your edits (often lots in a row, I have noticed!). For that I will make an update and you or others will be welcome to tweak further or whatever... --Mirokado (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Monavie article and talk page". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, with this [58] I would consider that to be a large BLP claim to attribute to an unreliable self-published source (the other source has just repeated the claim but not verified it it seems). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I found a better source [59]. But I think that maybe we should leave the New Energy Times because it's cited by Science Insider, it has details that can be interesting for the reader that wants to know more, and it has some of Taleyarkhan's replies. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)