User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Homeopathy

Just a heads-up: I've added the Arnica example. See what you think. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I made some changes to the caption, and I think they should make any OR issues moot.

Only very tangentially related: I have closed the AN discussion for now. I really appreciate your efforts, and I would be happy to discuss any issues that might come up here before reopening the AN discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee

Well, he did cross out the section when I asked. It's probably best to just drop the past, and I'll promise to keep an eye on all further discourse (at least on Talk:Homeopathy), and you can tell me if there's any other problems.

I'd rather do this as mediation, if possible, as I do firmly believe both of you are trying to act in good faith to improve the article, if from very different perspectives. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking something out without showing any sign of understanding why it was wrong in the first place, and setting up a straw man ("ambiguous") in a discussion with a mediator, are not what I would call encouraging signs.

Sorry, but "dropping the past" is not an option that I can accept. Formal mediation (if that's what you mean) might be one, but I am not wasting my time on that before anyone has given me any clue as to how I can explain Fyslee's bizarre behaviour and still respect him. Call me intolerant, but I cannot respect adults with a 100 % lack of self-critical insight. (I am assuming he is an adult or close to it because he has been editing for more than 3 years.)

For some reason (which has to do with an earlier mediation attempt I made elsewhere) I was under the impression that Fyslee is an admin. I just realised this is not the case, which makes his unpredictability much less dangerous than I thought. Nevertheless he has brought me to the point where I am making this a test case for deciding whether I want to continue contributing to this part of Wikipedia. See my earlier request to Verbal at User talk:Verbal. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your comment in the talk page of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. I could realize global sense about this problem well. I only knew the Japanses's side, I wanted to know other side. (Realizing is not my purpose of this discuss.) Best regards.--9 hits (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)--(and if you (IPUser-san) watch this, thank you, too.)--9 hits (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your very constructive attitude. I can imagine that common Western positions to this must be puzzling for you, just like common Japanese positions are puzzling for us. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No respect, no harmony. We don't need to assimilate. We can make harmony and cooperation, if we can respect the differences of each other. Understanding is the first step for it. I think it is almost same in WP. --9 hits (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

orsakovian method

Hello. Korsakovian principle of dilution is a redlink, could you redirect to the appropiate article and add there a note on what is it exactly? (you mentioned the method here) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, forget it, I redirect it to Semen Korsakov#Homeopathy --Enric Naval (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your input is welcome

I saw your comment here. Your input and edits are requested here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that's funny. I got your message while reading User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite/Date linking RfC, which was already on my watchlist. Now I am puzzled: What's the purpose of that new page? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

"Date linking RfC" is the background page i.e., history of dispute, lists advantages/disadvantages in detail; it serves as kind of an FAQ and glossary of terms with a few proposals thrown in). User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Draft RfC is the actual skeleton structure of such an RfC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivility

Incivil edit summaries, like this one are not acceptable and should not be repeated. Hipocrite (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

To refresh your memory: ScienceApologist is a convicted sockpuppeteer who later forgot logging in so often that the question whether by doing so he was breaking an injunction became a major issue. I don't remember how it was resolved, though. There is no chance that he thought that his accusations against Colonel Warden had any merit, so he was obviously just stirring shit. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Found it [1] [2]: "You are not to edit in the topic area of pseudoscience, broadly interpreted, or on pseudoscience-related topics, without logging in using the agreed user account, and if you do make any edits as an IP, they should be promptly signed (or otherwise confirmed) with your account. An occasional accidental lapse may be forgiven, but if you continue to edit these areas as an IP editor, in a way that suggests deliberate carelessness or indifference about logging in, other blocks may be imposed (on both the IP(s) and your main account)." Since even he was told explicitly that "an occasional accidental lapse may be forgiven", defacing an established editor's user page [3] for a single logged out edit was pure disruption. I think under the circumstances my formulation "this has already been laughed out of WP:SI" when referring to this ("most certainly NOT abusive sockpuppetry") was well within reasonable bounds. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: There was a second frivolous sockpuppet report against Colonel Warden by Orangemarlin, for another single edit from the same provider. Colonel Warden very obviously doesn't edit from the same time zone as the two IPs. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Apothecaries' system

Hi Hans Adler, I have some books now (bought & borrowed) and I made a few minor changes to this article, just two in-line citations. That was hard work, so I awarded the article GA-status. Congratulations on your work.Pyrotec (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. I am not convinced that this was technically justified, but I am not going to complain and WP:IAR is policy for good reasons. Thanks for your contributions. Zupko and Skinner are two sources that I didn't use, but I just checked that they are available in my library. Would you recommend borrowing one of them, or both, for improving the article? --Hans Adler (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got both of them on loan until 31st March so I was going to do a bit more work on in-line citations. I would recommend both books. Gemmill & Mayhew (1995) only has a single chapter on weights & measures, I've also got that until 31st March. Linacre is good, its list price was £12.99, but for the £5 (plus postage) I paid it was a bargain. Half of Zupko is Appendices, but he has footnotes on every page. Skinner has a lot of detail, but no references or footnotes. Linacre has a two page bibliography and has been using "good" sources.Pyrotec (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hi. I was re-reading your comment at AN/I and it occurs to me that you might consider refactoring words such as "hooligan" and "childish". Thanks for listening. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider one of these two descriptions to be incorrect? For me being a hooligan means "supporting" a team mindlessly and violently, and in such a way that you bring the team into disrepute and get into conflict with the law. This seems to be an accurate description for Orangemarlin's behaviour. As to "childish", I am not a native speaker so I may have got some nuances wrong. Would "immature" be better? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for considering and discussing my comment. I make no comment as to accuracy or inaccuracy; I'm not even considering that question. I consider it to be about more than that. Do you consider it polite to go up to a fat person and say "You're fat, you know!" It would be accurate, but would it be OK to say that? We are enjoined by policy to "comment on content, not on the contributor." When I notice a comment about an editor, for example an adjective or descriptive noun applied to the editor, which I believe would be unwelcome to that editor, I generally post a comment such as I just posted above. Anything that we really need to say in order to discuss and manage the writing of the encyclopedia can be expressed in terms of behaviour and in impartial language. "Childish" and "immature" are generally considered derogatory, while "childlike" can be a compliment; (incidentally, I bemoan the language's lack of an impartial (neither positive nor negative) term for the concept_. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, we cannot completely avoid discussing editors, and ANI is one of the places for doing it. In this case the main problem with the two editors is that they are themselves currently engaged in very little other than discussing other editors, and in situations where it's not appropriate and it only serves to avoid on-topic discussions that threaten their article ownership. Orangemarlin is clearly the more problematic of the two. I supported him after the absurd secret Arbcom case against him, as a matter of principle. After that incident he pulled himself together for a while, but recently he has fallen back into his old ways. By now I am convinced that he is not willing, or perhaps unable, to change his behaviour sufficiently to make him a net positive for the project. Probably something fundamental like insufficient attention span or insufficient frustration tolerance.

I also think that I have a moral duty to express my opinions on these editors in this situation where several people, but especially Unomi, are suffering from their unfair attacks. I think your metaphor doesn't fit. In some situations we have every right in the world, and in fact a moral obligation, to walk up to someone and say: "Stop hitting that child!" Or, more to the point, to call the police and say: "There is someone beating a child here." Unfortunately some of the fundamentalist "pro-science" editors are running amok since it was clear that ScienceApologist would be temporarily banned. Probably the martyr effect. If all of this seems a bit incoherent it's because I should really be in bed. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Stop hitting that child!" is a statement about behaviour and is (arguably) expressed in neutral terms. The person might agree that they are in fact hitting the child. (Or they might possibly say "I wasn't hitting! I was only spanking!" or something.) But who would admit that they are a hooligan or that they are childish? These are subjective terms that can't be proven and that people are unlikely to accept as statements about themselves. The person is unlikely to learn from the statement but will just deny it. Statements like "You reverted 3 times" or "you did X after someone had asked you not to" or "you started 3 threads which took up the time of 20 editors" etc. are in impartial language and the person can't really argue that they're not true. If you look at arbitration decisions passed by votes of arbitrators you'll see that they are almost all about behaviour expressed in impartial, unarguable terms; they tend to be in my opinion a good example to follow. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tend to rationalise this by saying that I mirror other people's bad behaviour when I am angry about them. Theoretically it's plausible that an editor who is told "you are a hooligan" should learn that it's not helpful to say "you are a sockpuppet" or "you are a POV-pusher". In practice this rarely if ever works. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's not a good strategy (over and above the fact that it would entail sometimes violating policy). What if everyone did that? Mirroring the other person's bad behaviour, but because perceptions differ, often the mirrored behaviour which seems to one person to be equivalent to the other person's behaviour will seem to the other person to be slightly worse (or, often, a lot worse). And then they mirror that perceived worse behaviour back again, etc., etc. That's called "escalation", (not to be confused with escalation up the steps of WP:DR), and if it gets you where you want to go then your goals must be a lot different from mine. Here is what I think is a better idea. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said: "this rarely if ever works". It's not what I want to do, it's what is easiest to do. Actually I do try to follow the method you recommend, but I am not perfect. I am certainly trying to follow it with the user conduct RfC that I am preparing (see below). If you don't mind I may ask your opinion about that when I feel it's more or less ready. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution FAQ

Thank you. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin RFC

You said on Unomi's talk page that you would begin a User Conduct RFC on Orangemarlin "once the dust settles." The discussion at the aspartame controversy has been placed on hold for the RFC's sake among a number of reasons. I would begin the RFC myself, but I don't quite know how. Tealwisp (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have the same problem. It's important that we cross all t's and dot all i's, since his personal friends and the other uncritical "pro-science" editors will likely try to shut it down for formal reasons. I will have to do some reading before starting this, and I think we shouldn't rush it. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the conditions for user conduct RfC is that it must be "certified" by two users who previously made a serious attempt at resolving the conflict. In my opinion this is a mere formality because one of the problems is that Orangemarlin does not respond to attempts at dispute resolution in a constructive way. On the other hand everybody always thinks that it's a mere formality, and that's no excuse not to take it seriously. Making the entire community discuss an individual editor is a serious step and must not be taken lightly.

Here is my plan. I am going to analyse Orangemarlin's behaviour over the last year or so to identify the most serious problems and so that I can describe them well and with the best evidence I can find. Then I will try to phrase everything constructively. (Like most people I must force myself to do that; see section #Comment above.) I will approach Orangemarlin on his talk page, giving very specific feedback and making very specific requests. If this doesn't work I will try to get an Arbcom member involved (a new one, for reasons that are obvious if you were around last summer), or a similarly respected editor. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank both of you for taking the time to help resolve this issue. If there is anything I can do I would be more than willing, however I feel that it would be best if neutral parties such as yourselves bring attention to the problems to avert allegations of 'harassment' on my behalf.Unomi (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call myself neutral. But it's true that I don't have a current, deep-rooted conflict with him. Merely a (possibly mutual) belief that he is severely hurting the project. You can help by looking at Orangemarlin's past contributions and looking for patterns of disruptive behaviour. I believe in principle it's admissible to document this kind of research on a page in user space or user talk space, strictly for the purpose of preparing an RfC. But I think it's not wise to do that as it tends to lead to further drama, often starting with WP:MfD. Therefore if you want to do this I suggest doing it off-wiki and exchanging your findings with me by email.

What I am doing in practice is the following: I open the form for a new page in my user space, write everything there, and use only the "show preview" button. This allows me to use all the usual markup. Since I have the Lazarus plugin installed in Firefox (it automatically saves all information entered into web forms and makes it easy to retrieve it later, even different versions) I am unlikely to lose my work. Since I have activated the user option that nags me when I try to submit something without edit summary, I am unlikely to submit the page inadvertently instead of previewing. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on his talk page, I also have concerns with User:Orangemarlin's interactions with others (especially should they arbitrarily dismiss the other person as a "troll" or whatever).

That said, due to the venues that this user tends to frequent, (and also due to the potentially tendentious editors that this editor has therefore interacted with - who may have "other" motives), I have concerns about whether a resultant RfC will be neutral (or, for that matter, helpful) and not result in (devolve into) a free-for-all.

Whatever happens, I'd sincerely appreciate a "friendly notice" update.

Thank you in advance. - jc37 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, I will let you know. Also, I am not sure if Jpgordon is still mentoring OM, but I am planning to send my evidence for the RfC to him before putting it onwiki. (To OM as well, but I will be pleasantly surprised if I get any meaningful response from him.) But at the current pace it's going to take at least a wiki before I am finished. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just see that your message is one day older than I thought – sorry for the delay, this may be the first time I hade responses in two different sections at the same time. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The two-editor requirement is met, I think, by the fact that both Unomi and I tried to resolve the issue in the mediation case and were met by the same response.

Also, I appreciate the dedication you have to the Project, Hans, especially when it comes to delivering justice, as you did here. I would give you a barnstar, but I don't think there is one that fits. Tealwisp (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But it looks like the RfC isn't going to happen anytime soon. Orangemarlin was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, and hasn't returned by now, 2 1/2 days after the block expired. I think it makes no sense to greet him with an RfC immediately after returning, and I am not going to start one unless I feel that events after his return make it necessary.

BTW, I was surprised to see that this was only his third block, with the other two followed by unblocks. I have sampled 12 of his editing days throughout 2008, and there seems to be a clear pattern. I am not sure if I have exactly the right description, but it's something like: He was very nice, patient and cooperative in situations where he apparently felt in control, but fell into communicating only by reverting and abuse when he felt there were ideological differences. On Talk:Evolution you can see that the effect can be quite disruptive.

His habit of reverting only once every few days, but then to the version of his previous revert without any regard for even the most obvious improvements that happened in between, and of not saying what it is he objects to, leads to his opponents regularly getting strongly negative feedback for good edits. I vaguely remember having experienced this myself and having felt quite distressed. Since his revert density per page is very low, he is almost invulnerable, and if it wasn't for the support by ScienceApologist and the (currently very weak or non-existent) "pro-science" tag team one could safely ignore him.

I'd have to look a bit closer, but from my samples it appears there were a few months last year where I can generally say only positive things about him. This seems to have started after his block. Together with the current lack of enablers for his negative side, I am very hopeful for the next months. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

if it quacks like a duck

"I am sure I am not the only editor with a firm science background who is sick and tired of seeing these editors' confrontative tag-teaming and complete failure to communicate in a meaningful way, each time they are confronted with a new user they don't agree with. It is my impression that they often prevent discussion and proper framing of notable fringe opinions in articles where it belongs, by refusing to discuss anything but the editors who propose such discussion. I am sure if these editors were editing under their real names they would be more careful, because there would be a real chance for them to hurt their real-life careers with their recklessly sloppy approach to writing about science. The fact that a large number of "pro-science" editors support each other in this misbehaviour doesn't exactly help, either."

Yes, it's beyond belief that one cannot write a factually accurate scientific article on en.Wikipedia because its anti-pseudoscience quacks consume so much energy and spew so much bad faith in trying to get their quackish anti-pseudoscience platforms in all of en.wiki article space they can possibly imagine.

This is my latest example of a useful and sufficient addition, by another editor, that is being replaced by two paragraphs of garbage by one of the anti-pseudo science quacks:

"The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community."

They are not anti-pseudoscience in my opinion, they are just quacks, exactly the same as the pseudoscientists.

--KP Botany (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. "Even if both hypotheses did an equally good job, many scientists would nevertheless reject Flood Geology"??? Wow. The evil conspiracy of anti-Christian scientists. "The scientific community contends"??? "Flood Geology supporters are accused"??? I am not a native speaker, but to me that's an implicit assertion that this rubbish is taken seriously. This may make sense in the US, but from a global view it's simply not true. Are we here on Conservapedia, or what? I would have seen this sooner or later since I am in the process of preparing a user conduct RfC on Orangemarlin.

For a moment I thought he had replaced the "key tenets" sentence with this, but even so: Flood geology#Evidence against a global flood does an excellent job of debunking this belief. Such a poor second attempt to do it once more only detracts from that and gives creationists the subjective choice between two sections to attack. Of course they choose the weak one.

I think you may not have been involved much with the community here outside your field of expertise when this page was still alive. It may have been a major factor in the organisation of the unqualified "pro-science" mob. It would be nice to have a similar place of congregation for the scientifically minded editors. I believe the key point is awareness of what's going on. We all need to mutually watchlist our talk pages, as well as some key pages such as the fringe noticeboard. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you could speak kindergarten English and see the garbage for what it reeks of: nonsense.

I don't edit in my field of expertise because it's been taken over by people who took one course on the subject in college or, more likely, a weekend seminar (my expertise is in a technical area), and revert my researched and referenced additions to articles based upon their "experience."

I used to dabble in my other area of expertise, but, the anti-pseudoscience quacks are rampant there. Mind you, I'm an historical researcher, naturalist, and study evolutionary biology and paleontology, and primarily add brief details, write up obscure scientists, and reference articles on Wikipedia, so when I tried to add a sentence that said something along the lines of, "the plant became known in parts of Europe with the publication of a Latin herbal on mesoAmerican medicinal herbs," and got put in my place for it, I left that area to the quacks.

By the way, OrangeMarlin does not tend to accurately quote his sources. Like the pseudoscience ducks's "research" and "references," all of the ones of his that I've checked have been poor and obvious misinterpretations, or simply not in the article. He'll even use quack articles to make his points, like the "memory of water" which deserves no place on Wikipedia.

Experts get chased away also because quackery masking as anti-pseudoscience is more important than science on Wikipedia. And, no matter how much the quacks claim it is so, the scientists are not spending their time refuting pure crap like Flood Geology. There's nothing to refute.

I suspect and RfC will result in the usual group of non-experts gathering around and supporting the continued inclusion of speculation that non-science can become science and that if it becomes science scientists won't believe it like that incredible piece of garbage you quote above. Don't forget, there are no limits to the fear of knowledge. --KP Botany (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nasal Irrigation

Sorry to say I am not a physician, but my mother would be pleased you think I am. I am obviously biased I believe in this but no I am not who you think I am. I thought it was improper to assume someone’s identity on Wikipedia. To resolve this matter I have requested that a medical authority figure rule on the matter and the relevency of pulsating nasal irrigation within the article on Nasal Irrigation. I will abide by the decision as long as you will.--Grockl (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a heading for pulsating irrigation above your abbreviated edit. Is this acceptable to you? Would you object to the placement of the photo as there is one of other irrigation devices? I am trying to find a compromise we can all live with I am tired of this. Whats the alternative I keep adding my edit back and you keep removing it?--Grockl (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grockl (talk • contribs)

I did not respond to you earlier because you hid your comments between two unrelated sections. I just discovered what was going on and fixed the problem. Please use the little "+" button at the top when you want to start a new section on a talk page. If you add a talk page section by hand, add it to the bottom, where people expect new sections to appear.

I don't know why you insist on a separate section for this type of device. Perhaps because it affects the Google search rank? For now I have no problems with it, although it is ridiculous and likely to disappear when the article is rewritten to give it a more reasonable structure.

For anyone reading this who wonders what is going on, the background is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hans, Sometimes I feel like I live in an alternate universe when trying to discuss this with you but I will try to be civil and cooperative as you suggest as we try and come to some sort of resolution. Folks within this wierd, wonderful, frustrating, and less than accurate Wikipedia community have lots of names for folks who are experts in one particular area and lack neutrality but I have yet to see one for editors that try to own articles or demonstrate their own bias or ignorance on a particular subject. I think it is only right that an editor who continually objects to submissions be held to some standard of competence. Please allow me to respond to a couple of comments you have and continue to make:

1) While I may be guilty of being what you folks in the wikipedia community refer to as a WP:SPA because of my POV and attention to a single subject, wikipedia guidelines on this are as follows: "Some editors are concerned that contributions by SPAs have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards, thus conflicting with what Wikipedia is not. Other editors raise counter-concerns pointing to the need of the Community to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, thus being able to cite relevant reliably sourced publications. Identifying and interacting with SPAs requires both civility and tact."

2) Jala Neti is simply one form of nasal irrigation not the definition of nasal irrigation and has its own heading. Pulsatile Nasal irrigation is a popular, medically supported, and distinctly different form of nasal irrigation as such equally warrants its own section. The only thing ridiculous is your logic or bias that what is good for one application within the nasal irrigation article is not good for another. Your actions to date appear to me to be biased something I am accused of because of my POV which I have admitted. Your own bias merits challenge equally.

3) I am not a doctor

4)I am not a sockpuppet I simply choose to login and not sometimes.

5) Do you object to the picture of the pulsating nasal irrigator being included? You already have pictures of a commercially available neti pot and nasal wash bottle in the article.

6) Now for one last comment, since there are no medical experts or advisory board to monitor the information that is published in Wikipedia and the so called experts are actually derided for their contributions and lack of neutrality and POV regardless of the published medical reports that support the claims, many of which are not read in full or understood by the wikipedia Community and its editors. I suggest that regulatory oversight and warning labels by government agencies be required to communicate to the public that the "Statements and information contained in articles published by wikipedia and its Community have not been evaluated and this information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease". I plan to use my experience in this area to promote strict oversight to information passed along on wikipedia as an authority when it is clearly not but simply the POV of some editor who can literally be anyone especially in areas of health. While you continually question the references supplied you failed to even read them in their entirety probably because you do not have access to the full text because you are not a medical professional or researcher. As I have stated I am willing to abide by what we agree for now as I don’t have the time to go back and forth or try and convince you of something you fail to understand or care to.

I welcome your response.--Grockl (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be right about the alternate universe. Wikipedia is a separate universe, and you are clearly not part of it. Let me respond to your points:

1) Thank you for reading one of our policies, WP:SPA. Note that "users knowledgeable in a particular subject" refers to subjects, not tiny fractions of such. You have not demonstrated any potential value to this community. Also, note the word "relevant" in "able to cite relevant reliably sourced publications". As to civility and tact, this cuts both ways. Since you didn't react to subtle clues I had to be more direct, and you responded badly to that. That's hardly my fault.

2) The device depicted at the top of the article – I have no idea what it's called, although I have one – is not a neti pot, in my part of the world it's the most commonly used nasal irrigation device, and it doesn't have its own subsection. The article is in a very bad state, and after the rewrite that I have in mind the heading for the neti pot will be gone as well. The main difference is that we don't have an SPA with an obsession about neti pots who is going to attack me for that.

3) I never claimed you are a physician. An anonymous user repeatedly claimed that you are Dr Grossan and I told that user to stop. However, you have been arguing from an assumed position of authority while questioning another editor's competence based only on that editor's competence in an unrelated field. ("I am not going to debate a math teacher on the efficacy of a proven medical device.") That's a big error both of judgement and of wiki etiquette. Even worse: "Reading through some of these comments I appreciate the work you folks do to edit these articles, however, it seems to me it would be helpful to have editors with a medical background that can fully understand and put into context the medical references. Biofilm certainly does have a primary role [continued lecturing]." If you are not even a physician this comes dangerously close to claiming to be one, don't you think so? Still, I haven't made up my mind which it is so please stop complaining.

4) Nobody attacked you for sometimes logging in and sometimes not. The problem is, your IP address when not logging in was constant for a long time. Then suddenly two "other" anonymous editors from the same city and using the same internet provider as you supported you very uncritically on a low-frequency talk page. Immediately afterwards your IP address was different from the one before this incident. Don't you think that's a curious accident? Care to explain how that came about? – The outcome of my sockpuppet report against you was that your sockpuppeting was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, MBisanz, a very prominent, experienced and respected member of the community, has found that you are "a WP:SPA account pushing his POV" and that this was (at least) an instance of meatpuppeting. – If you continue on this road you will be banned from editing Wikipedia, which means that you will be indefinitely blocked, any new account identified as being yours will be blocked as well, and any anonymous edit identified as yours can be reverted regardless of merit.

5) I would not normally object to such a picture, although it does not add much value to the article. Currently I do object because you are on an obvious advertising mission with no regard for the interest of the encyclopedia.

6) I asked for an expert from WP:WikiProject Medicine. As a result, experienced editor WhatamIdoing, who appears to be a health professional, evaluated your citations. She found that most of them were completely irrelevant, as I had told you before. You chose to ignore (as in: not even respond to) that and continued to edit-war them in. – On the German language edition of Wikipedia, every health-related article has a prominent link to a page (de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen) which contains such a warning. I don't know why we don't have that here, but I consider it a good idea. However, I am not the person to address with such a request. If you want to pursue this, I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Help desk.

--Hans Adler (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

At the bottom of every page is a link to "Disclaimers". On the top of that page there are links to more disclaimers, including a Medical disclaimer. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. The difference is that on de there is an unobtrusive little banner template which is present on a large number of health-related articles. An English version of de:Vorlage:Gesundheitshinweis would look approximately like this:

Gesundheitshinweis

Please observe the medical disclaimer!

--Hans Adler (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometime during the last four years I actually did suggest that the Medical disclaimer be strengthened and displayed more prominently, but was immediately shot down. The page cannot be edited directly, but the talk page can be used. I wish you luck, since I too think it should be prominently displayed on all medical articles. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what more to say I have been as clear as I can and have offered several peer reviewed published medical reports in well regarded medical publications citing the efficacy of pulsating nasal irrigation directly and not any other cleansing applcation. With regards to the ancillary references on the efficacy of pulsating irrigation in other applications and their relevancy to nasal irrigation I cede to your concerns. However, many leading medical professionals do understand and appreciate the corellary benefit of these reports as well.

I am not sure why you failed to review them, I assume you did not have access to the full transcript and if you did perhaps would not understand it fully anyway. The other two contributors one of which you cited do not appear to be medical experts or physicians at least by their response. As I indicated I admit to my bias but most experts in a particular area are bias and do have an interest in that area. I have repeated my request for a medical professional to review the information provided. You have deleted many of the references I have supplied including the ones that are directly relevant to pulsating nasal irrigation. I am happy to provide them again so that any medical professional that is familiar with pulsating irrigation may comment.

here's just a few:

Pulsatile irrigator Irrigation with [Nasal] Adaptor is used for CF, Cystic Fibrosis Currents Volume 11, No 4 Clinical Study and Literature Review of Nasal Irrigation, Davidson, T., Laryngoscope 110: July 00

Management of Sinusitis: Current Clinical Strategies, Michael Kaliner MD and David W Kenned, MD, Sinusits Disease Management Guide. PDR 2000

Therapeutic Agents In The Medical Management Of Sinusitis, Mabry, R.L. In: Inflammatory diseases of the sinuses. Otolaryngologic Clinics Of North America, Volume 26, Number 4, pp 561, 1993.

Sinusitis: Acute, Chronic and Mangegeable, Rachelevsky G S, Slavin R G et all. Patient Care. Feb 28, 1997 Vol 131:4.

Sinusitis: Bench to Bedside, Part 2 Study of Sinusits Kaliner MA et al. Otolaryngology June 97 116:6

Pulsation Irrigation: a Simple, Safe Effective Treatment of Many Nasal Complaints, Pope, A., O.R.L. Digest August 1974 15:8 pp 3638.

I do not believe the medical disclaimer is anywhere near sufficient given the total absence of knowledgeable review in this area. I and hope others will work to solicit better editorial oversight by both research and medical experts and will work with US regulatory oversight to ensure that proper and sufficient medical disclosure is made.

71.156.53.160 10:45, 11 March 2009 UTC)--Grockl (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I reinserted the picture of the pulsating irrigator to be consistent with the other forms of irrigation being discussed and images portrayed since you did not seem to object when I asked previously. Was not sure how to format it so it looks better on the page given the abbrevated section resulting from your edits , perhaps you do. --Grockl (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

Thanks, Hans. your change is fine by me. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd

Thanks for fixing the things you did on Sea Shepherd. It still has some problems, but fewer. That's what we're here for, right? Thank you. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Sorry I crashed out of healthfulness just after nominating it, dagnabbit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the initiative. Are you better now? --Hans Adler (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy and overlinking

I don't know of any consensus on the issue. I personally prefer omitting all internal wikilinks from citations, as citations are supposed to be to external, reliable sources and the wikilinks give an inappropriate visual cue to readers as to which of these citations Wikipedia editors like. (Also, the plethora of blue text is offputting and confusing. :-) I understand that some other editors like it, though, and wikilinking the 1st occurrence is a reasonable compromise. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. In that case I would actually prefer no author links at all in such a long list of citations. Also, because the lede is definitely the part of this article that's being edited most, I think your compromise isn't going to work here in practice unless somebody specifically monitors this aspect. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi Hans, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. I try not to overdo it with userboxes. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)r

Is there any other way a person could read option #1? Like you (and everyone else?) I see it as option #4, plus the guideline to aid migration. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of another way to read option 1. That's why I am puzzled by what PMAnderson and Arthur Rubin are saying. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Psychics

I've made an alternative proposal for renaming Category:Psychics, and I thought you might like to read my remarks and respond in some way. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I feel there isn't really much that I can add. There are reasons for and against renaming, and it may be better not to touch this. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Errr, sorry for flooding that discussion with long comments. I got a bit overenthusiastic.... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

You're right of course, but I am rather frustrated lately with the amount of useless garbage put into articles by the anti-pseudoscience quacks. I started editing some of it last week, and it's completely hopeless. Still, you're right, not because SA may become a useful contributor (he might), but because it's pointless to engage at the same level. --KP Botany (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re this: SA made massive contributions to Redshift, and may have been the primary force in making it a featured article. Cardamon (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't around at the time, and of course I didn't go through all his contributions. The final, successful FAC seems to have a little dispute of the kind I was driving at, but I guess it dwarfed in comparison with the fringe dispute with Iantresman. But this example makes me think that perhaps I was too optimistic – perhaps there is two much fringe around for avoiding it completely, and once it gets into the same article as SA there tends to be a nuclear reaction. The experience I meant was heated disputes such as whether Leeds refers to the incorporated city or the settlement within the city. I think they can be very good training for AGF and for a constructive attitude when faced by what looks like unreasonable opposition. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so irritated at SA if I thought he couldn't write science articles. Or if I thought he didn't know exactly what he was doing putting preachy essays instead of information into article space. --KP Botany (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mühsam

I have answered your doubts on the Jamal page and guess I have been coming on a bit strong. Hope you don't mind too much--Radh (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kaffir

Do you know who he's a sock of? Clearly someones, but have no idea. If you have an idea, there's probably an admin who can clean it up quickly and quietly. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't got a clue. I emailed oversight, so I hope it will be sorted out with no fuss. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

rfa vote

I noticed your comment in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady, that some opposition is normal with noms for long-active persons, which is quite reasonable. However, I am one who oppose. I just added an "Addendum" to my Oppose vote at the RfA, including reference to User talk:Doncram/Archive 7#Reply to your comment on my talk page. Now I notice it was you who had helpfully intervened in that discussion. I wonder if your reviewing how that turned out, given your perspective about communication style, etc., might lead you to decide differently in the RfA now. Either way, I appreciate your opinion. doncram (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi there Hans, I've just granted your request. I'm sure you are already familiar with the guidelines but please do take a look at WP:RBK to be sure of the situations when you can and can't use rollback. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 13:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am actually most interested in WP:RBK#Custom edit summaries. I read it as saying that with Ilmari Karonen's script I can use it without worrying about anything other than getting the edit right. If there are any problems with the script I may in fact ask for rollback to be removed to prevent mistakes and simplify my user interface, since I rarely encounter vandalism. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Posting of email

Thanks for your note. I posted the email after that site and the mail was mentioned by Orlady herself. I would not have done that under other circumstances, because I appreciate everyone's privacy on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The reason I did that was not to be seen in a bad light. Although I oppose Orlady's adminship I found it only fair to let her know that her name is used in some questionable context. I sent her that email out of fairness not out of spite or for any other ugly reasons. That is what I wanted to make absolutly clear. Yes, I have disabled the email option. If there is something to say, I prefer it is said in the open if not very rare circumstances require more privacy. Thanks again! Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and RfA

Hans, I really appreciate your ways and your honesty. Here is something that is getting too much for me. Look at this diff, it shows so much: [4]. You bring the arguments in the edit summary why you deleted the content and your arguments are valid and to the point, so much to the point that I am happy to agree with you. But in the next edit, the deletion by someone else was accompanied by a summary that the edit was made by (one of 300 alleged) sockpuppets, and needs to be deleted "probably in total", that is like preparing the next step, complete annihilation of the rest of the article. Come on, that is too much and too general! If you bomb everything that "probably" sounds like a duck with canons, there will be many, many innocent victims who are not ducks. Half of Wikipedia would be gone in a second if "alleged" quacking would lead to deletion. Quack, Bang, Boom! Is that the way to go? Please let me know. I sort of trust you and your honest attitude. For the History of New Rochelle, New York I have suggested a possible solution to improve the article without nuking it off the planet completely, but by addressing the valid concerns point by point and solving them step by step in a civilized discussion. Do you think that is an reasonable request? doxTxob \ ^talk 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I had seen Orlady's edit, and my first reaction was "another instance of 'era of suburban living'?" – oh, I missed that. Your position also makes sense. You might want to have a look at these two Google searches. 19 hits for "era of suburban living", and 10 of them mention New Rochelle and are from Wikipedia or one of its mirrors. This may have been written innocently by an editor summarising the passage that was copied from the book. In this case it may not have been a copyright violation. But even then it was obvious plagiarism. Researching who added this passage takes a lot of effort because of New Rochelle's unusually long and convoluted edit history. And not all instances of copyright violations can be checked online, because not everything is on Google Books. If there is ever a court case against the Foundation because of copyright violations in this article, I believe the Foundation must prove that we have shown due diligence. This includes nuking every suspicious edit. One thing we could do, and your article split seems to be a good occasion, is rewrite everything from scratch, using the current article as a source but not plagiarising from it (plagiarising being what we usually do here, because it's more efficient and in our context it's normally proper). I think this would be much more effective than discussing each sentence separately. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolls

Hi Hans. I just now noticed your comment about my post on SA's talk page. SA and I have a history of collegial banter. I understand that sometimes a conversation can be perceived as something it's not, but I assure you that I was just saying hi and attempting to be humorous. I apologize if my comments were perceived in a way that I had not intended. I'm confident that if you contact SA he will let you know that I wasn't trying to make trouble or have a go at him and that he understood where I was coming from. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understood that a few hours after making my comment. Sorry for not getting the joke initially, when there weren't all that many clues. Do you want me to change my comment? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. My fault for being so sarcastic. Thanks for your reply and I apologize for getting you mixed up in any nastiness. I should be more careful about leaving crazy notes for people. I'm going to crawl back under my bridge now and wait for tolls. :) KIDDING, only kidding. :) Seriously though, it costs one wikicookie to pass... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

(Two templates removed)

I'm not sure if you realize that you have an unread message at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#Requested change to Monobook skin. -- IRP ☎ 01:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not unread. Our little dialogue seems to have reached the stage where we are talking past each other, so I saw no need to continue it. Let me try to be clearer: It makes sense that links to Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikibooks etc. should have no external links icon, no matter how they are addressed. But I found that currently links to some pretty dubious wikis have exactly the same inconsistency issue: Doom on a lottery machine vs. Doom on a lottery machine. This must be solved in the opposite direction. I suspect that most people simply don't use prefixes such as CrazyHacks: because they don't know about them. Your proposal would result in such external links appearing without the external links item, and I object to that.

You are also addressing a very minor issue (icon or not), when there are major usability problems left in this area. It's currently impossible to create links to diffs that go to the normal server when clicked on the normal server, and to the secure server when clicked on the secure server. Even the most basic thing doesn't work: Clicking a link to Wikibooks from the secure server takes you to the normal server. I object to minor tweaking bringing no clear improvements, and causing some degradations, of something that has much more fundamental problems. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Jumbled up mess of link types. You are invited to participate in the discussion. -- IRP ☎ 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Defecation. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. Yourname (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Defecation posture, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yourname (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page. This page is now off-limits for the user. [5] --Hans Adler (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw your edit summary and rushed over to ask you to reconsider leaving, but now I see it was a wasted trip. Oh well. Verbal chat 21:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I see I should have written "Bye, Yourname". I will try to remember this when I encounter the next troll of this kind. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

He's at it over at Human feces‎ too. Verbal chat 21:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have given User:Yourname a final warning about giving baseless vandalism templates and being generally disruptive by edit warring. If he continues he will be blocked again as the condition of his prior unblock was not to carry on with such nonsense: [6]. I hope this incident has not discouraged you Hans. Chillum 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That was my misreading of an edit summary. Hans isn't going anywhere. Verbal chat 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am in fact not easily deterred by crap, even though I could well do without it. I have a lot of practice with nappy-changing, and recently I learned the hard way that 4-year-olds can get temporary lactose intolerance, which leads to diarrhoea.

Thanks, Verbal, for lending a hand. It's always a nice change when we agree on something. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Intuitionistic logic Robert M. Solovay Type theory Logic in computer science Semantics of logic Complemented lattice W. Hugh Woodin Theory of equations Matthew Foreman Central simple algebra Signature (universal algebra) CCR and CAR algebras T-schema P-adic analysis Mathematical statistics Solomon Feferman Constructivism (mathematics) Barbara Taylor Bradford John C. Whitcomb

Cleanup Creation (theology) Universe (mathematics) Reaction to Darwin's theory Merge Elementary class Metamathematics Metalogic Add Sources Second-order logic Sabazios If and only if Wikify Error Rupert Riedl Science of Value Expand Alonzo Church Leftöver Crack On Numbers and Games

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Leftöver Crack??? The rest is pretty good. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi, Hans Adler, and welcome to WikiProject Bilateral relations! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the relations between two countries. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project. Ikip (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. Ikip (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:N/N

Hi, I saw your comment at AN/I. WP:Notability/Noticeboard was created back in January, but it doesn't have much traffic. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we need a notability guideline for pets?

It really should be named Minky (Hans Adler's cat). Or possibly just Minky (cat), as that name isn't taken. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. There is no guidance about this at WP:Naming conventions (fauna), so it should probably be rewritten from scratch. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! I propose that we split up the fauna naming MOS into individual per-phylum naming MOSes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the thread's main topic: I believe the notability guideline for pets should clarify that a pet is not notable unless its owner can be verified to exist in a non-trivial way. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start. But what about pets that are dressed up in little suits or dresses or hats? Those will be covered by the BLP policy. You know, Biographies of Little People. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

AN thread

I've started an AN thread regarding a matter where you were previously involved. You may wish to comment. Durova^Charge! 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Talk

Hans, thanks for the feedback – though I'd still say that there's a crucial distinction per your analogy. For instance, pseudoscience is a catch-all term for a number of things, but is restricted to unscientific methods passing off as science.

Whereas "Neo-Stalinism" is a catch-all term comprised of multiple completely distinct meanings, used as a generic insult against various ideologies and political people in very different ways. (Which is not only inherently POV but excruciatingly superfluous when there are objective categories to make use of.) PasswordUsername (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped to resolve, peacefully, conflicts on Wikipedia. This barnstar is awarded to Hans Adler, for his fine work on Foreign relations of Argentina by country. Your work will directly help resolve the Bilateral relations deletion wars. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't mind if I delete this in a few days, like the few other barnstars I got in the past. Anyway, I think if anybody deserves this thing then it's certainly you for patiently doing most of the work.

By the way, I think the table is a bit too big. What do you think about splitting it by continents? I think that has three advantages: 1) We lose the continent column. 2) The resulting tables are more manageable and probably create less display problems. 3) We have continent headings to which we can add relevant "further information" links if/when articles such as Argentina–Europe relations are created. On the other hand the columns of the individual tables won't align exactly, and if someone really wants to sort by establishment of diplomatic relations, they don't get the result in a single table. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete away :)

Libstar suggested the continent idea, the "diplomatic of..." page is order by continent too. I am indifferent myself.

what else you think we should remove?

Man, Foreign relations of Argentina by country is a real pain in the ass huh? I should be done today. I think afghanistan is next--which is easy, there are only 14 articles and one deleted article on wiki right now. Ikip (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys' distortion of sources and false accusations

Hans, firstly, thanks for your unbiased and objective point of view.

It seems that according to Wikipedia:Vandalism's list of types of vandalism sneaky vandalism includes both "adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes)" as well as "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." As far as Biophys' recent edits, he has twice deleted the Arno J. Mayer reference at Aleksandr Kolchak as well as misrepresented the Soviet encyclopedia source, which states that "25,000 people" were killed by Kolchak's forces – though given his POV and selective interpretation, he repeatedly transformed that into "25,000 Bolshevik rebels" through WP:SYNTH (see talk) – although this pales in comparison to the absolutely blatant misrepresentation of fact he perpretrated on the Novodvorskaya article. (My warnings to Biophys were only on account of his [frivolous deletion of the Mayer sources, although I also mentioned his tendentious assumptions as to just who those 25,000 victims of Kolchak were in my edit summaries.

Biophys now makes the claim on my talk page that I was reverting a bunch of his edits to "teach him a lesson." Nowhere did I say such a thing, unless he is reading into my words things that are not there. I frankly explained to him that his editing constituted sneaky vandalism per his malicious editing – including such frivolous edits to Kolchak as this.

The biggest travesty was what he did to the Valeriya Novodvorskaya article – my case is completely laid out on the Novodvorskaya article talk. There Biophys goes in completely changing the meaning of Novodvorskaya's own words – as supported by references from her own political organization – without, of course, bothering to give his own references for this inverted reality. This would be evident to any Russian-speaking Wikipedia user.

Would it be possible to get a Russian admin to take a look at the travesties Biophys has perpetrated with these Russian sources and give his/her position on this case? I wouldn't mind asking an Admin from to help out myself, but in the interests of neutrality, given my being a party in this case, doing this through a third party (if at all possible) would seem the fairest possible option.

What is your take on this situation? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You could try to get another Russian speaker involved, but I think it doesn't really matter whether it's an admin so long as it's a respected user. Or you could try posting at the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. And you should really read WP:VANDALISM#NOT and drop the vandalism red herring. Sneaky vandalism would be something like adding an obscene word in the middle of a paragraph; the important point is that there is no chance you can commit vandalism and not be aware of it. If Biophys removed "or tortured" from what the GSE says and turned "people" into "Bolshevik rebels" (I can't check this), then you are probably right it's a misrepresentation of the source. But you shouldn't call it vandalism because he probably felt this was the right thing to do to correct a perceived bias in the source. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Offliner's already responded on Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya, though I'll try to get some more comments. The warning wasn't for changing "people" to "Bolshevik rebels" per his interpretation of the encyclopedia – it was for deleting Mayer with frivolous justifications like this – which I took as genuine vandalism (note that the frivolous rationale for deleting here was "let's cite actions, nor words, he actually did not do it"). Does that constitute vandalism? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's vandalism, either. It's not a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". It's an attempt to present history from a certain point of view. Also: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." I wouldn't even call this a significant content removal, and the rationale may be invalid but isn't exactly frivolous.

It's a typical beginners' error to think something must be against a rule because it's obviously wrong. That's not how we decide content disputes. In reality, the winning side is the one that has (or manages to convince) more active editors and behaves better. The latter is important because admins can only correct behavioral problems but must be neutral about content. (This can be gamed. I know two admins who seem to take sides secretly, and then only intervene against one of the party when there is a good reason to do so, but never again the other.) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I'm still getting a hang of the ropes, and I'll try to rectify it with Biophys. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I don't think there is an entitlement that these AfDs stop. But they seem to be a waste of time, since ultimately most of them will be about deleting a redirect."

I agree. Two articles are done. I am going to finish the low hanging fruit (small countries with few articles) then I will go onto the larger countries. Ikip (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Heads up - I started Foreign relations of Greece - hope we are not overlapping. Think it is best to start with lists that have more than one article in AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. No, I am not working on this. I just finished Switzerland / EU members and will take a break before beginning with the other Swiss relations. (There are hundreds of articles that I am more motivated to work on than these, and for which I actually have qualifications that most others don't.) Thanks for your useful table template! I hope you don't mind if I add the countries I need. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Switzerland and the European Union

Good work with the merge. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Offer to userfy

See [7] Thanks for all your help again, I appreciate it. Ikip (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reasearch about codomains

Thank you. It's interesting topic. 123unoduetre (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't consider it all that interesting. It seems clear to me that the definition of functions that includes the codomain is the "correct" one: Apart from the stupid technical problem in set theory (which could easily be solved by a general convention that we can talk about finite tuples of proper classes) it seems to make no difference at all in most fields, while being superior in those fields where the distinction matters. In this situation it naturally takes some time for such an innovation to become universally accepted as the standard, official, definition. Geometry Guy has just added some very nice footnotes to the article; the reference by Stewart and Tall says it well. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sentential logic

I proposed to rename this again. I think we agreed pretty well, and then philogo came in and confused the issue. Anyway, if you and I ever agree on something, well it probably just should be done. My goodness. Be well, CFD

Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Malaria in Iceland

I am not going there. No way. But feel free! :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Abd has brought up your comment on my talk page here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#New_evidence_and_explanation_from_Hans_Adler_re_copyvio. for some reason. Cheers, Verbal chat 16:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email as you were composing your message. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just read it. Sorry that I was a bit provocative in the MfD. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gratius Falsius etc.

Hi, I have no hard feelings, just the desire to have accurate articles. I hope the major edits are done now, so we can move on with our lives. Have a nice day. Green Squares (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, that is an interesting article http://www.american-bulldog.com/molossus_myth.htm instead of deleting my writings, why don't you refute them with this article and others. It would help improve the quality of the article. Thank you. Green Squares (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi [Reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcervenka —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcervenka (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited your comment.

See [8]. As I said in the edit summary, if this bothers you for any reason, feel free to revert me. LadyofShalott 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not! Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Contratulations

… on this - a new angle to a tired (and tiring) discussion!  pablo_hablo. 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this coming up again and again on my watchlist I just thought it was a snowstorm plus tireless comments by the creator. But by now two editors I have met before have voted for keeping the article. Amazing. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Judging by one of the comments we can perhaps look forward to an article on Mind-reading binoculars - I think I'll watchlist it just in case.  pablo_hablo. 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer controversy

"[Esowteric wrote on his talk page] Hi, I noticed that another editor had deliberately inserted that section as being pivotal to the article and thought that especially as the matter is in the middle of a contentious Afd that the matter should be discussed. Maybe bring the issue up on the article's talk page, rather than here (my interest is only peripheral)? Cheers, Esowteric (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

"[Hans replied] (ec) Have you looked on the article talk page before reverting? Without the information that you removed the article is a severe BLP violation. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

Hi Hans, please feel free to do what you have to do. I just thought the matter should be raised before a unilateral deletion, hence my undoing the deletion ... and I could be wrong. Cheers, Esowteric (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied there. This was a misunderstanding cause by an edit conflict and my very unambiguous language. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Adler's Laws of Wikipedia

1. Wikipedia values all contributors equally (especially those with special needs such as a complete lack of judgement or writing abilities).
2. Elitism is against the core principles of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; consequently those who abuse their abilities by writing substantially more than their fair share of featured articles must be made to understand that they are suffered, not supported, by the community.
3. Anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it.
4. Prolific writing of content that cannot be improved is a dangerous, systemic, problem because it will eventually lead to the death of this project. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to finish it.
   

As now quoted on my userpage. Fences and windows (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

*Blush* Thank you. That's a great honour. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoted on mine too. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's an interesting idea, but I am worried about the possible consequences of such an organisation. An informal meeting place for content writers, e.g. WP:WikiProject Article writers would probably be a good thing. Currently FAC seems to fill this role, but for various reasons that's not optimal. But a formal elite with elected members? No thanks. Don't push this too hard, or I guess you will get into serious trouble. This way of addressing the problem that the uninformed mob is slowly taking over the encyclopedia is not compatible with the wiki philosophy. There are systemic reasons for the problem, and they should be solved by changing the rules of the game, not by adding a new player. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. The point is that a formally elected group (not 'elite') like a trade union in which real power would be given to those with grievances, is the only thing that will address what is wrong. Peter Damian (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia editors

Given your devotion and passion to deleting articles on Wikipedia editors of marginal notability, I wanted to make sure you were aware of this page Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. I trust an editor of your high integrity and standards of fairness will want all of these articles treated consistently according to appropriate procedure and protocol. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't personally solve all of Wikipedia's problems. I get involved in some situations that catch my eye, and in particular in some high-profile situations where things are seriously going in the wrong direction. When it happens, as in this case, that I walk in one direction, and prominent, experienced and well-respected members of the community such as Thatcher walk in the same direction a bit later, then this seems to confirm to me that my judgement isn't too bad.

I will have a look at the category you mention, and if it's as bad as you are implying I may even do something about it. But should it turn out that it consists mostly of neutral, well-written biographies of people of borderline notability who don't mind having an article on themselves, then there won't be much to do. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So biographies of Wikipedia editors of borderline notability are okay until there's substantial media coverage of a controversy involving them? At which point we must speedy delete the offending article?

See that just doesn't seem right to me. I've watched how the subjects of articles are treated when they come here to "fix" things, and I think this old boy network of double standards and improvising the rules as we go along is wrong. Our article standards and approaches need to be fair, consistent, and without subterfuge. There should be an article on this subject that complies with our standards, just like all the other articles on similar subjects (and yes there are lots of them).

Editors who haven't objected to the existence of their articles don't get to delete them when there's unfavorable stories in the news. I don't support book burning of any kind, especially not by the Firemen of Fahrenheit 451. Bias and censorship are wrong, and worth standing up against. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent the situation. I don't know if this is because you can't understand the situation or because you choose not to. And I don't care. Repeating negative statements about someone, without comment, when you know they are not true, is lying. Lying is wrong, and excusing it by appeal to words such as bias and censorship is hypocrisy. It's not bias to shut up instead of lying, and it's not censorship to stop you from doing it. Now keep off my talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

2003 Ernst Interview

You have probably already seen this, but in case you hadn't, I thought I would point out this 2003 interview of Ernst by Sarah Boseley. I thought Ernst's comments on his early experiences working at a Homeopath Hospital were interesting. An excerpt from the article:

His first post was in a homeopathic hospital in Munich, where he was greatly impressed. "If you study medicine and pharmacology, you know [homeopathy] can't work," he says. The active substances in homeopathic medicines are so diluted that pharmacology says they cannot have an effect. "Then you start working in a homeopathic hospital and people get better. Is that a miracle? It certainly is very impressive for a young doctor.

"Looking back, I wonder if a lot was a placebo effect." Placebo to him, however, is not a negative. He would never assume people who get better on placebos were not ill in the first place. "I would like to have an institute of placebo research, but the funding would be even worse. You would get placebo money! But it's absolutely fascinating what's happening there. It is what gels mainstream and complementary medicine together. As doctors, we don't want to realise it. We pride ourselves that therapy does the trick."

This is a scientist willing to explore the unthinkable and unwilling to be told what to think. Scientific logic says homeopathy cannot work, but Ernst continues to study its therapies not to shoot it down, but in the hope of discovering what it is that does work. He treats his French wife with homeopathy, he says. "We were both brought up with it."

--stmrlbs|talk 07:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, very interesting indeed! This explains the apparent contradiction between Ernst's cv (I knew he was at a homeopathic hospital, so I assumed he was a homeopath) and what he writes. And it's reassuring to read exactly my opinion as stated from a leading authority. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not exactly. That seems to have been confirmation bias. But at least he seems to give a lot more weight to the placebo effect than is customary. --Hans Adler (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I know.. it is as if he thought enough of it to use it with his wife, and yet, later on attributes it all to a placebo effect. Yet, does this in a way that says how powerful this effect must be. I thought it was interesting, especially in light of many of his later (after the homeopathic hospital) evaluations. --stmrlbs|talk 09:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Please see my response on my talk page. Pasquale (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I've made a complaint about your removal of the RfC at WP:Link talk. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove RfC templates on discussions prematurely. I understand that the discussion had, for all intents and purposes, ended, but as a participant in the discussion your removal of the request can be viewed as disruptive. In the future please refrain from removing requests that are still technically "active" unless you were the original requester. Thanks, Shereth 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant threads archived at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#User:Hans Adler and WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive546#User:Kotniski. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions to participate in

You might find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bozo bit of interest. You might also want to check my German at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bavarian Pigeon Corps. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• The first isn't my table, but I found the second very interesting, as you can see from my post there. Thanks a lot for thinking of me! --Hans Adler (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added more on Brons thereto. I hope that you are double-checking my German. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I haven't done it yet, but will do it once my daughter is in bed. By the way, your Brons (2006) is the same as mine, and you can call me Hans for at least two reasons (speaking English and being on Wikipedia). Oh, and is M. something like xe/xyr or did you mean Monsieur? Someone called Franziska Brons would normally be expected to be a woman. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It's intended to be sex-neutral, yes. With my encyclopaedist hat on, I don't care about M. Brons' sex. I care about xyr credentials, expertise, reputation for accuracy, and reliability.

        There's what appears to be a German language obituary of Neubronner that I came across in my searches. I'll try to re-locate it and cite it. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

        • I am not sure what you want me to check about your German references, since you don't seem to have given any translations. They are all relevant, and none of them mentions actual military use or a connection to Bavaria. I am not sure it makes much sense to translate them at this point. Interesting family, by the way. See article talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Green Squares

No CU for SirIsaacBrock was done I believe. I'm away today, if nothing has happened by this evening I shall go ahead and block. Dougweller (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it may be that one of his known socks had a CU done. Dougweller (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP is almost certainly him. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hans Adler 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was him, but I changed my mind. The IP has been static for at least 3 months, it didn't edit typical articles, and it edited outside reasonable office hours. Hans Adler 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bubble Tea

Kayau (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:User:Download/Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hi, Mr. Adler. I have seen your heated argument with Betty Logan at the Manual of Style. I hope that Betty Logan's arguments have not hurt your feelings too much. Thank you ever so much for your attention. Kayau (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Brouwer fixed point theorem

Dear Hans,

In your recent edits you seem to imply that Borsuk-Ulam is an indirect consequence of Brouwer's theorem. Can you link me to some source? This is something I'd like to show to my students, but I was so far too lazy to find. The usual proof of Borsuk-Ulam goes through the homology of projective spaces, a topic that I have no chance to touch in my classes (contrary to the proofs of Brouwer's theorem via Sperner's lemma or Stokes theorem). All the best, --Bdmy (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For the moment I am just translating from fr:Théorème du point fixe de Brouwer, without thinking more about things than absolutely necessary to get the translation approximately right. The passage you are referring to is a bit obscure in the original. fr:Théorème de Borsuk-Ulam says that Borsuk-Ulam can be used to prove Brouwer and gives a reference. [9] Perhaps that's what is meant by "indirectement issu". I can't see immediately how to do it the other way round, this direction is not mentioned in the reference, and I see that Borsuk-Ulam was proved 20 years after Brouwer. What a pity. I have changed the translation of "issu" from "derived" to "emerged" to make it clearer that this is not about logical consequence. Hans Adler 17:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for looking over the article. I am shamelessly relying on others to do the proof-reading in this case. Hans Adler 17:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I Apologize

disturbing you. I'm french math's teacher in Paris, and I'havd contribute with a new page françois Viète on Wpfr. I' asked an help for translation on Wpen, but nobody answered. I rewrote the page alone, but, i'am not native and my english is poor. Therefore there are probably a lot of francicism in that article and in New algebra. Some guy, named Classicalecon, put on the page an horrible ribon, and i ask some help to the mathetician's communauty to make this article better. If you have any idea, even the smallest... you'r welcome.Jean de Parthenay (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup pour l'article ! Je crois que l'intention de la notice de Classicalecon est tout à fait constructive : chercher un éditeur qui peux améliorer la présentation de l'article. J'espère que j'aurai le temps de m'en occuper, mais peut-être un autre va être plus vite. Hans Adler 18:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Merci pour le travail accompli. A lire tes modifications, je me dis que l'article vaut le coup. Comme j'améliore peu à peu la version française, certaines affirmations du texte anglais deviennent parfois obsolètes, car trop tranchées. J'ai ajouté des images sur Wpfr, et aussi un passage sur l'astronomie. Mais il est possible- voire souhaitable- de faire des textes différents, qui se nourrissent de l'histoire propre de chaque nation et de sa vision de l'histoire. La remarque de Classicalecon était peut-être constructive, mais très brutale, d'autant qu'il avait aussitôt fermé son compte. Ça faisait bureaucrate pas courageux et hautain. C'est pourquoi j'ai piqué une colère. Mais grâce à toi et à JamesB, tout est réparé. J'ai mis une traduction de mon cru d'un article de Dhombres (point 8 des notes) afin de faciliter la lecture du document en français. Il faudrait peut-être le nettoyer et l'insérer dans le texte ; mais c'est à vous de voir tout ça désormais... FriendlyJean de Parthenay (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Classicalecon n'était pas brutal d'après les règles normales de ce wiki-ci, et je ne comprends pas pourquoi tu dis qu'il aurait fermé son compte. Si tu parles du fait qu'il n'avait pas de page d'utilisateur – c'est le cas pour une minorité pas négligeable. Normalement ça ne signifie rien, surtout dans le cas d'un utilisateur qui n'est par très actif. (Il n'a que 500 contributions.) C'est toujours une bonne idée de supposer la bonne foi et de ne pas être trop attaché à un article même si on a de bons raisons de l'être.

Je ne comprends pas ce que tu dis de la traduction de Dhombres. En tout cas des références en français sont acceptables ici, surtout dans le cas d'un sujet français, même si évidemment il y une préférence pour les références en anglais. Hans Adler 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A propos de Classicalecon : tout ceci est oublié. Pour la traduction de Dhombres (dans le talk) : elle n'est pas parfaite... c'est tout. Je regrette de ne pas pouvoir fournir mieux (sur l'aspect : viète était-il protestant, indifférent, politique, catholique ?). Pour le reste, sache que j'apprecie hautement tous les efforts de ceux qui ont réussi à rendre propre un travail précipité par l'approche des vacances. Disons quand même que dans l'ensemble, tout cela me refroidit un peu. La prochaine fois que je voudrais enrichir Wpen, je donnerai une première version dans mes brouillons, dont je te ferais part, ainsi qu'aux autres collaborateurs du projet de traduction franco-anglais. Cela évitera de surcharger l'article de corrections. A bientôt. Jean de Parthenay (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bavarian Pigeon Corps

I have found a report of a scientific experiment that casts doubt on whether pigeons could carry 70 grams. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bavarian_Pigeon_Corps#Was_this_even_feasible.3F Albatross2147 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cross posting

Hello. I did not know cross posting was against Wikipedia guidelines. If it is I apologize.Ti-30X (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's against the rules almost everywhere on the internet. In the case of Wikipedia, attention by other editors is a valuable resource. Hans Adler 23:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My original intent was to get the word out to the science community. I wasn't thinking of it as cross posting, unitl I saw your post on one or two of the talk pages. And you are right, attention, by other editors is a valuable resource and I will have to be more prudent in the future. Thanks.Ti-30X (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Good work, it was much easier to go through the various proposals and make up my mind than I thought it would be. Hans Adler 12:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You must have done something right. You're the only person who signed Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/main_articles#Users_who_endorse_Proposal_B who wasn't subsequently contacted by ChrisO and asked to change their mind and/or justify their position. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Perhaps my talk page crashed his browser. Hans Adler 21:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No, SheffieldSteel is exaggerating, implying bad faith on my part and is simply wrong. One of the discussion referees has already stated that there is nothing wrong about the fact that I have asked a small number of contributors to clarify their position on the application of NPOV in this issue. I have asked SS to refactor his comments above but he has, regrettably, not yet done so. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, canvassing is a problem even if done in good faith. If I contacted everybody who !voted for option A, making them more aware of the "Do not overdo it" section, perhaps I could neutralise the effect of what you have done. It was very bad form. Whenever we vote there are a number of people who are not sure how to vote and can easily be influenced. They usually spread in a more or less random way over all more or less reasonable options. It's not OK to work so hard to make them flock to your preferred option. Hans Adler 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pigeons in aerial photography

Congratulations. Your hard work has turned a dodgey article into one that is shining example to us all. The only other comments I have to make is that I am still worried about the weight of the cameras but that has been addressed and the sad waste of all that effort in to what was always going to be a dead end. JN is certainly worth an article all on his own. Albatross2147 (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you won't revise your opinion once I have added a section on actual military use. I think the fact that it crops up in various places should be mentioned in the article. The problem is to make it clear that it's all very dubious when the most reliable sources don't even talk about it and merely suggest through omission of the topic that it never happened. And then there is the Bundesarchiv photo; in connection with the duck caricature this suggests that the German army at least claimed to use pigeons with cameras during World War I. Perhaps they experimented with them but stopped after the war.

I have just paid 50 pence / page for JN's autobiography. Can't await its delivery. Hans Adler 13:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This one? Email me your address and I will buy it for you (more use to you than me despite parents who spoke German at home and six years of learning the language at school). Just for the record I left Jenna a note with a bit of an apology which she graciously accepted.

I would still be very cautious about the military use of pigeon photography. Under battle conditions it would have been very hard to maintain the condition of the birds and the results would have all been very random. In any event there would have been easier and more effective methods at hand.

This whole issue of issue of whether there should be articles of phenomena which are hard to prove existed is an interesting one. I wrote this article on something that was mentioned to me in the first hours of my time in Ireland and intermittently thereafter for the next 7 years but as I was finishing the well referenced article I found that there is a strong feeling among historians that it was all an a figment of the collective imagination.

By the way you have no choice but to await the autobiography's delivery. Better to say I can't wait for it to be delivered. Cheers Albatross2147 (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The waiting is over, actually, so thanks for your offer. And it was worth it: Another portrait of Neubronner, a caricature by Anton Burger of Neubronner's photographic activities as a teenager, and some new pigeon camera related photos. And important information: Over the years, he built around 12 different models. The best one weighed 40 g and took 12 photos of size "3:6". There are more details about his contacts with the ministry of defence. He twice got a gold medal at the Paris Air Show for his aerial photographs.

The important point of the 1909/1912 demonstration to the military was that he had to demonstrate the feasibility of a mobile dovecote and its use at the front. (There are 5 photos of it from the 1909 Dresden photo exhibition.) This invention proved crucial when due to the novel conditions at the Battle of Verdun messenger pigeons were needed to supplement other means of communication. Pigeon photography was supposed to be tested officially in a manoeuvre in August 1914, then acquired by the army, but the war confounded this. Instead, Neubronner had to provide all his cameras and pigeons to the army, which tried them with some success under battle conditions. (The pigeons apparently didn't mind the explosions.) He quotes a September 1918 report by the inspection of the signal corps: "Having made favourable experiences with the few existing mobile dovecotes at Verdun, they were first used as a communication medium on a larger scale at the Battle of the Somme, and proved themselves so splendidly that a major expansion of the homing pigeon system was undertaken." Hans Adler 10:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is not clear from what you have written above is whether the JN pigeons were used for anything other than carrying messages at Verdun and Somme 1.0. I should be interested to find out. I am amazed that the pigeons stood up so well the atrocious conditions particularly at Verdun - perhaps there is an advantage in having a small brain. But it seems that JN is supported here by Allied experience. None of the Verdun histories I have mention homing pigeons being used by the Germans but they are all written from an Allied perspective so that is not surprising in this context. Interestingly my grandfather, a pigeon fancier, was at Verdun and never mentioned the presence of the birds in conversation about his war experiences which he was always quite forthcoming about. On a complete tangent here is a story on modern day usage of pigeons and this one has a poignant resonance with the death of a pretty young nurse, pigeons and the great struggle of Verdun. This book might be worth getting hold of. Albatross2147 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This book has a lot of info on the structure of German units in WW1 and states that the pigeon units were initially a part of the Pioneers and then later the Signal Corps. Useful photo here. Albatross2147 (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I will look at them when I get the time, which might take a while since I am travelling soon. Last night I have updated the article with some information that you might find interesting. We only have Neubronner's word for some of the details, but he wrote in 1920, when his memory of events must have been quite fresh. Regarding Verdun, it seems that it took some time for people to realise that pigeons were not yet obsolete and that under the novel conditions they needed them in addition to telegraphs etc. Apparently they weren't used on a wide scale before the Somme battle.

One important bit: Neubronner does not say that he started before or around the Wright brothers' flight. It turns out that around that time he was busy inventing adhesive (paper) tape, getting a patent on it and starting his company that financed his pigeon experiments and amateur films. (His original application was in cutting his amateur films such as this one, which even features a pigeon.) He didn't apply for his first and only pigeon camera patent before 1907! At least I couldn't find an earlier patent of his in the database. (But even that had only the raw data and no inventor information. I could only find it because the number was shown on the GB and AT patents. Nevertheless I think there wasn't an earlier patent because this one describes the primitive pneumatic mechanism.) So the frequently repeated "1903 – Bavarian Pigeon Corps routinely takes aerial photographs" seems to be wrong in almost every respect. Hans Adler 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In the end, reconnaissance by pigeon did not get off the ground. - that is very bad punning. I hope that it was intentional. Albatross2147 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.vlib.us/medical/gaswar/gasmasks.htm - useful images Albatross2147 (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The furphies persisted to the 1930s it seems. The comments are worth reading if only because they reflect my incredulity. And some of them are quite funny too eg OMG!It’s Pigeon Earth! Albatross2147 (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern Mechanix wasn't going to let a good story go - here is more from 1932. Looking at the image with "those" wingtips as reproduced here I would say they were post production additions. Albatross2147 (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Modern Mechanix was being fair dinkum - see this old Hulton-Deutsch image. Perhaps the German Army was trying to convince everyone that they were still in compliance with Versailles by putting two burly soldiers into an invalid conveyance with some pigeon crates on the back. Perhaps they are on their way to Lipetsk? Albatross2147 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC moved

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing. Gigs (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural number article

Please, have a look needed at the talk-page of the "natural number"-page. I opened a new section for discussion. Contribute there if you are not convinced. Regards, Achim1999 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Island now under Turkish sovereignity

So how is Tenedos doing? I suppose that's one of the reasons this makes me hot under the collar; you'll find my sig in those archives too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, as I didn't watchlist the article. Thanks for reminding me of its name. Hans Adler 00:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding conduct of User:Frei Hans

I have requested comment on the conduct of User:Frei Hans. As you have been involved in this dispute to some extent, I would appreciate it if you could comment. Papa November (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I hinted before, this seems to be primarily a medical problem. Therefore I find it hard to have strong emotions about this user other than compassion. Wikipedia should be able to deal with such users without an RfC, but perhaps it can't. Hans Adler 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough. I take your point, although I'm not sure how to deal with this without a RfC or a block, and now we are at RfC. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Papa November. Scared? Papa November (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing

Please note Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.

Notice delivery by xenobot 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at 'amalgamation property'

One of the stubs I started before I got involved with lawsuits. Hotfeba (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on merger of Bristol Indymedia with Independent Media Center

User:Simon Dodd has requested comment on the proposed merger. You are being informed as you participated in the recent AfD discussion. Discussion at Talk:Bristol Indymedia Jezhotwells (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that whales are fish?????

Dear Mr. Adler,

In your response to my comment about the Model Theory article -- on its Talk page -- you referred to a supposed comment I left on the Talk page for the Whale article . . . in which I supposedly complained that the article neglected to mention that whales are fish??????????

I never left such a comment*, or as far as I know, any comment regarding the Whale article. (So I would appreciate if you could please edit your comment -- or add a partial retraction -- so as to reflect this truth.)

Also, I would also appreciate if your response to my comment restricted itself to the issues related to those that I mentioned in my comment. Thank you.

P.S. If this is not the appropriate venue for me to be posting *this* comment, please accept my apology; I am not very familiar with Wikipedia protocol. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* And since whales are mammals, I cannot imagine ever complaining about the omission of a statement that "whales are fish".Daqu (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the right place for this kind of complaint, even though I don't think it's particularly justified. However, incontinent overuse of mark-up, SHOUTING and similar techniques!!!! for expressing strong emotions that may or may not be present are generally not considered acceptable hereabouts. Especially when there is no good cause for such strong emotions.

I have amended my post to make it clear that the whale/fish bit is a metaphor. Hans Adler 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Oranges

Hello Hans. The BBC article says, "The festival stems from the 19th Century where rebellious commoners threw away food the feudal lord had given them". This is contradicted by numerous other sources and seems to be innaccurate. If it said that's when the Oranges were first used that would be different. But the origins seems to back almost 800 and some odd years before that date, so I thought it was worth including a clarification. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we totally agree. I felt that the notice I found could be read as: "We the proud citizens of [whatever the place is called] believe it's extremely old because a legend says so, and the BBC got it totally wrong". Which would undermine the credibility of the article. Of course no comment at all would also undermine it. I tried to explain why the BBC got it wrong and that it got things only partially wrong. But I see my formulation wasn't very fortunate. Feel free to revert, or to find an even better solution. Hans Adler 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. It's always interesting when there's something misleading or innaccurate in a "reliable source". I wasn't really sure how to handle it. Oh well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

• T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
• WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
• WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
• WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
• WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for William Abner Eddy

On July 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Abner Eddy, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mundat Forest

On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mundat Forest, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Replied! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This sort of attitude is exactly what I'm talking about. People can be such vindictive bastards at times. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not this editor's worst action. He should be blocked for asking loudly for an editor to be blocked while being totally clueless himself. Hans Adler 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tutorial on linking skills

Hans, a little while ago I raised this issue at WP:LINK; you commented that it might be a good idea, with the rider that sufficient leeway should be given to the "grey" areas.

I've made a start. If you have time, would you mind providing feedback? (In addition, please let me know if the font-size is a little too small within Gary King's editing exercise templates; if so, I'll ask him to tweak it.) Tony (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

After just a quick look I am not sure that this is the right format for this information. In the overall context of Wikipedia instructions it's a bit eccentric. It creates a teaching atmosphere that is not very wiki-like and which I think is likely to affect its efficacy. Even the most willing reader would need some patience to read through everything. Now imagine the reactions of an overlinker who doesn't like what they read.

For illustration, here is what happened to me when I went through the first set: Read the problem text. Thought: Some pretty irrelevant links there, but also potential for a better one. Surely we have an article on the general concept of a minimum age? (We almost do, at Legal age, and also some country-specific articles such as Minimum legal ages in Belgium.) // Read the issue. Oh, it's only about the overlinking. OK. Hmm, public is stupid. Law and constitution are a bit silly. Either of vote and election is redundant. // Read the solution. Aha. Neither vote nor election? Seems a bit extremist as this is such a close topic. Basically we are in a subarticle of election. And what's the link to constitution still doing there? The explanations didn't convince me, and now you can imagine how motivated I was to continue.

Here is an idea that may not be feasible at all, but so what. How about a screenful of text, carefully crafted to span many typical areas of Wikipedia. Perhaps someone narrating what happened in a dream. No links at all. Give this to a dozen of our best editors, and let them create the links. The are allowed minor rephrasing to prevent link clashes. When they are finished, they may look at each other's work and amend their own, if they so desire. Then produce a kind of majority version, with areas that they don't agree on clearly marked and annotated.

Unfortunately I am not going to do anything like this any time soon because I am first flying to a conference very soon and then moving house over a distance of 1800 km. For the same reason I won't be able to give you much feedback in the near future. Hans Adler 14:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I was put off by the overwhelming negativity of this feedback. "Eccentric"? A teaching atmosphere that is "not very wiki-like"? I can't imagine what you were expecting—let's all be teacher? It's meant to be a show-and-tell resource in which the problem gradually unfolds. This has worked very well in most of my other tutorial pages.

"Imagine the reactions of an overlinker"—it's not designed for hardened maximal linkers. No one will ever convince them to moderate and take a skilled, selective approach. They want to link as much as possible, and that is that. This tutorial is aimed at the vast majority of WPians who would appreciate exposure to the issues involved in the decision to link, and how to link.

I take your point that it's over-wordy. I'm going to try to do something about it; it's a problem in that there's quite a lot to explain for each instance, and I'm unsure I want the samples to be smaller.

"Legal age" might be a good link, and I'll investigate this point.

Your comment that "Oh, it's only about the overlinking" assumes that all matters will be dealt with in all exericses; but there are too many for that. And perhaps you and I differ here, but my firm opinion is that overlinking is a much more common problem than underlinking. Yes, I will include a few underlinkings and discuss them. In addition, I want readers to ponder what is improveable in each sample before giving away the precise problems. That unfolding aspect in critical in making people think.

If you don't mind, I'm copying the relevant part of this section to the talk page there. Tony (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

MSE

As you kindly gave advice about the process, I would like to let you know that I have reopened Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/A-class rating/Maximum spacing estimation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

BS for you

		The Template Barnstar
		The template you created at User:Hans Adler/Kamen Rider vandal will be quite helpful when other admins need to deal with that particular editor. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to ask Ryulong to add a few words in Japanese to it, in case the user ever stumbles over their talk page. But more importantly, thanks for blocking the user for a reasonable length of time. BTW, always waiting out a block before rebooting one's router is really weird behaviour. I guess it only happens in Japan. Hans Adler 13:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

racial slurs in edit summaries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Playing_card&curid=23083&diff=306779532&oldid=306775923

Watch how you say things-nobody needs racial or ethnic slurs in Wikipedia[10], especially as all you have to go by is an IP. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely not an ethnic or racial slur. That kid is both stupid and Japanese (see User talk:61.46.24.189 for further information), and the space in an edit summary is severely restricted. "Stupid" expresses my frustration, "Japanese" is necessary background information with possible relevance to the impossibility to communicate with the editor. I do not believe that Japanese kids are more likely to be stupid than other kids. It did not even occur to me that it would be necessary to say that. Hans Adler 16:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Placebo effect" and belief

Hi Hans, I thought I'd bring this here as it is (as you said) possibly a bit off-topic for the homoeopathy talk page.

I think there are two different concepts attached to "placebo effect"; one is the literal meaning: the effect of the belief that one has received a treatment. However the term is also used as a sort of shorthand for all the factors that may be involved in the placebo arm of a controlled trial - spontaneous recovery, regression to the mean, the natural history of the disease etc. - which are not necessarily going to involve belief. Regards, Brunton (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant something close to the first meaning, which I guess doesn't require a conscious belief. I think of placebos as symbolical acts that trigger our inherent self-healing capacities. I am not sure that there is an effect when you are told you received treatment while you are asleep; I think it's more likely that you get an effect when receiving placebo treatment that you don't believe in. I have no idea how hard it would be to test this, and whether it has been done.

In any case I have experienced a strong placebo effect myself once: I had a severe asthma attack and no medication at all. Then a friend arrived who gave me one of her hay fever pills. I expected some barely noticeable relief starting after an hour or so, but one minute after I swallowed the pill I was fine. The effect held for a few hours. I guess people can be more or less susceptible to this effect, the least susceptible probably being those for whom the self-healing works without external triggers (probably true for most animals) and those in whom it has become completely dysfunctional. Much of the art of stimulating a patient's self-healing seems to have been lost. Nowadays we can be glad if our doctors recommend hot water bottles as often as they prescribe antibiotics. Hans Adler 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bristol Indymedia

Thanks for doing the redirect - I've added the relevant content into the indymedia article, so don't worry about that.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Your recent edit removed an entire section of well sourced information. The wording of this section had gone through several phases on Eco-Terrorism until it was satisfactory. If you think the wording still needs to change, please read the referenced articled in their entirety and let us know in the discussion where you think the author's opinion has been misrepresented. We've seen allot of POV pushing and it's better when we all work on it together. Thank you. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Very funny. You even managed to call a congressional report an "article", apart from libelling SSCS by claiming or implying that various people had called them eco-terrorist when this is simply not true. I suggest that you start by reading the article. I am quite literate myself, thank you very much. This matter was discussed previously on the talk page, and the result was that it's not OK for Wikipedia to say something is the case merely because some people are careful to give the impression that it is so while not actually saying it. Hans Adler 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi thanks for responding. You are correct that it should be called a "congressional report" and not an article. Please edit it to say so, but please don't remove the section again. Thanks! --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Took care of that concern for you. See edits. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was a congressional testimony, quite a different thing. Sorry for misleading you, but you should really have checked yourself. Also, you still haven't addressed the two main problems: The material you have added was already in the article elsewhere. And in a form that comes a lot closer to satisfying our neutrality criteria than what you have written. In other words: Your section is completely redundant, and the fact that the previously existing material doesn't jump out of the article to beat the word eco-terrorism over your head should tell you how we deal with such things here.

In case it's not obvious: If tomorrow we get a Sea Shepherd groupie here who behaves the same way as you did, I will react in exactly the same way. (Well, except for the BLP dimension.) Hans Adler 20:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Policing

From the section above labeled #Quackwatch, I gather that other editors are having similar problems that I am having with you. I know you think that you are doing us a favor by pointing out the "behavioral problems" you think we are exhibiting, but you are going about it in a way that is only leading to conflict and not understanding. Every time you have commented in threads regarding issues of alternative medicine, you have made specific references to individuals. This is to ask you to stop doing this. The next time you make direct reference to me as you did at Talk:List of pseudosciences, I will initiate a User:RfC.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You may think that this is a threat. Actually, I think it's a brilliant idea. That way your behaviour and Ronz's comes under scrutiny in a relatively nonconfrontational atmosphere (for the two of you), and it's not even my fault. And perhaps I will even get feedback how to stop your disruption more efficiently.

Regarding the Quackwatch thread above, I see you are jumping to conclusions, as you often do. It's a dangerous habit because it can make you look silly when people look a bit closer. Hans Adler 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment regarding Sarah777

See my post here, which pertains to your consideration for retrospective block review. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say: "pertains to [my] consideration for retrospective block review"?? Have mercy with non-native speakers please. DrKiernan has unblocked with a reasonable rationale, and I currently don't see any reason to get involved further. I don't understand what you want me to do. Hans Adler 09:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, my note was simply to tell you that if you did want to have the actions reviewed, then there are specific ways to go about it. That's all, no big deal. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch

I don't believe your characterizations of me are at all helpful for you or anyone else. Please remember to follow WP:TALK. Thanks. [11] --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I so knew this would happen... Hans Adler 01:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. So here we are, doing exactly what you knew would happen. Seems like a waste of time for me, but you must have your reasons given you knew it was going to happen. --Ronz (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still hope that some day you will learn to measure yourself with the same yardstick that you use for others. Hans Adler 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition to your baseless personal attacks, and general incivility, you're now clearly choosing to make this into a battleground. Stop. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that causes you to warm this up after 14 hours? Amazing. Just let it go and it's over. Hans Adler 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was busy and didn't have time to address it other than the quick reply below. So you're done attacking me? Great! --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to make you aware of your behavioural problem can hardly be called an attack. Just stop commenting, and I will stop as well. Or do you need to have the last word on my talk page, like in our last interaction? At the time I went out of my way to be very nice to you and also give you constructive feedback, and you went out of your way to see attacks in everything I said. You said "Now both of you stop harassing me" at a time when the full extent of our interaction ever was one post of mine on Peter's talk page [12], your thread on my talk page (which included such gems as "Now we're in conflict. Please chill." when I was totally cool and had merely tried to explain where my impression of you had come from) and my other edit to Peter's talk page with which I followed your request.[13] To make absolutely sure I wouldn't harass you by any stretch of the imagination, I left you the last word with your cryptic message, and when PeterStJohn took your behaviour to WQA [14] and then ANI [15] (each time notifying me on my talk page and by email) I refrained from commenting there, for the same reason. I patiently waited a bit less than a year for your retraction of the absurd harassment complaint (with no interaction between us whatsoever, if I remember correctly), until I finally gave up and archived the bizarre dialogue.[16]

Stop making unfounded attacks against users whose talk page is on my watchlist (in this case you made an absurd accusation of libel against Middle 8 for his inclusion of a rephrased balanced sentence from Time Magazine concerning Quackwatch [17]), and I will stop commenting on your unfounded attacks. That's a promise. Hans Adler 18:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I know from an email conversation a year ago that PeterStJohn's frustration with what he saw as your robot-like behaviour and the damage he felt you were doing is the reason for his almost complete inactivity since April 2008. [18] Hans Adler 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! So this is all about your needing to continue to attack me for a dispute that happened in February 2008, a year and a half ago?!? Like I said, you need to learn to avoid using Wikipedia as a battleground and instead work on building an encyclopedia. This is no place for grudges and sniping.

"Stop making unfounded attacks against users whose talk page is on my watchlist." Take your unfounded complaints to a proper forum, rather than using it as an excuse for further attacks against me. This seems to be the crux of the matter, that you find good faith comments to be bad faith attacks. Such an attitude has no place on Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I have come to the conclusion that while you have a certain tolerance for pure attacks against yourself, you have no tolerance at all for constructive criticism of your actions. That was my conclusion a bit more than a year ago, and it looks once more like that. Don't you think that if I was interested in attacking and harassing you I would have found an opportunity in the last 12 months?

Since you are obviously asking for another attack by continuing to post here, here is another bit of constructive feedback: Where you said "Now we're in conflict" more than a year ago, you seemed to imply that a certain behaviour of yours that I found revolting was actually common practice and OK. Quite a few months later I was still not able to get over this; it would have shed a very bad light on the vandal-fighting part of Wikipedia. So I figured out what the right place to ask was, and asked there. [19] I didn't get much feedback, but it seems that your behaviour was not OK after all. If you had admitted that at the time, I wouldn't have become so angry when you did the same thing to Middle 8 recently.

Wikipedia is not a computer game, at least not primarily. And it's not about pushing the right buttons according to some operating manual. If you use a template, you are responsible for what it says. It's as if you typed the text yourself. If the template says "you are a spammer", you had better make sure to only use it in clear cases. If it says "you have libelled someone", you had better make sure that you mean it, and that you know the definition of libel at least approximately.

If you are so sure that everything I am saying here is unfounded complaints, I suggest that you escalate this to a place where third parties can give their opinions. Surely you are not afraid of that if you are right and your behaviour does not need changing. Hans Adler 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[20] ended very poorly as well. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not responding to this comment because it doesn't seem to make any sense. Or are you admitting that you came here to complain before even reading the complete dialogue between me and Middle 8? Hans Adler 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to be clear that though I found your second comment more problematic, I agree that the initial comment was also unhelpful. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"Since you are obviously asking for another attack by continuing to post here" I'm glad we both agree that you are attacking me. Please stop. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your irony sensors are in need of repair. Hans Adler 17:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after I read, "If you are so sure that everything I am saying here is unfounded complaints, I suggest that you escalate this to a place where third parties can give their opinions. Surely you are not afraid of that if you are right and your behaviour does not need changing." My irony meter broke. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Now can you please leave my talk page before anything more serious than that happens? I would so much like to stop harassing you, but it's hard if you keep commenting here. But there is one constraint: Since last time you had the last word, I insist on having it this time. It's only fair, isn't it? Hans Adler 20:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial response

Hi Hans. I don't want any more drama. I'm withdrawing from the current process because somehow it is no longer the process I believed I was participating in. That may seem a strange thing to say - in fact it still is even for me. It's certainly not the process I signed up for.

The Arbcom ruling states the participants open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.

Mooretwin's proposal made clear that no single issue could solve the problem and a comprehensive solution was needed. Nearly all the participants agreed. Some didn't. We agreed that whatever solution we came up with would be binding. Both sides agreed.

Mooretwin's proposal was seen as too big to put to a single vote - we'd be here till the next millenium working on the wording.

Masem notes that a consensus is extremely unlikely. Subsequent conversations revolved around breaking a large issue into smaller bite-sized and manageable chunks.

Today it has been clarified that many editors believe that breaking the comprehensive solution into smaller votes gives them the reason to vote independently on these and feck the bigger picture. The first bite-sized chunk is the article name, effectively after months of work boiling the issue down to "change the status quo" vs "keep". Now, many editors have broken from their agreement for compromise, etc, and appear to be voting to keep the status quo.

I cannot participate in a process whereby neither "side" will compromise. I especially cannot participate when the "process" we agreed is not being executed.

Finally, I believe some editors are missing a very important point. Arbcom will not rule on content. If this vote results in a "solution" whereby only one "side" agrees, and the other "side" is once again left out, then we have achieved nothing. Arbcom won't sanction it, and no consensus will exist. Editors are getting carried away with the idea that they can "force" a majority decision on a minority. Arbcom won't sanction that. The only solution that will work is where both "sides" alienate the extremists in their midst, and reach a compromising agreement. This is what we effectively agreed previously. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening now. --HighKing (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I simply don't understand the situation, and especially everything that happened before I voted, enough to reply anything intelligent. Just this: I didn't intend to judge you in any way, so don't worry about that. Since I am currently packing the contents of my flat in boxes so that I can move over a distance of 2000 km in the near future, I don't have the time to dig in archives etc. right now. If I ever get around to doing that you seem to be the kind of person to ask if there is something I don't understand. Hans Adler 19:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with the move! Hopefully to somewhere sunny but still serves good beer! --HighKing (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wine, actually, which suits me better. Hans Adler 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Hope the move went well! Partial to wine myself with a good meal. I caught your post about references about why RoI might cause offense. I just wanted to make you aware of a small, subtle, but extreeeemmmmly important wee point. The Irish have no problem with using Republic of Ireland when needs want. (shock, horror). There's nothing wrong with using the official description in the right context, when disambiguation is required. But it's wrong to use it in other contexts. It's wrong to use it when you should use "Ireland". The reason why this looks like an Irish VS British debate is because .. well ... most British people use it in the wrong context. And they don't have a problem with that - in fact, current UK legislation still names the state as RoI. Now it might suit some people to make it very black and white, and say that Irish people get offended ... but you have to realize the *exact* reason why we get offended. With that in mind, the arguments about "Oh well, the Irish government coined the phrase", or "An Irish minister used it in Parliment" are shown to be a (deliberate? God knows it's been pointed out often enough, yet this is still circulated) tactic to confuse, not reach an understanding. Thanks for taking an interest - hopefully you'll make sense of this in the end. --HighKing (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a big flat, so I am still packing (or supposed to be), and will be for a while. — What you say sounds like the usual problem that we have everywhere in Wikipedia: People use language in slightly different ways or have slightly different views about how we usually do things (in this case: about how we handle disambiguation in general). So they come to different conclusions and think it's due to political/national/whatever associations when it isn't. I will think a bit more about this if I have the time. Hans Adler 20:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Article, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Hi. Again, please try not to delete entire sections of the article without consenus. Edits were being made to address concerns and then BAM they are gone. This doesn't help the process. If you feel really emotional about a subject, consider making your point in talk and letting someone else edit. Thank you. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not trying to be funny but phrases you make like "Try this stunt once more and I will.." make me feel attaked. I instictively want to work with you to come to a mutually understood consensus. I do not want to fight, but try to understand that language like that doesn't help anyone to understand your viewpoint. Please let's try to understand. The specific concern of yours with that statement had to do with BLP concerns. I would agree with those concerns if Paul Watson was named anywhere in the wikia article section in question. As it is, he is not. We are addressing how governments and experts view the SSCS organization. Which many reputable experts and governments see as an eco-terrosist organization as demonstrated in the sources. I'm not sure how you would like to present that information in a more clear manner but all of us editors are open to suggestions. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but if I see a headline Eco-terrorism right at the top of an article about a legal organisation, then I find it very hard to assume good faith. Don't you see the contradiction between the FBI really believing they are eco-terrorist, and their operating legally from the US? Hans Adler 20:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually in 1993 the American government pressured them to remove their registry. The Canadian government just recently took their flagship into custody and there are warrents out for the arrest of many of the crew in various countries. I honestly have no idea why no one goes and just arrests them... other than you would loose the support and votes of many environmentalists. All governments they have participated with have revoked registries except for the dutch who are bounnd by thier own law to pass legislative change to remove it which they are doing. I think the controversy about them being eco-terrosits is so think and well-documented that it would be quite silly not to have it in the article. Thank you for your recent contributions to the talk page by the way. Our best work gets done when we work together with respect. Peace. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It was in the article, but you are insisting on duplicating the info and making the word jump out of the page with no qualification whatsoever. Hans Adler 09:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your latest edits to the article have been in line with consensus and have helped make it a better article. Thanks for working with the rest of us. It's looking nice now. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this for your archive box

Hans, for your archive box setup, try this:

However, if you use an automatic archiver (like Mizabot), then in the future, you will want to add the pages in the form that I set up the archive box on the Stephen Barrett talk page. This way, if you want to archive more often, and have more archives, they don't take a lot of space on your user talk page. Hope that helps. --stmrlbs|talk 17:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have set things up for automatic archiving and I am just waiting for MiszaBot to do its work now. Once there are archives, I will see if/how I can add the two manual ones without losing the automatical ones. Hans Adler 18:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hans, the problem with keeping archive 1 and 2 only in the history of your talk pages, is I don't think you can search this - because the history pages aren't indexed. If you want to make this all searchable, I would take those 2 pages out of history, create a real talk page archive 1 and 2, change Miszabot to start at archive 3, and then you also eliminate the problem of having to manually add these 2 odd ducks later.

Also, did you mean to put "archive = User talk:Example/Archive %(counter)d" in the Miszabot? (I laughed, because I think I did exactly the same thing the first time I set it up. copied it over, and forgot to change Example to my name). --stmrlbs|talk 21:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not very concentrated recently. I don't mind if I can't search the archives. I chose this method originally because it's so lightweight. But you are right, it's better to avoid the two special cases. Hans Adler 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course! You should set up your archives the way you want, and search what you want. I'm just offering suggestions as I have looked into this for my own talk page and also some other article talk pages. --stmrlbs|talk 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Information on Ireland

Hans here is an article I put together as an alternative to the current Republic of Ireland article which deals with the Irish State and not the actual descriptive term. Hope it helps, --Domer48_'fenian' 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I discovered it by accident a few hours ago. Looks quite comprehensive and would certainly have helped me if I had found it earlier. This is where I found the EU style guide. But I think it would require some NPOV work before it would be fit for article space. Hans Adler 23:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this edit. Although my English is fluent, I have trouble explaining grammar and sentence structure. I hope the editor sees the point now. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For consistently having useful, intelligent, and polite comments in Homeopathy discussions, despite the constant battles there, I award you this Barnstar. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 192 FCs served 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's rather unexpected and very much appreciated even though I tend to think of the belief in barnstars as fringe :-). I have never seen a real one myself. [21] Hans Adler 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've always found you worth listening to, even when I disagree. It struck me that, on that rather horrible talk page, with all the nasty disputes, this might not come through so often. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 192 FCs served} 15:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I can return the compliment. Actually, I always thought it does get through often enough. Perhaps we can think of such acts as responding to the gist of an argument rather than attacking the weakest point of its presentation, or accepting that something makes sense while declaring that one still disagrees for other reasons, or even (gasp!) changing one's mind in the face of new evidence, as a kind of masonic handshake between the constructive editors. I certainly feel closer to constructive editors I don't agree with than to the more problematic ones I happen to agree with about basic points. But you are right, such bonds can only improve when they are made explicit. Hans Adler 12:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi. I stopped by to ask you.( I always feel that I have better communication with mathematicians especially with those who are able to use this wonderful science in other areas.) If you have the time, I would like to know -just out of curiosity what is your main disagreement regarding the article since you said you rarely agree with me. Best.--JeanandJane (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very diplomatic feedback. I went through a number of your posts to double-check that what I wrote was right – and it turns out it wasn't. I corrected that. I am not sure where I got this impression from, but I think it's corrected in my mind now. Sorry. Hans Adler 15:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe, religion, and policies

Are you saying you don't understand that religious beliefs are different from medical and scientific assertions? Or are you saying that you think FRINGE should apply, or does apply, to religious beliefs? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The religious belief in this case says that there is a change in the real, physical world, albeit one that cannot be observed. From a rational point of view this claim is completely unsupported, extreme fringe. For me homeopathy is closer to a religion than to a science/pseudoscience. The Organon clearly functions as its holy book (they have the same ambivalent relation to it as most religions to theirs), and Hahnemann as the founder. Similar things can be said about psychoanalysis. On the other hand, many religions have pseudoscientific aspects; dogmatic theology is probably the most important example of that. Marxism has clear pseudoscientific traits.

"Fringe" isn't just about true or false. Basically the word signals: "There are so few people believing this crap, and those who do have such a low status, that it's not worth trying to respect their feelings." In the case of homeopathy that's simply not true, as you can see from the fact that it's so hard to find quotable strongly negative words about homeopathy. Many respectable medical scientists have close contact to, and esteem personally, practising homeopaths, e.g. their wives. (Once a US physician lost his licence for taking over a patient from his wife, a homeopath, when that had been outlawed by his organisation.) Fringe isn't necessarily the same as what is covered by WP:FRINGE. The original motivation behind WP:FRINGE is to deal with fringe, but guidelines evolve. An article may well fall under WP:FRINGE but not be about fringe, and conversely.

The very fact that the homeopathy article is such a battlefield proves that it's relatively respectable. Such battles always happen in the grey zones.

I am not arguing against saying, as clearly as we can support it, that homeopathy is wrong. I am arguing against saying or implying that hardly anybody believes it, because that's simply incorrect. When I studied in Freiburg im Breisgau and needed a physician, I asked around among maths students and was recommended one. A few years later he prescribed a homeopathic remedy against my hayfever (the remedy was not covered by the public health insurance). I had not asked for it. (But it helped, btw, and I credit the placebo effect for that. It's known to be strong for allergies.) Then my daughter was born, and my wife got a random midwife to assist her. She practised homeopathy. (She was no good at all; my wife switched, and the next one didn't.) And that's not just some freaky accident; I am sure you have seen Dbrisinda's numbers about actual usage of homeopathy within the medical system.

So: Homeopathy is fringe as a science, but not as a belief system/alternative medicine/chapter from the history of medicine. You may only be interested in an article about the science face of homeopathy. But others may well be interested only in the other aspects. The article needs to cover them all, and all correctly. Hans Adler 12:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! thank you, I believe I understand your meaning. "Fringe" does not mean many people do not believe it - indeed, a great many people may believe it. Its how many experts believe it - or rather, do not support it - that makes it fringe. So this is a popluar fringe belief. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The term used in the FAQ is fringe belief. I have gone into more detail about my attempts to find out what that is supposed to mean on the homeopathy talk page. In short: I don't think it's a legitimate technical term with a precise meaning. It's an imprecise pejorative formed from combining two justified criticisms of homeopathy in a sloppy way. "Homeopathy is a fringe belief" makes no sense as signifying "Homeopathy is a fringe science" or "[The belief in] homeopathy is belief in a fringe science". It only makes sense to read it as "Homeopathy is a belief system that is fringe among belief systems." And that's simply not true. Hans Adler 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint about verbiage on the policy may be worth discussing there. However, a fringe theory includes "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus". No mention of whether they're popular, or have any religious overtones. Homeopathy claims to be science, and is not science. Ergo, fringe. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing for "fringe science". I am arguing against "fringe belief". Can you spot the difference? We are not allowed to be sloppy just because we don't like something. It's natural behaviour (see e.g. outgroup homogeneity bias), but it's something we need to combat when writing an encyclopedia. Hans Adler 12:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only can I spot the difference, I suggested in my last post to you here that you discuss improving the verbiage on the Fringe talk page. I still suggest it. however, *I* am not "arguing for" a thing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming and shaming

Hello Hans. On 16 August you contributed to WP:WQA#Naming and shaming. Thank you for adding to the debate.

You suggested that I solve the problem by simply changing the title to something acceptable. I won’t do that for the following reason.

A few weeks ago a User (S Marshall) wrote something about me that I found offensive so I deleted it. S Marshall then reverted my edit. I then wrote to him on his Talk page and explained why I made the deletion. On 3 August, at User talk:S Marshall/Archive7#Lift vector, S Marshall replied:

First: on debate pages, it is never acceptable for you to edit someone else's words in such a way as to change their meaning or emphasis. You can reply, but you do not get to edit what someone else has said. (Very occasionally a remark is made that needs to be deleted from Wikipedia entirely, but that's always a matter for admins or for WP:OVERSIGHT. If in doubt, alert an admin.)

As you can see, your advice to me, and S Marshall’s advice are exactly opposite. I am inclined to believe that neither of you is entirely wrong, but neither of you is exactly correct either.

As you know, I objected to a newcomer being named in the thread titled Quantummechanic, do you understand this subject at all? On two occasions I have discussed my objection in detail with the author of this title. I have tried to explain to the author that he should amend the title because it is potentially offensive, and not consistent with the Wikipedia Code of Conduct. So far, he has not amended his title. I could change it myself, but then he could revert my change, and we would have an edit war. As a matter of principle, I do not engage in edit wars.

I believe it will be far more effective if an administrator decides the final outcome. That will set a valuable precedent for use by others. Also it will be consistent with the advice given to me by S Marshall, as quoted above.

At the heart of all this is the question about whether it is legitimate to use the title of a thread on a Talk page to engage in incivility. There is also the question about whether newcomers should be named and shamed, not on their User talk page but on a much-visited Talk page such as Talk:Entropy.

Wikipedia welcomes newcomers, and I am a passionate defender of newcomers. Newcomers are generally not able to defend themselves against personal attacks because they don’t know their rights, and they don’t know what strategies are available to them to defend themselves legitimately and effectively.

I am opposed to incivility, in favour of courteous behaviour by all Users, and in favour of welcoming-behaviour towards newcomers. I stand up and speak up when I see these principles ignored. Why not join me?

Best regards, Dolphin51 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is standard practice to change inappropriate section headings. Sometimes people insist on changing it back, but there is no reason to expect this in this case. Instead you have blown the matter out of all proportion and shamed Quantumechanic even more by drawing attention of editors to the matter who would otherwise never have known of the case. It's absurd to fight for principles that are supposed to protect individuals, and to show no consideration for them while fighting. I am not going to join you in that. If I ever make such a mistake myself, it will be as my own, genuine mistake. Hans Adler 00:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Although in your message on Count Iblis' talk page you asked him to change the section heading, there was no chance that this would actually make him do it. That's because it was too long and too judgemental/accusatory. If the section heading was your main concern (I have serious doubts; it seems quite possible that initially you expected more and now you are back pedalling; but I simply don't know, so I will assume it was your main concern at the time), then a short, focused, determined and constructive message would have been much more efficient. E.g.: "I noticed that you are quite angry with Quantumechanic, and perhaps your last section heading shows it a bit too much. If I were him this would be quite stressful for me, and I am not sure it's fully consistent with our civility norms, strictly speaking. I hope you don't mind if I change the heading to something like 'Comment on a recent edit'."

In other words, if you had approached Count Iblis more civilly, you would have had better results. Hans Adler 00:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Hans. Thanks for your super-quick response. Your advice is very sound.

I agree that I appear to be back-pedalling. My essays to Count Iblis constituted broad-based criticism of his behaviour. In contrast, my post on WP:WQA#Naming and shaming is not a criticism of Count Iblis; it is a criticism of Wikipedia on one point only. Wikipedia should not carry statements that name and shame, or have the potential to name and shame, individuals. When such statements appear on Wikipedia, Users should ensure they are removed.

It will be good to see how this is eventually resolved by an administrator. It could be that I am wrong. It certainly seems that way at present - everyone who has commented seems to be in favour of the status quo. If the status quo is acceptable to Wikipedia we probably need amendments to WP:Please do not bite the newcomers and WP:Civility to explain how naming and shaming operates, how it is done, who may do it, and the general advantages of naming and shaming others.

Thanks again for your thoughts. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a very funny place with inconsistent rules, and you can't really rely on the way they are written down. Some people try to apply them literally and consistently, but many of those who really have something to say here care first and foremost about the encyclopedia. They stretch the rules one way or the other depending on who seems to be right about encyclopedic content. That's not a healthy situation, but as has been noted by independent researchers, Wikipedia has no official way to judge content questions when editors simply can't agree. The side with the best behaviour wins. That's often, but not always, the side that is right about the content. The pragmatic solution is to judge behaviour implicitly in the light of content. If you are trying to protect a physics article against serious regressions (which everybody will agree is the case if several established members of the physics project agree that's what you are doing), you will get a lot of leniency. If you update Relativity theory with the latest research showing that we live on the inside of a hollow Earth, which of course disproves the theory, and also add a few mentions that Einstein was Jewish, you will be on a very short leash.

This tribal knowledge is rarely made explicit even inside Wikipedia, so it's easy to miss it at first. It produces surprisingly good results, although I don't always agree with them. Sometimes people who are plain wrong about content are simply too well-behaved, like the guy who is writing Ra (channeled entity). And unfortunately this system also favours clueless people who behave like hooligan fans of science, combating even correct encyclopedic information that they consider anti-science. But I guess this is nothing against the problems we might get through an official system for judging content questions. Hans Adler 06:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hans. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That IP

Thank you for pursuing this in detail today. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for being one of the commenters who reassured me that I am not just going mad. Hans Adler 17:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tanks

A community that overreacts about everything..... If a tank is not something to take light heartedly then mentioning it in the first place by our complainer and comparing it to that is extremely over the top and a gross over reaction. If it not a subject to discuss then he should not have compared 250 articles to a life and death, not my fault. P.S. why do you spend all of your time at ANI? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

My effort to make sure that you don't get blocked seems to have offended you. Don't worry, I won't repeat this mistake. Hans Adler 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: 94.192.38.247‎

You are bringing this up 5 hours after the fact? Come on dude. It is closed, it is over, it is done. You want to rehash the same stuff over and over and over, that is fine. I did my part. I got a disruptive user and potential sockpuppet blocked for being disruptive and being a protential sockpuppet...and oh yeah, edit warring. So, if that makes me wrong, then I guess the 4 other admins who were part of the discussion were wrong too, gotta block them. You rehash, I got better things to do. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess: You just woke up and found the message from 11 hours ago on your talk page? At the time when I wrote it your victim was still blocked, so it wasn't over. In the meantime he has been unblocked and two of the admins involved have left very gracious, unconditional apologies on his talk page. Hans Adler 22:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually yes, I did just wake up and found the message. I sleep during the day and get up around 6pm EST. Not like that is any business of anyones. I see no reason why the block was reversed and apologies were issued. The person was disruptive and violated 3RR and we apologize? Come on! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Symbol (formal)

The word symbol as used in formal languages needs a definition. It is not sufficient to leave it to the other article.

Having said that, I think the state of my efforts (which I have edited ten times because I am rather unhappy with it) is not very clear.

But let's not throw out formal symbols altogether. They deserve a wiki page. mukerjee (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am adding both your comment and my response to the talk page for Symbol (formal).

Thank you ...

Mr. Adler, for your post on Bishonen's talk page. It made me feel a little less "alone" out here. ;-) ... Cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  12:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your feelings. Life must be quite dull with all those deserts and cows and stuff and nobody to speak to other than gold seekers and disgraced former presidents... At least the French have sent you a nice big statue to keep you company. Hans Adler 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Point taken sir. Thanks again, and you have a wonderful day. ;) — Ched :  ?  14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Isis's husband

Hans Adler, i apologize for not noticing your question about this earlier - i've just now seen it, and replied at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Resolution: the final syllable of Isis (like the final syllable of Delores) is not pronounced like the verb is. the verb ends with a /z/ sound; both Isis and Delores end with an /s/ sound. and yes, the OUP rule recommends Jesus's (which matches my pronunciation anyway, so it's fine with me). again, apologies for not seeing your question earlier. Sssoul (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. I tend to neglect the difference between the two sounds, although of course I shouldn't. Hans Adler 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Req.

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Arbitration Request by Logos5557 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Logos5557 (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong conversion

Hello Hans, Please see my note at Talk:Dual gauge#Refimprove tag. Templates do NOT lie! Peter Horn User talk 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You are rock and roll

		The Special Barnstar
		You are pure wiki punk rock awesome in my eyes! WP:IAR gets raised so poorly so often that its mention is all too often equivalent to the Hitler card, being more a sign of a lost argument than a good one. Here you provide a compelling and well-articulated reason to the ignore the standard practice, without the standard overwrought appeals to the sanctity of the wiki, the evil of one's opponents, or IAR itself. It stands a lesson to others about how its done. It also provided a reminder for me that common sense and the fundamentals of the project still have plenty of life left to breathe around here. If I can ever be of assistance to you, whether as an editor, administrator or mediator, please let me know and I will do whatever I can to help. I feel after such a great feat as properly justifying to me the ignoring of standard practice, I owe you one or more. It's certainly not something I will forget soon, because it is all too rare. Vassyana (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow thanks. Hans Adler 05:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Forest

op on hand this am bad typing this not forest or country park but fancy resort in woods visited it myself monday Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems I made some trivial edits to this article, perhaps after it was mentioned in a noticeboard? After googling a bit I think I know what you mean.[22] I made a few quick corrections, but I guess this article should really be moved to Pinelog Group and made more inclusive.

I hope your hand will get better soon. Hans Adler 05:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's improving and I can type a bit for a short time with it. Is this resort notable? Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

RFAR request

In case you are no longer following the request, I gave Logos some helpful advice here, along with some advice for you as well. I may have missed some of the surrounding context of the debates, but I really don't think such language is helpful. Would you consider toning the wording down in future? Comments like the one Vassyana gave you a barnstar for are much better than the language you used that Logos objected to. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, thanks for your feedback. Calling a spade a spade is normally not constructive. The surrounding context was what happened around the last AfD and my feeling of overall helplessness in this matter since then. If I remember correctly (I am on dial-up right now and not checking this), I was much more diplomatic 9 months ago. In any case interaction with Logos was extremely tiresome. I think this explains my short temper quite well, although I am of course not trying to sell it as an excuse. Hans Adler 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero/ Novelty theory , an RFC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with a Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of content on SSCS

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, you will be blocked from editing. Again, with the removal of templates and information well supported by WP:Terrorist guidelines your edits are causing concern. I understand that you agree with half of the notable experts but this does not mean it is good to remove the half of the notable expert opinion that you disagre with. Lets present all the notable expert opinion as published in major news sources so that the article is not imbalanced. Also, if you want to be bold, work towards consensus. Don't just delete. Discuss and find common ground. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of categorization

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. On Sea Shepherd Conservation Society I noticed you are quite adamant that the SSCS are not to be included in the eco-terrorism category. The sources say quite clearly how various entities view the organization as eco-terrorst. I understand from your discussion points that you disagree with the views of these people but please try to understand that the article need to reflect thier view point, not your own. Pleas stop inserting your own POV and let's use the POV of the notable cited experts on the subjet. Also, please wait for consenus before removing content. We've talked about this before, it's not good for the article. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Simmilarly on the MV Steve Irwin page you removed the same categorization claiming in the comment section "not appropriate per Arbcom decision on pseudoscience category; see Sea Shepherd talk page". There is no Arbcom decion regarding pseudo science. You were the only one with that opinion as far as I could tell. One person comparing eco-terrosim to pseudo science doesn't make a consensus. If there is a wiki policy being violated that's one thing, but it really seems like you are trying to protect the SSCS from well cited expert opinion. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

One additional comment, I mistakenly attributed certain personal attacks against me to you. It was not you and I appologise for the mistake. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's bad form to leave bogus warnings of this kind on other editors' talk pages. In the time before you left the above message (11 July to early GMT hours 2 September) you added the category 5 times and Mdlawmba added it once. Cptnono, Tranquillity Base and I each removed it twice to restore the status quo while the discussion is ongoing. It is you who are insisting on changing the status quo and apparently unable to wait for a consensus to be reached.

The Arbcom decision is at WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE under the four headings starting with WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE#Obvious pseudoscience. It was incorporated into policy as WP:PSCI. Our NPOV problem at SSCS is exactly analogous to the other problem. I am not trying to protect the SSCS "from well cited expert opinion". The Japanese and Norwegian government etc. are clearly not NPOV sources for deciding whether SSCS is eco-terrorist; they are SSCS's opponents. The FBI guy's opinion would count as an expert opinion, but he didn't say that they are eco-terrorist. The fact that there is no arrest warrant for Paul Watson shows that this wasn't a mistake or an artefact of that document's formulation. I am making sure that defamation by SSCS opponents is not presented as the gospel in Wikipedia, but only in its proper context, i.e. attributed to its originators. You can't do that with a category inclusion. Hans Adler 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, take another look. Norway, Japan, US, Canada, Greenpeace all define the SSCS as eco terrorists. You may disagree but that's where they stand. And they are more notable than you or I, yes? The FBI article defines the term nicely and they claims that SSCS does the things that fit that definition. Regardless, usage of the term is all covered in WP:Terrorist. All your concerns about trying to apply the term in light of Pseudoscience has allready been addressed in WP:Terrorist, and it's quite clearly written. Peace and happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. In the US Sea Shepherd is a legal non-profit organisation, not an eco-terrorist one. What you are doing with the FBI/Congress source is improper synthesis. The source does not explicitly draw the conclusion, and there is reason to suppose that this is for good reason, e.g. to avoid libel complaints or to make sure that the FBI does not have to treat Sea Shepherd as terrorists. If our source carefully avoids calling a spade a spade it's original research for us to do so. And you continue to apply WP:TERRORIST incorrectly. What's ambiguous about "then the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation"?

You needn't answer because I am fed up with your pestering me here with your bogus warnings, and with your apparent inability to communicate constructively. My user talk page is now off-limits for you except for required notifications. Hans Adler 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please don't take your frustrations out on people on the talk page. Talk about the issues to try to make it a better article.--69.213.86.67 (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica

Do you really need more information on Antarctic claims. Surprisingly, Wikipedia is short on info but like I mentioned on the talk page I will add more from good sources but still think the two lines are unrelated and not needed. Let me know if you really want the info and I can provide it. If not, don't base conclusions on international law off assumptions made after reading one source that doesn't go into detail please.Cptnono (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about the precise nature and extent of the claims in question, and their context, so I only have a vague feeling that what you added makes sense. The problem is that it's a relatively concrete claim that needs citation in principle, and that you have added it in such a way that readers will think it's in the cited source when it actually isn't. Hans Adler 08:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Great argument, looks like it needs a replay

I laughed myself to tears reading your post in Talk:Formal language/Archive 1#Mathematical logic has crept in and taken over. The topic has been reopened by the creation of formal language (logic). Pcap ping 10:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems the only way we can get rid of the disruption is by getting rid of Gregbard. I have given up all hope that he actually learns anything about the topics he thinks he is promoting. Hans Adler 16:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Gilet

Hi Hans, perhaps you could do me a favor. Can you check "Gilet" at The Oxford guide to card games, p. 90 ? Anything else in your book about this game ? Thanks Krenakarore (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit handicapped at the moment due to a misconfigured computer and dial-up internet, but by pure accident I have the book where I am. Parlett isn't very clear wrt. Gilet itself, but it appears that the following games are identical or at least closely related:

• Gé ('Pair', also spelled J'ai), which "is evidently [...] Geleus".
• According to Cardano 1564, Geleus is from geleo, "I have it".
• The Italian version of the name is apparently Gilè. In "Florio's 1611 dictionary" it is explained as "like our poste and paire".
• "The Gilet of eighteenth-century France was a three-card game of two deals, the first for a fixed stake won by the best pair or triplet, the second vied for in respect of the best-held flush-point." An end note says it first appeared in the Académie Universelle des Jeux in 1718, and that Depaulis told him the earliest French references are 1610 and 1640.
• The Spanish variant is discussed on p.98: "Giley, described by Barnes as much played at horse fairs -- and hence, by association, a gypsy game -- deals four or more players four cards each from a 28-card pack and a showdown is won by the best flush-point. With Ace 11, courts, treys, and deuces 10 each, and Seven worth 7, a four-flush will be worth 37-41 points, a three-flush 27-30, and so on. Not dissimilar is Golfo, declared by Barnes to be the king of gambling games [...] and played also as Goffo in Italy and Gofo in Uruguay. [...]"

In case you want to research this further: The obvious places to look at, based on Parlett, are Académie Universelle des Jeux (several versions are available from Google Books; if you have trouble downloading them I can help you once I am back in Vienna) and Barnes, Juegos de Naipes Españoles, Vitoria, 2nd ed., 1984.

I have translated the game in the Académie Universelle des Jeux, ed. 1777. I had already found a similar description in Dictionnaire encyclopédique des mathématiques, par mm. d'Alembert, l'abbé by Jean Le Rond d'Alembert, Charles Bossut, ed. 1786 (the other book: Encyclopédie Méthodique. Dictionnaire des Jeux, pg. 91, ed. 1792, is inside the same file !), but your info is indispensable. I didn't know any of the things you mentioned about. I have been collecting info for some time, now I'll mix and upload them fine.

Parlett is right. There are two Gilets, also Trionfetti. I will try Juegos de Naipes Españoles, as you said. Maybe I can find more info on the game Rentoy. Thanks a lot pal, that was really cool ! Krenakarore (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Doggerland

I noticed that at Talk:Doggerland you mentioned, some time ago, that you were working on possible edits to the Doggerland article. As I and others have contributed a little to that article in the last few days, I wondered whether you might also be in a position to add your suggestions to it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I ran out of steam with this. In the meantime I have moved, and until my new provider suddenly starts showing signs of rudimentary competence I only have internet at work. Another problem is that most of the literature I collected is still in my boxes, and the boxes are about 800 km from where I am living now. But I should be able to have a closer look next week or so.

My original plan was to rewrite the article in my sandbox and then put the result live in one step, to get a sufficient explosion in article size for WP:DYK. But perhaps that was a mistake. It may be better to work on it more slowly and go for WP:GA. Hans Adler 15:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Men Who Stare at Goats

Haven't seen this yet, but it looks like an interesting film - you know, being (kind of ) about telepathy, and war, etcetera. Perhaps we should have an article ...   pablo_hablo. 14:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not... I can certainly do without a new act of that particular drama. Hans Adler 15:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was reading about this in the paper this morning - it stars George Clooney and so will be big. IIRC, it's based on a true story so we can expect numerous spin-off articles. Next up - The Men Who Stare at Watchlists... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That one I wouldn't pay to see; I have a perfectly adequate mirror …   pablo_hablo. 19:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Zonengrenze

Hi Hans, I noticed your comment about "Zonengrenze" being an uncommon term for the inner German border. Actually, it appears to have been the principal term used on BGS border signs prior to the Ostpolitik era (see [23] for an example). The "Zonengrenze" border signs were subsequently replaced with signs referring to the "Grenze", though it seems that not all were replaced. Anthony Bailey says (in Along the edge of the forest: an Iron Curtain journey) that even by the 1980s "roughly one sign in ten" still used the term. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, initially it was a standard term in the West. West Germany officially referred to East Germany as the "East Zone", "Soviet Zone". Informally, "the Zone" was commonly used. This was of course offensive to officials on the other side (who saw East Germany as a separate sovereign state, not a zone of a Germany-to-be-united), and therefore usage by the West German state, media and population slowly changed via "the so-called GDR" and "the 'GDR'" to "the GDR". At the time when I started reading newspapers only some right-wing newspapers still used the inverted commas, and I only remember hearing "the so-called GDR" or "the zone" from actors who played a particularly right-wing person on television.

The term appears later, so it should be mentioned somewhere. But I think in its current position it has too much weight. More importantly, it's potentially misleading to readers who might think that Germans in general referred to the border in this way, over most of the period in question. I tried to address this with only a minimal addition, to avoid giving the word even more weight. Hans Adler 00:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I changed the wording to "initially also Zonengrenze" to indicate that this was an early, limited-duration usage. Does that sound right to you? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfect as it indicates the temporal restriction and hints at the geographical restriction. Hans Adler 12:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of MD and DO in the United States

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Please don't label other editors as 'pedants' or mock them for their interests. Conflicts happen around content from time to time, but there is no need to resort to name calling or being rude. We all have to try to get along here despite having different ideas. In future please restrict your comments to the article content rather than the editors. MRSC (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you refrain from issuing such admonishments until your reading age is sufficiently advanced to be able to distinguish between "You're a pedant!" and "Not every user of the English language is a pedant with an inflated interest in things like stamp collecting or arcane details of legal definitions ...". There's no shame in being uneducated, but best not to flaunt it. --Malleus Fatuorum 07:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinly veiled insults are still insults. MRSC (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of having engaged in a thinly veiled insult? If so, proof please. Hans Adler 12:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's some pretty thin skin there. If Jza84 himself is similarly thin-skinned (which I doubt) I would appreciate it if he could say so himself. I would have felt justified to use much stronger language than I did. After all, he attacked another editor with the words "[t]hat's a POV interpretation, not grounded in fact", based on nothing but a canard (that what is the first definition of "city" in many dictionaries is not valid in the UK) that was debunked in an earlier thread in which he participated (although not as actively as I remembered). See the second thread in Talk:Leeds/Archive /March 2008.

BTW, I did not mean to mock anyone's interests. I am very strongly interested in such things myself, e.g. see "my" article Mundat Forest. The underlying problem is not the interest in a topic but the failure to realise that the internal conventions of enthusiasts for a topic don't invalidate the more general conventions such as those described in dictionaries. It's absurd to deny that regardless of its legal status a huge settlement is commonly called a "city". And "pedant" is a technical term referring precisely to people engaging in this kind of absurdity. Hans Adler 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

fyi

Note that one of the editors who you referred to in your June AN/I, 龗, has just been blocked as a sock.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AN actually, not AN/I, and he didn't play an important role. But thanks anyway. Hans Adler 08:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops ... sorry. Understood. Just thought it might interest you (as I don't know the relations of all in that issue).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Chzz was never involved in the homeopathy situation otherwise. I guess he was just trying to score a quick point for his sock by participating in the mob against a banworthy editor. Hans Adler 09:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WT:NOR, quotation marks, link

Hi! In your recent message at WT:NOR, could you check it over to see if the quotation marks are correct? For instance, the sentence re exception seems to be your comment, rather than part of the quote. And could you give a link to where the quote came from? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote the first sentence from Quotation: "Quotation marks or inverted commas (informally referred to as quotes and speech marks) are punctuation marks used in pairs to set off speech, a quotation, a phrase, or a word."

What makes you think that my WT:NOR passage in quotation marks (which I thought I sufficiently framed as made up on the spot by introducing it with the words "Here is a quick example...") was a quotation rather than (fictional) speech? This is not the first time someone has misunderstood me in this way, so I am genuinely curious. Maybe this use of quotation marks is dying out in the US or somewhere? I am sure it's still alive in my cultural sphere. I would have thought that the explicit reference to the proposal was a dead give-away that this was not a real-life example. Hans Adler 16:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that it was a fictional example, i.e. one that you made up, rather than one that appeared in a source. However, even as a fictional example, it's not clear what parts are the fictional example and what parts are your comments on the fictional example, because the quotation marks may be misplaced. I hope this is useful feedback. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The stuff in quotation marks is the typical wikilawyering by people who try to get their personal opinions into an article based on them being (so they think) obvious, straightforward consequences of what the reliable sources say. I don't know where you are getting the idea of misplaced quotation marks from. They are precisely where they should be and would make no sense anywhere else. Hans Adler 18:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that discussion, I figured situations like this would require consensus and application of WP:COMMON. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

MFD nomination of User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom

Hello, this page has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in participating in the discussion, located here. Thanks, GlassCobra 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava "identity"

At no point did he say that he was Essjay. Provide a diff, or strike it out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I asked him: "I put it to you that you are not a scholar. You are obviously not capable of reasoned debate. Please answer this direct question: Are you Essjay?" To which he replied: "Yes, you first had a problem with me and have been following me ever since. [...] And you can claim that I am not a scholar all you want. However, my real name is known and easy to find." [24]

I wouldn't have minded him returning (the previous incarnation was before my time here), but if he insists on resuming his habit of pushing his opinion with reference to false credentials, then it's an obvious problem:

• Trying to push Derrida into Linguistics by bullying the experts. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
• Threatening to call another editor's university. [30]

(By the way, when I researched this I realised that I had a short interaction with Ottava in April at Talk:Linguistics, after the diffs that I provided.) Hans Adler 21:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not see that "yes" as being a response to "Are you Essjay", and suggest you try to see it as an interjection instead of a response.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It ought to be quite clear to you that Ottava was replying "yes" to a different question, not to "Are you Essjay?" It is rather concerning that you are pusuing your misconception this way in the face of all reason. I know who Ottava is, and he is most certainly not Essjay. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I do not know this. He is making wild claims about Knights of Columbus, ethics blogs and PhDs in progress. Do you believe him that he is an expert on ethics, of all topics, given his unethical conduct here? Doesn't this remind you of Essjay's motto Lux et Veritas? I am not talking about the Chillum nonsense. I am talking about his POV pushing, which doesn't even stop when he is dealing with a bunch of professionals. Hans Adler 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for striking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking nicely. Hans Adler 22:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got no idea whether Ottava is an expert in ethics or not, or even what an expert in ethics would be. All I'm saying is that Essjay and Ottava are not the same person. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, Ottava has a tendency to accuse other users of being Essjay. He did this when he harassed John Kenney and threatened to phone up his university for daring to disagree with him back in August. It led to another ANI thread in which, predictably, no action was taken against him [31]. Read the whole thing, it's eerily familiar. --Folantin (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was actually one of the reasons that put me on this possible connection. Many sockpuppets of banned users behave in such a way. Given Ottava's apparent level of social intelligence it makes perfect sense to suspect him of thinking that this protects him from people making the connection, when the reverse is true. Hans Adler 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is Essjay. He claims to be some sort of English student although he makes some very basic errors. He was most insistent Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur was a work of Renaissance poetry (sic). His comments on Iranian history include some of the weirdest claims I've ever seen on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Malory poetry? Then it's even worse than I thought. I would say I have it on my shelf, only it's not true because I just moved and it's still in self-storage somewhere. (And I am just a German mathematician.) Do you have a diff for this nonsense?

Oh, and is there a list of "his" articles? Perhaps there is one that I know enough about to do some basic fact checking. Since it seems to be consensus that he can get away with almost everything because of his articles, I would like to make sure that they are worth it and don't contain too much OR. Hans Adler 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Watch out. You will simply be added to the list of "conspirators" against him, the membership of which changes every week. --Folantin (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Folantin: Do you think it's seemly to be discussing another editor in that way?

Hans: you could start by looking at Samuel Johnson, an article I worked on with Ottava. It's a big subject, shouldn't be too difficult to check up on. Nicolo Giraud comes to mind as well, as a rather more niche topic. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Samuel Johnson would just about interest me enough, but I am really looking for something where he worked without effective peer review. I guess the profile of this article is too high for that. Nicolo Giraud looks as if it would fit better, but I wouldn't keep myself awake when researching this. I definitely don't want to know more about this topic than I just learned from a quick glance at the article. Hans Adler 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I can more or less see why you were suspicious about similarities between Ottava and Essjay (both tend to grandstand somewhat), I have received personal email from Ottava that can be tied to an identity that is very clearly not Essjay's, and that confirms much of what he says about his occupation and qualifications. Again, while I just about understand your mistake, it's time to admit it was a mistake and, I'd suggest, apologize to Ottava. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but for that the situation is simply not clear enough. It doesn't seem likely that Essjay has not returned to Wikipedia, and if he has, he likely has built a false identity outside Wikipedia or hijacked an existing one. For example it's often not too hard to get email addresses or webspace from smaller institutions that you can then use to pretend you are affiliated to them. Or you can simply register a domain that looks as if it was an alternative domain for an existing institution. Or you just make up your own institution. I know what I am talking about; I once initiated a harmless prank where we kept the website for a fake polytechnical university (in a town that doesn't have one) running for several years. It took only a few days to set this up.

Therefore I am not going to accept any proof for a specific RL identity of Ottava that I haven't verified myself. But I don't have the necessary information and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to ask for it. Hans Adler 23:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans, this is futile conspiracy-theorizing. I have seen more than enough evidence otherwise. Believe me, and if only in the spirit of good faith, apologize to Ottava. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Or even better, in the spirit of not getting an NPA block. ;-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of taking home the necessary lessons from the Essjay affair I am not going to apologise before I have been convinced he is not Essjay. And in that case the extent of my apology would depend on whether he can convince me that the claims he made here about his qualifications are true. I was going to say more about the gap between what qualifications Ottama habitually implies and what I am quite sure he said to a friend recently, but I can't find the diff right now and must leave my computer. Will finish later today.

Of course stopping to push the accusation is an entirely different matter. In anycase I would appreciate an unequivocal statement by OR that he is not Essjay. I don't think that's too much to ask for after the way he pressured Chillum to get an answer out of him. Hans Adler 07:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Watch your back, Hans. He's probably forum-shopping on IRC about you. He does a lot of schmoozing on the back channels which is why his buddies will always turn up to defend him. Check out this conversation [32]:

• "You could just email me via Wiki or go on IRC if you want to know my real name. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)"

• You are free to send me an email. My home page is linked from the 3rd paragraph of my user page, and it has my email address. Hans Adler 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Between Ottava, Malleus, and a certain RFA, I bet IRC is hot tonight! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)" I'll bet it is. --Folantin (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent:) Folantin, I hardly see that comment as helpful. Hans, I do think you're pushing the civility envelope here. And in my mind, at least, the lesson of the Essjay affair is that people should attend to the actual edits that other editors make, rather than to their grandstanding about credentials. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the actual edits. In areas infected by nationalism or pseudoscience, contributions to the talk page are often much more relevant. And precisely the same situation occurs wherever Ottava decides that another editor is his enemy. He has the subtlety and rhetorical finesse of a fighting dog. I think I am particularly resistant to bullying, but on Talk:The Awful German Language he succeeded because I politely withdrew when I realised that he didn't shrink from disrupting Durova's DYK project.

Note how he authoritatively made the ludicrous claim that I was not allowed to fix an obvious typo or OCR error in the Gutenberg edition of a Twain text unless I found a first edition. At least he made the necessary correction himself – 2 1/2 months after the article had appeared on the main page. (I mentioned this incident before on OR's talk page, but Jehochman deleted it there for unrelated reasons. In the meantime I found about one very limited previous interaction between us, on Talk:Linguistics. But I am sure there was no provocation for the boundless hostility that I faced.)

Other people may let themselves be bullied for different reasons, such as: (1) The article not being sufficiently important to get a heart attack for. (2) Being "just" a postdoc in literature with a real name account while Ottava talks as if he were a bossy and senile full professur who might well go out of his way to ruin a young colleague's career. (3) Not being sure about the precise bounds of Ottava's apparent craziness.

This is a bit off-topic, but: Ottava needs to get the message that his behaviour here is actually illegal. (In Great Britain under section 21 of the SSA;[33] presumably other jurisdictions have similar laws.) I am paying my Wikipedia membership fees for reasoned arguments, not for abuse or contradiction. Hans Adler 22:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have no problem with Ottava's edits being criticized, whether they take place on articles or on talk pages. You are far from alone in criticizing him. But I repeat that to suggest that he is forging his identity, and specifically that he is the return of probably the encyclopedia's single most controversial editor, is unhelpful at the very best. (NB I'm not sure what you mean about Wikipedia membership fees.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are unsure about the height of the membership fees (aren't you paying them? I didn't know that admins are exempt) then you clearly haven't followed the link. Hans Adler 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've referred to him using Wikipedia as a free Pythonesque argument clinic myself. I'm 99.9% positive he isn't Essjay so I wouldn't bother continuing with that line of inquiry as it's only likely to get you into trouble with people who would otherwise be sympathetic to your complaints about him. Anyway, Ottava has left the building so there is no longer any need for this "drama". Somehow I have a feeling it won't last... --Folantin (talk) 09:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have watched IRC for a few hours recently (quite unusual for me – I think I am, and have always been, too old for that sort of thing), and based on what I have seen there I am not afraid of him conspiring against me there, or anything like that. I must say that while I saw him bragging a lot there and making some unlikely claims about himself, his on-wiki presence wouldn't be a big problem if he presented himself in a similar way here. Perhaps part of the division between the pro- and anti-OR camps can be explained by the division between those who judge him by his behaviour on Wikipedia only and those who judge him by his behaviour on Wikipedia + IRC. Judging from his wiki behaviour only he would most likely be a senile teacher at some university who never got tenure. There is almost no indication otherwise. Whether intentional or not, the effect is deception. But things are radically different once you see that he talks freely about his age and other aspects of his life on IRC.

On the other hand, I think my IRC observations confirm my previous impression that I have not talked about yet: He is unable to distinguish between his opinion and truth, between what he has said and what his opponent has acknowledged, between what would fit his argument and what is plausible. I am not sure whether he will ever be able to learn to make this distinction. I think I am also seeing clear signs of confirmation bias, irrational escalation, reactance, wishful thinking, false consensus effect, illusion of transparency, ultimate attribution error beyond the ordinary degree to which we all have them, and with no moderation. For example he seemed to be absolutely convinced that Arbcom is going to exonerate him and punish his opponents. As a result I find it very hard to take this claim seriously (now followed by [this incomprehensible mess]). Many of the arbitrators and a few dozen admins know something, including Lar? More likely than not it just means that Ottava made unlikely or obviously false claims by email to these people and not all of them responded "no, you are wrong" often enough or clearly enough. Hans Adler 12:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"More likely than not it just means that Ottava made unlikely or obviously false claims by email to these people and not all of them responded 'no, you are wrong' often enough or clearly enough." That's probably spot on. If the ArbCom goes ahead I'll call him out on his paranoid fantasies. These accusations are usually ad hoc and the membership of the alleged cabal against him varies widely. One of his charges in that "incomprehensible mess" is particularly ludicrous and hypocritical. I had been trying to avoid this guy since his failed RFA in April. I spent a lot of my summer editing on Wikipedia revising Iranian history articles. As part of this project, I accidentally edited a page on his watchlist ("18th century") which contained a ropey claim about the Safavid dynasty ending in 1722 rather than 1736. He went ballistic and followed me to Talk:Persian Empire where the very first edit he made called for me to be banned for disruption. He has shown the most abysmal ignorance about the most obvious facts of Iranian history (documented here) yet he made 250 or so edits to the article talk page, many calling for me or others to be banned. This went on for two months in which he tried to get my alleged "cabal of five" banned on ANI and filed an ArbCom case against "us" and others (the ANI "gang of five" being users with long histories of editing Iranian topics). The ANI thread culminated in a bizarre rant which climaxed thus [34]: "no one, not one person, has had the guts to defend this Wikipedia by blocking five vandals that are dead set on destroying this place and making it known that Wikipedia is not a place for games, not a place to push some wacko POV, not some whore to be treated like shit." Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Now I learn this is all apparently part of a vendetta against him because User:Geogre was desysopped in July (or something) in some case I was barely aware of. And he has the temerity to go bitching and whining about the months of "hell" he has suffered in a cheap bid for sympathy. I ask you. --Folantin (talk) 13:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

May I ask what this discussion is intended to accomplish? Ottava Rima has quasi-retired; nearly everyone who retires from a website during a dispute does read its pages afterward. This is one reason why such retirements are seldom permanent: provocative reactions tempt them to return. If you dislike him then the wisest course of action is to make his departure a nonissue--unless you actually want a resumption of the conflict. Uninvolved observers watch the behavior of all parties and the appearance of grave dancing is distasteful. We're all human beings here. If you really believe his scholarship was lacking then by all means take a page and quietly raise it to FA on your own. People respect that kind of thing, and it serves the project's best interests. Durova³⁵⁷ 17:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what this discussion has to do with Ottava's "quasi-retirement" and I find it very hard to understand what you are trying to say.

I don't want Ottava to leave this project. I want him to become a more stable man and a more effective editor. And popular. We on this wiki can't fix his private life for him (there seems to be a correlation with his block log), but we can try to help him understand that he must change his behaviour. If and when that fails we can still think about getting rid of him.

Last night on IRC Ottava sounded as if he still thought that he would get his big day in court and then Arbcom would ban all his enemies indefinitely because they were harassing him for no good reason at all. He seems to think he is completely innocent, and even if he were not, the supposedly high quality of his articles would make him immune anyway.

And what does he do now, that he can no longer pretend that almost everybody thinks he is right? He vanishes, apparently in order to wait for better weather. It doesn't work like that in real life. If you are about to lose your job because you turn the workplace into a battle zone you don't have the option to take your annual leave, and then return and resume your behaviour when everybody is focusing on something else.

Apparently the situation got so hot that he could no longer deceive himself, and now he has gone into hiding. OK. But de mortui nil nisi bene applies to the dead, not to fugitives. If you want Arbcom to stop the case that Ottava has opened against himself, you will have to ask them, but I would be surprised if they allow themselves to be gamed so easily. If you want to make me stop talking about this ongoing and very necessary case, then my answer is no. I still haven't sorted out my thoughts about Ottava. At some point I may want to make a statement, but only if I think it's necessary to introduce or strengthen an important aspect.

PS: I find the suggestion that I take one of Ottava's subjects to FA quality (that seems to be implied since you are not making sense otherwise) quite revolting. And I am certainly not going to waste my time and motivation on pressing such an ultra-boring subject through the inefficient FA process. Hans Adler 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

PPS: In case you missed it, Ottava made very strong accusations against a large number of editors. Surely the best way to honour the memory of a semi-retired editor is by actually evaluating them. Do you think he would have wanted to simply forget about them now he is gone? No, we need to find out whether he was right; that's approximately where we were in the discussion when you interrupted. Hans Adler 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Haven't missed it, and haven't agreed with all of it either. Did you notice my posts to RFAR? Nonetheless, this is a volunteer project--not an actual job. Even if his content work isn't perfect (whose is?), he's a prolific contributor of FAs and GAs on encyclopedic subjects. I wish he were better with people. Onsite speculation about his stability isn't likely to improve the situation. A little breathing room on all sides might be a good thing. Respectfully, Durova³⁵⁷ 18:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Vikos-Aoos National Park

Sure, the area is a real treasure. When I've started reading all the relevant bibliography and editing in the article, I've thought this should became something real good. But nothing compares the park itself. Thanks for the comment. I believe that it can be further upgraded since bibliography and scientific projects on this topic are very detailed.Alexikoua (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should really become a featured article. I may be able to help a bit, but I don't actually know much about it and I can't read Greek. Hans Adler 09:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The bibliography I used is english speaking, primarily based on this work. I plan to create in the next weeks the German version of v-a. Cheers!Alexikoua (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Northern Ireland

As someone who agreed with your line on the article wording, rather than Snowded's, I'd also urge you to withdraw your contentious statement, which is unhelpful and the last thing that is needed in such a sensitive area of debate. Feel free to delete this message if you like. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I am taking it seriously. Hans Adler 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI Report

Hi Hans. I am just getting in and catching up with the various developments; I thought I would have a chance to revisit it all during the day, but unfortunately real-life concerns took precedence. However, in the SPI case you filed, the IP should be 68.36.205.151 rather than 68.35.205.151, 36 rather than 35 in the second octet of the IP. Thanks :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I fixed it. Hans Adler 21:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Aww40

Hi, if you want to unblock them I'm fine with it, I was erring on the side of safety given that the sources were dubious and the material was potentially defamatory. As I said on the user's page, a promise to discuss rather than revert would've been enough for me to unblock anyway. Black Kite 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would never do something as uncontroversial as a non-admin unblock! ;-) Actually I think it's not a good idea to unblock them before they have found out how we do discussions at Wikipedia. Remember that talk pages are a bit counterintuitive when you first encounter them. I will leave a message on their talk page, encouraging them to ask for an unblock.

(BTW, I agree that the sources were not reliable for this kind of information. But I wouldn't call them dubious, either. After all, a self-published source by two full professors plus an assistant professor, published on the department server, would be sufficient for some purposes, just not this one. No question that the material was potentially defamatory.) --Hans Adler 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

re Markup at ANI

A submission to Signpost "opinion" request: User:Proofreader77/Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by "civility"

Read the one on the left. (Thanks for reminding me:) Proofreader77 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your "sonnet" makes no sense and I can see no connection to what I told you other than that it also abuses markup. Hans Adler 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defence Force

A disruptive IP has been plaguing the talk page of Jewish Internet Defence Force. I would be interested as to why you reverted to an edit that replaced a descriptive title ("Islamophobic material") with vandalism such as "TALK PAGE GUIDELINES/NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH". Factsontheground (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Because you also removed the IP's comment, which in itself didn't look disruptive to me. The IP is not supposed to remove yours, and you are not supposed to remove theirs, as I hinted in the edit summary. If you really think that the IP's comment is so objectionable that it must be removed, you should ask an uninvolved admin to do it. Otherwise there is just going to be an edit war on the talk page.

By the way, both titles are descriptive of your respective concerns, neither title is NPOV. Hans Adler 14:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

I came here to thank you for your comments. I have apologized to Dr. Dec at the RD/M page because as you say (and I agree), there was not sufficient evidence with which I could accuse him initially. I never usually accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, but the recent conflicts with Dr. Dec (the last one almost caused an user to retire, and resulted in Dr. Dec having to change his username altogether) played a factor, for I was afraid that he would bear malice from there. However, you told me in a most civil manner that I should not have accused Dr. Dec lightly, and this certainly helped change my mind about the entire incident. Thanks! --PST 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I found what you are referring to. Very unfortunate incident, escalated out of nothing by all parties. I am sure there has been earlier friction leading to this, but I am not sure that I want to know the details. It looks as if the Reference Desk has developed a bit of a culture of solving obvious homework questions for lazy kids. Not good at all. Hans Adler 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

I'm concerned about this, which comes on top of [35] and [36]. We seriously need to challenge this editor's behaviour... I've posted the same message on the other recent "victim"'s talk page. Is a referral to Wikiequette noticeboard the best way forward? I didn't want to do anything without consulting those who've borne the brunt of his attacks. --Pondle (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure I have done my part in confronting this user for now, and in making it clear to them that their behaviour is not appreciated. As you may have seen on the user's talk page I have been quite direct. Their attempt to make things appear like a symmetric affair between them and me failed, and that may already have told them something.

It's not appropriate to speculate about other users' age etc., so I will just say that there may be mitigating circumstances that we don't know about, and that my experience with such users has been that sometimes they become valuable members of the community after a while. I believe that some things that may help are: making it very clear what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't, showing them that they are not fooling anyone by a boastful manner, giving them breathing space to reflect and change their behaviour, noticing when the behaviour does improve, and giving non-condescending positive feedback in this case, and generally respecting their egos.

WQA is generally a good step for resolving this kind of problem if it can be resolved. But if that is the case, then WQA shouldn't come on top of the kind of treatment that the editor has received from me, because if that has started any positive developments, then we don't want to give negative feedback for them. Therefore and since the editor has not edited since the confrontation I suggest that you only go to WQA if and when the editor resumes their problematic behaviour on a comparable level. I am not sure if this has happened already, because I have yet to go through my watchlist. Hans Adler 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, it didn't take much looking around to make up my mind about this. The behaviour continues in a modified but not substantially improved form. But as a general rule it's better if problem users report themselves to the appropriate (or not, as the case may be) places. It seems that this is about to happen, so if I were you I would make sure not to report them at this time. Hans Adler 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I an thinking of moving all these to Category:Model theory: algebraic definition, algebraic sentence, algebraic theory, elementary definition, elementary theory, elementary sentence. Is there a better category for them? I feel like there should be a better way to handle these but I can't put my finger on it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that we need these in the first place. I am not familiar with the first three terms, and I would like to see a reference for their use. In any case they should be merged.

The last three are basically just using "elementary" as a synonym for "first order". While this usage is of course related to usage in model theory (most notably elementary equivalence, it's not very common there. The reference given suggests a context of topos theory, and it does fit equally well to the notion of an elementary topos. It may be best to redirect the last three to some topos theoretical article; otherwise they should at least be merged.

I will think about this a bit more, and try to deal with them, if you don't mind. Hans Adler 06:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, of course, I don't mind. I ran into these only by looking through Category:Mathematical logic. The term algebraic theory sounds like something from universal algebra to me (a theory with a universal equational axiomatization). — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't got very clear ideas what to do with these articles. All the definitions are very fuzzy. In any case nonfirstorderizability is clearly a candidate for merging into elementary definition. Hans Adler 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)