Edit filter log

'{{Archive box | [[/Archive 2009]] }} == [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[Mass killings under Communist regimes]] == [[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|left|48px|]]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for [[Wikipedia:Deletion process|deletion]]. The nominated article is [[Mass killings under Communist regimes]]. 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 "[[WP:NOT|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/Mass killings under Communist regimes]]. Please be sure to [[WP:SIG|sign your comments]] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the [[WP:AfD|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 [[WP:BOT|bot]]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --[[User:Erwin85Bot|Erwin85Bot]] ([[User talk:Erwin85Bot|talk]]) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC) ==Please edit my Russian translation == Hello VsevolodKrolikov, Happy to contact you. Could you go through my Russian translation [[Тъируналлур карунакаран]] of the original English article [[Thirunalloor Karunakaran]] , and correct it ? [[User:Brihaspathi|Brihaspathi]] ([[User talk:Brihaspathi|talk]]) 13:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC) == [[WP:AFD|AfD]] nomination of [[Call to Arms I]] == <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|42px]]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, [[Call to Arms I]], has been listed for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{str trim|Call to Arms I}}]]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> [[User:Jmcw37|jmcw]] ([[User talk:Jmcw37|talk]]) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC) ==Karl rove religion thing== You were previously involved in a discussion involving the removal of a few paragraphs on the Karl Rove page regarding his religious affiliation. I'm just notifying you that the same user removed the content again and I thought you would want to be involved in the discussion since you were previously.[[User:Chhe|Chhe]] ([[User talk:Chhe|talk]]) == [[Creativity]] archived talk page is inaccessible. == {{tlx|help me}} The talk page for [[Creativity]] has been archived (by a bot), but does not appear to to be accessible from the talk page - except tortuously (through an index search or edit history). Can someone fix this, or point me to where I can find out how to fix it? [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC) :You can just link them from the main talk page using {{tlx|archives|[[archive page name]]}}. The bot's edit summaries tell you where it's archived the content to. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) :: Thanks for your help. Actually, I have a feeling that cluebot is doing something odd to the indices page (effectively blanking it after each update). I'll take it up with cluebot. Thanks again.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 13:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC) == Multiple reverts == Hi, you have twice in two days exceeded the 1RR restriction on the WUWT article. I don't disagree with your last change, but you may want to be more careful, or even self revert. [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC) : Many thanks for the heads up. To be honest, I don't think I have broken 1RR even once - in my understanding, 1RR is about reacting to other editors' recent (i.e. just done) changes more than once in 24 hours - i.e. edit-warring. I haven't done that. I've changed two edits in the past ''48'' hours - yours and [[user:Lawrencekhoo|Lawrencekhoo's]].　No other edits relate to recent changes by others as far as I can see. Indeed, the only other major change I've made was done after no opposition was expressed on the talkpage for over 24 hours after I proposed it (others were typos, clearly irrelevant links etc.). If I'm mistaken, could you point me in the direction of diffs, or a policy page that explains how what I've done has broken 1RR twice, or even once? Cheers. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 15:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC) :: See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule] ''"A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as '''one word.''''' :: A "major change" or changing "material recently changed" is not required to qualify as a revert. I myself once thought otherwise, but several admins have explained the policy clearly. [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC) ::: I've had it clarified that correcting typos (and presumably source formatting too) is not part of any revert count. Could you provide diffs of the reverts that you are counting? [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 04:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC) :::: Come on now, you can count as easily as I can. Correcting a typo or cleaning up vandalism isn't counted; they're specific exceptions in the revert count policy. Neither of which were what you were doing in the article. [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 10:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) ::::: I asked for diffs in [[WP:AGF|good faith]]. It's a common courtesy that people levelling accusations of disruptive editing provide diffs when asked, otherwise the complaint is ignored as a matter of course. You are now specifically claiming that none of my edits can be considered exempt from "reverts". Here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=384944103&oldid=384944034 are] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=384930161&oldid=384930046 three] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=384929065&oldid=384928003 diffs] correcting typos or improving source formatting. Here is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=384929959&oldid=384929065 fourth] removing a [http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/11/dueling-sites-t/ source] that was not even about the subject or point in hand (presumably left over from a previously removed edit) - but not altering the content one jot. It's really important when you make accusations against other editors that you check the facts and be prepared to back up what you say. Three of the other edits over a 48 hour period are changing a source (improving sourcing) without changing content and re-wording two edits (not reverting). Not one of any of these edits has been met with any objection by any editor. And then one edit, as it was potentially contentious, I had discussed on the talkpage. I waited for objections, of which there were none. So I put in the edit. This seems to be in line with policy. Interestingly, it's this one edit you object to, and it's the edit that you want me to revert on the basis of what honestly looks like a mistaken accusation of breaking 1RR. If you want to carry on with this, then please do so formally, but I should point out that an admin has already advised me that I don't appear to have done anything wrong. Instead you might perhaps respond on the talk page about that specific edit. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC) {{outdent}} I specifically didn't make a formal accusation in order to stay friendly and avoid a battleground mentality. You seem to want to kick things up a notch. If you want actual diffs of the latest violation, here you go: * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&action=historysubmit&diff=385178191&oldid=385176403] Sept. 16. * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&action=historysubmit&diff=385173681&oldid=384944103] Sept 16. Whether or not a specific edit has "met with objection from any editor" in no way prevents it from being classified as a revert, and in fact the first of those two edits was still under talk page discussion (not that this is even relevant). I meant my original post only as a friendly suggestion; you are of course free to take it however you wish. [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 13:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC) : Perhaps you're not aware of this, but accusing someone of making false statements without evidence raises things "a notch" (not apologising when given counter-evidence doesn't help matters either), as well as refusing to follow normal courtesy when asked for diffs to explain disruptive editing. As for those two diffs you have just provided, one is not a revert, it's a re-word, something specifically mentioned in [[WP:REVERT]]. Given that you explicitly do not object to that edit, you're hardly in a position now to argue that it was "undoing" your work. The other edit, as I keep explaining, was made after no opposition was raised when it was proposed on the talkboard, and as such is contestable as a revert. Then again, it would be the only revert (btw your claim of ''two'' 1RR violations in two days seems to have disappeared), so in any case there's no 1RR violation. It really would be much better for you and for the encyclopedia to put forward your substantive reasons for opposing that edit on the talk page rather than try to have it taken out through dubious procedural means. Isn't that what you're [[WP:HERE]] for? Let it lie and go back to the talk page, or raise the matter formally.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 16:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC) :: Shrug, you can think what you like, but when you change phrasing that's being discussed on the talk page, it's a revert, not a reword. If you disagree, you are of course free to continue reverting the article to your heart's desire. [[User:FellGleaming|<font color="darkmagenta">Fell Gleaming</font>]]^{[[User talk:FellGleaming|<font color="black">talk</font>]]} 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC) ::: So you agree it's one revert only and therefore no violation at all. Good. By the way, I am not free to revert the article to my heart's content, and have not done so.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 17:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC) ==Thanks for your comments on the discussions of Russia as a superpower== I will review the thought but also I may add I have found over 110 articles from 2004 to now on Russia being a superpower in some fashion (many are media articles), I have one affirmed acedemic report here[http://books.google.com/books?id=lcgMnh5CtOUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=russia+superpower+of+the+21st&source=bl&ots=YPjmcb0_qw&sig=I1vGP1wb733f5dkdH1nhlMbso2Y&hl=en&ei=rl-VTIjxCZKosQO6lPy_Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false][http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521836786]. Let me know what you think. --[[User:Globalstatus|Globalstatus]] ([[User talk:Globalstatus|talk]]) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC) : I genuinely think you misunderstand how wikipedia works. [[WP:VERIFY|Wikipedia is not about what is "true". It is about what reliable sources as a whole say.]] Finding one academic source that says something is not enough. Where there is debate, we present the debate, not choose one side as "correct". It's the case that you personally believe Russia to be a superpower, and that you have arguments and evidence for this. But none of that matters on Wikipedia because as an editor, [[WP:OR|your own research and conclusions have no weight at all]]. You also [[WP:SOAPBOX|shouldn't be here to promote your personal point of view]]. As for the Rosefielde book, it was written in 2004 about what might happen thereafter. It was a prediction. It will not do as evidence for Russia's status in 2010, just as a horse-racing tip that came true would still not be evidence of the result. I don't like your version of "superpower or not" because it does not reflect the debate - which is about regional power/greatpower/superpower and in general/militarily/commodity-wise, and has significance not only in terms of Russia's status, but in Russian nationalist discourse. The English sources have this range, and so do the Russian sources. My position on what the article should say is nothing to do with my own views on Russia's status, which are simply not relevant. : And finally, please [[WP:AGF|calm down and try and work with people]]. Do NOT ever, ever, delete someone else's comments from an article talkpage. It is vandalism. If you carry on with your approach so far, it's highly likely you'll be blocked or topic banned at some time in the near future. Put your passion for the subject into improving the encyclopaedia, rather than using the encyclopaedia to promote you personal views.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 01:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::I don't remember removing any talk discussions but if I did it was an accident on the editorial copy & paste function but trying to reply to the subject at hand. If one asks a question of me I sometimes will ask the same vice versa question back. For example if one says Russia is a great power and they ask me to find sources on superpower status, I will ask what sources they have to say it is a great power but no response is provided; I am left clueless on my part versing theirs - many times editors will only comment each and everytime without sources. I have provided tons of articles and editorials on these media sources just may refer Russia as a superpower but maybe no evidence in the article but then you connect the media dots you see a pattern of these Russian superpower quotes on journals and media sources. Not all articles are perfect but I am providing the facts at least on a media stand point; these articles are perfectly acceptable for college research material for example. Not all articles on Wikipedia are all supported by only acedemic sources it is impossible as you need some media articles if acedemic articles are not available or not current. I refuse to use blogs though even media blogs are ok on Wikipedia but I scout for media or any acedemic sources I can find and I post the information for editors to read my findings. It is time consuming reading and reading these sources if they are good enough but with this subject matter with Russia as a superpower I take very seriously. I have articles I can provide but if not all the evidence is acedemic sometimes you have to accept the media regardless in my opinion.--[[User:Globalstatus|Globalstatus]] ([[User talk:Globalstatus|talk]]) 07:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC) :: Read policy on [[wp:or|original research]]. That's what your "connecting the dots" is. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 08:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ==Request for sources on Russia as a great power== :: Because the article has changed from superpower to great power under the [[Russia]] article I am now going to question the article as a great power as it stands as you have been actively involved in this discussion. I want to read sources from you that says Russia is a great power and not from [[great power]] article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because contributing editors who have denounced edits in the [[great powers]] is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denounced the sources on there. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power so I am seeking that information as you have said Russia is a great power so I want to ask you for your sources please. Provide these great power acedemic sources please.--[[User:Globalstatus|Globalstatus]] ([[User talk:Globalstatus|talk]]) 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC) ::: Why are you posting this on my talkpage? You've put the same thing on the Russia talkpage. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC) ==Russia article edit removal== Can you explain to me why you removed these important sources on [[Russia]]'s article[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&action=historysubmit&diff=386043325&oldid=386042786]? When they are pointed to the term as its specific definition does not make much sense to erase valid information to the article. Each source tells a specific editoral of Russia being a superpower. I disagree you erasing it so I think maybe this should go on the discussions page to debate this further.--[[User:Globalstatus|Globalstatus]] ([[User talk:Globalstatus|talk]]) 04:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) : Each "source" describes the '''same event''' - a head of government (Netanyahu) visiting Russia and saying nice things about Russia to Putin's face. You do not need to source the same information three times, and in any case this event does not add anything to the point being made. One can only surmise that you didn't read the material, which just reflects poorly on you. There are enough sources already, and we are trying to cut down the size of the article. This may have passed you by as you continue with your [[WP:POINT]]y [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. No one agrees with you, you're breaking all sorts of guidelines and policies, so move on. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 06:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC) ==Talkback== {{talkback|Airplaneman|ts=02:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)}} ==GA reassessment of [[Russia]]== I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the [[WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|GA Sweeps process]]. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at [[Talk:Russia/GA2]]. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at [[WP:GAN]] when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] ([[User talk:Jezhotwells|talk]]) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC) ==A telling off== Shut up you atheist!!! Depart from me... <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Timz paul|Timz paul]] ([[User talk:Timz paul|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Timz paul|contribs]]) 07:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ==Citations== Please be careful when removing viable citations as they may be used multiple times within an article due to the <nowiki><ref name= (whatever)></nowiki> formatting. Thanks.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC) : I didn't. You should have checked my edit more thoroughly. I put the full ref elsewhere in the article where the security council statement is also cited. I replaced the security council citation in that part of the lede because it is not a good source for the fact of the attacks by al Qaeda. It was put out only a day after the attacks. That is not good sourcing.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 04:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ::Please discuss any major citation changes before making them. Thanks....I'll recheck your edit.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ::: Perhaps you should have checked before responding here. You are showing signs of [[WP:OWNERSHIP]]. I raised these citations earlier, but you archived my comments as "conspiracy theory gibberish". I pointed out that I had raised valid sourcing issues - and you archived them again. I understand that there are a lot of truthers out there, but that's no excuse for poor sourcing.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 04:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ::::Chill out. The talk page had an example of you offering assistance to a CT time waster...and that sort of thing if repeated often enough can lead to discretionary sanctions being implemented. Feel free to post anything that isn't CT nonsense and refrain from offering an audience to CTers...providing "assistance" (aiding and abetting) to CTers can be viewed by many as contrary to writing a fact based account of the events. I have written 10 featured articles and started over 600 others, all referenced, so I think I have an idea of what good referencing is.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 04:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ::::: Heh. All I did was tell someone that the material's already on wikipedia, and the main 9/11 page isn't the place for it, as it's conspiracy theory. I haven't been the one placing NOTICES on the talkpage, or deliberately archiving fresh discussions of sourcing. If my response to another editor is the reason for reverting my sourcing changes without due attention, it's not the best reason one could think of. Out of interest, could you point to the decision that would allow someone to be put under discretionary sanctions for doing what I did? It sounds like an extraordinary policy decision, if it's actually been made. btw, it's great that you've done all that article work. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC) ::::::One of the reasons the UN cite for calling the 9/11 event an act of terrorism was put there was because for a long time, that term was a bone of contention...so by adding a UN reference that detailed what the vast majority of other countries called 9/11, it didn't have the air of being US centric...it's ridiculous to expect you to examine ancient and not so ancient talkpage articles where pages and pages of text were committed to this argument that 9/11 wasn't an act of terrorism..so when I saw you remove that cite and place it elsewhere, it sent up a red flag for me...so what I am trying to say here is that I would prrefer to place the UN cite back where it was only so we don't run into the same old tired argument down the road. Otherwise, I want to apologize for upsetting you about this..,I was wrong to jump the gun and be a little hyperactive about this...I hope you accept my apology. Best wishes!--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC) ::::::: No problem :-) I can only imagine the lunacy of a few years that would have turned up on that page. (I've edited a fair bit on [[Zeitgeist, the Movie]], which has its own CT devotees.) To be honest, I think we're safe now from such arguments about terrorism, but if you want to insure against the argument returning, why not add the cite to the word, rather than to the whole sentence? My objection was it was not a good source for the whole sentence, and being a source from Sept 12, it allows CT people fun with confused reporting in the days after the event. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 23:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC) == Signatures == I should just give up, shoudn't I :-) In attempting to correct my original error of not signing my post, I made a much larger error (edited the version of the page at the time of my post rather than the current one). Thanks for spotting it and sorting it out. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 07:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC) : That's what I guessed. No problem - we all do stuff like that. (well, I do, anyway).[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 07:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC) == Reviewer permission == [[File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg|right|130px]] Hello. Your account has been granted the "<tt>reviewer<tt>" userright, allowing you to [[WP:RVW|review other users' edits]] on certain flagged pages. [[WP:PC|Pending changes]], also known as flagged revisions, underwent a [[WP:PC|two-month trial]] which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use. Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not [[WP:autoconfirmed|autoconfirmed]] to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only [[Special:StablePages|a small number of articles]], similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at [[Special:OldReviewedPages]]. For the guideline on reviewing, see [[Wikipedia:Reviewing]]. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found [[Help:Pending changes|here]], and the general policy for the trial can be found [[Wikipedia:Pending changes|here]]. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.<!-- Template:Reviewer granted --> [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 17:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC) == [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010]] == Hi there, regarding your comment on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Games Village 2010]]. I have no intention of [[WP:CANVASS]], but would you think merging is a better idea? After all, the [[Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games|Venues article]] has already covered the Commonwealth Games Village and the concerns and controversies across two sections already. [[User:AngChenrui|A<small>NG</small>]][[User talk:AngChenrui|C<small>HENRUI</small>]] _[[WP:MSE]][[User:AngChenrui/BS|♨]] 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) : Hi AngChenrui. Don't worry - I don't consider this canvassing, as I'm aware of the discussion already. As I suggested, my vote for keeping a separate article is based on an intuition that there should be (or at least it's valid to have) separate games village articles. I can see your argument as I understand it, that "venues" ''can'' include the village and so obviate the need for a separate article. It is, in one sense, tidier. However, I'm of the view that games sporting venues and athlete villages are qualitatively different aspects of the games. My feeling is that from a user's point of view, someone doing research into venues would probably separate the issue. It's also true that athlete accommodation gets RS coverage as a matter of course these days. For me, this is a good example of the advantages of [[WP:NOTPAPER]]. Consolidation on Wikipedia is necessary when there's a mess of repeated and disorganised information. I don't see that issue here. In this case, having a separate article will probably attract more information, rather than simply more flab.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC) ::Noted, I understand. Thank you, [[User:AngChenrui|A<small>NG</small>]][[User talk:AngChenrui|C<small>HENRUI</small>]] _[[WP:MSE]][[User:AngChenrui/BS|♨]] 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC) == Welcome to the Climate change denial page. == If you've been around for some time, my apologies for not noticing, but I've seen several very thoughtful posts, and excellent sources added by you recently. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#002868;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style="background:#ADD8E6;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">T</span>]]</font> 13:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC) : Aw, thanks! You're not wrong - I've not been on the climate pages until recently. I had a wikibreak between last year and this, during which I found myself arguing a lot about climate change with some (ahem) "interesting" people on another internet site, during which I learnt quite a lot about both the science and the politics of the whole thing. It's a relief to be on wikipedia actually sifting through sources properly; the pointless slanging matches and [[Gish Gallop]]s were getting tiring. It looks like I've joined in at a good time, when the arbitration committee has enforced a calmdown. Let's make progress in creating good stable articles! [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 13:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC) == Thanks for the redirect help! == Of course I wouldn't expect you to keep this on your page, but I have another question. While I've created the redirect and have it working to where someone who searches "Skye Champion" will be redirected to the I'82 page (and thanks to your correction, down to the Characters section), I'm still having a problem on [[Melissa Disney]]'s page. I added an entry there to note her voicework in the game, but putting in "''[[Skye Champion]]''" still only works as a red page-does-not-exist link. What do I need to do to correct it?[[User:Givemeausernameplease|Givemeausernameplease]] ([[User talk:Givemeausernameplease|talk]]) 04:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC) : No problem. The problem was that the original redirect you created was [[Skye champion]] (note the small c) not [[Skye Champion]]. I created [[Skye Champion]] and added the redirect. Apart from the enforced first capital, titles for wikipedia articles are case sensitive (See [[Thinking machines]] and [[Thinking Machines]] as an example). So your redlink appeared because it was actually pointing to a page that hadn't been created yet. But it's all solved now.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 04:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) ::Much appreciated![[User:Givemeausernameplease|Givemeausernameplease]] ([[User talk:Givemeausernameplease|talk]]) 04:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC) == "Linen" article on wikipedia == Hello, Recently you have deleted my addition to the article "linen" which was the link to the excerpts from the book "Flax and linen". First of all I am not the owner of this website. I only a web designer and I placed this link as I found this material is interesting for anyone who wants to learn more about linen and flax. Second why is this link more promotional than others under this articles that lead to the e-commerce web-sites? I would greatly appreciate your answer. Thank you Juliady <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Juliady|Juliady]] ([[User talk:Juliady|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Juliady|contribs]]) 05:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> : As the designer of the page, you have a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] in adding it - see also [[WP:EL#ADV|here]]. I reverted it on sight, seeing that you were the web designer, and there was a bunch of credit card symbols at the bottom. However, I've looked at the other links (removed a couple that were clearly bad), and I think you have a good point. I've asked a question at [[Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Linen_-_commercial_links]] about this, as I'd like clarification on what should and shouldn't be included.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Hello VsevolodKrolikov, Thank you very much for your answer. I do appreciate your response and I do not wish to violate any Wikipedia rules whatsoever. I have read very carefully the articles about COI and I did not find anything saying that if you are the web designer of the web site in question you cannot place a link to this web site as it will be the violation of the rules. As far as I understand the external link should lead to the material which adds to the article in question. I also understand that the link should be provided with a clear neutral explanation why this link is here. I think you would agree that absolutely every web site was created by someone and heretofore any link to any site can be classified as “promotion” or “advertising”. I do appreciate that you have decided to clear out this matter by addressing [[Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Linen_-_commercial_links]]. Please let me know if you will get the clarification. Thank you once again Best regards Juliady <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Juliady|Juliady]] ([[User talk:Juliady|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Juliady|contribs]]) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> : Hi Juliady. The conflict of interest issue in this situation is most clearly explained in the external links policy [[WP:EL#ADV|here]]. But basically, if you were involved in the production of material, or in some way might benefit personally from wider exposure of that material, then there's a conflict of interest when you yourself add it to the article. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't go in, it's just putting it in yourself is not encouraged. Instead you should normally ask someone else to assess it. I took it out because at first glance it ''looked like'' someone merely trying to promote their own business (this happens a lot on wikipedia), but after you asked me to reconsider, I looked again, and I think I was too hasty in doing so. I'll wait to get more input from others at the External links noticeboard (they don't agree either). I apologise for appearing bureaucratic; this is simply a chance for me (just another volunteer like yourself) to get a better grasp of policy, so that I don't have to hum and hah in the future.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Hello Vsevolod, I am grateful for the opportunity to learn more about rules on Wikipedia. As per the article in question let’s wait till there are more opinions from others. I know that this company plans to publish lots of materials about Russian Linen which can add more details to the article. History of growing flax and producing linen in Russia is not in any way less interesting than, for example, history of Irish linen. I understand now the point of adding links to the articles and will follow those rules in future. Thank you again Best regards Julia <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Juliady|Juliady]] ([[User talk:Juliady|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Juliady|contribs]]) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot == [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! {|cellspacing=10 style="background-color:transparent;" |- |valign=top| ;Stubs:<!--'''[[Wikipedia:Stub|Stubs]]:'''--> :[[Kazuo Hatoyama]] :[[Christmas Church (Tiraspol)]] :[[Democratic Party (Japan) leadership election, 2009]] :[[Strait of Tartary]] :[[Dolinsk-Sokol]] :[[Cougar Gold cheese]] :[[Anatoly Kornukov]] :[[Phil Jones (climatologist)]] :[[Masamoto Yashiro]] :[[Haruko Hatoyama]] :[[Sergei Melgunov]] :[[National Planning Commission of South Africa]] :[[Kaoru Hatoyama]] :[[Mizuho Fukushima]] :[[Azuma Koshiishi]] :[[Nikolai Ogarkov]] :[[Level of Invention]] :[[Kenji Eda]] :[[Moneron Island]] |align=top| ;Cleanup :[[Conservatism]] :[[Green cheese]] :[[Capitalism]] ;Merge :[[Assassination]] :[[Cheese on toast]] :[[Great Russian language]] ;Add Sources :[[Language exchange]] :[[List of American cheeses]] :[[Daily Mail]] ;Wikify :[[Utagaki]] :[[Syrian cheese]] :[[Kodomo Teate Law]] ;Expand :[[Yasuko Hatoyama]] :[[Kunio Hatoyama]] :[[Latinisation (USSR)]] |} 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 [[User_talk:SuggestBot|SuggestBot's talk page]]. Thanks from {{User0|Nettrom}}, SuggestBot's caretaker. P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on [[User:SuggestBot/Requests|the SuggestBot request page]]. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 18:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC) ==Stanley Lewis fashion brand== Hello VsevolodKrolikov, I have just added some content about my fashion brand Stanley Lewis. But unfortunately it was got deleted may be due to looking like promotional. We have only added information about our brand and not promoting the brand at wiki pedia. Thanks Satyendra <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/122.180.146.162|122.180.146.162]] ([[User talk:122.180.146.162|talk]]) 06:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> : Hi Sayendra. There are a few issues you need to overcome before inclusion of material on your company can get onto wikipedia. The first, as you noticed, is that we don't do advertising, and no PR push to make the company sound special - your text still did that, for example: "Stanley Lewis believes men need to focus more on finding an equilibrium in all aspects of life. This is demonstrated not only in the collection of accessories the brand produces, but also in the website." The second is the use of [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Most of what you used as sourcing were blogs, press releases and the company's own website, which I'm afraid are not at the level of independence and quality we like to have. A third issue is that you have a clear [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]. This means you should avoid directly editing material on matters with which you have a personal or professional connection - instead you should ask other editors to include material. The last problem is the biggest: [[WP:N|notability]]. I did a quick news archive search for your brand, and it looks like you haven't really made enough of an impact yet to pass our requirements on notability (one article in [[The Australian]] appeared to be it). Wikipedia only covers things already receiving decent coverage in independent sources; it shouldn't - inadvertently or deliberately - be a means of increasing visibility for a product. All the best, [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 06:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC) ==Your Great Comment on the Causalities of 9/11 attacks Page== Greetings, VsevolodKrolikov! I wanted to thank you for your very useful comment regard total causality count for the 9/11 attacks (this page - [[Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks]]. I added a possible link to your query and wanted your feedback on using this page. I put a brief quote from it under the NYC 9/11 causalities section but we can remove it if we decide there's a better source elsewhere. Thanks for your interest - are you involved in the September 11 attacks wikiproject? There's not a lot of people active in it lately so it would be helpful. Give me some of your feedback if you get a chance! Thanks... [[User:WiiAlbanyGirl|WiiAlbanyGirl]] ([[User talk:WiiAlbanyGirl|talk]]) 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC) : Hi WiiAlbanyGirl. Thanks for your comments. I actually found a very good source, from the NY office of the chief medical examiner, and posted the link on the main 9/11 talk page, and made a promise to insert the figures where needed - which I haven't kept. (sigh) . I like that link best of all because it's the people who get to decide the official figures. Please go ahead and add it, if I don't do so first. Although you've helpfully reminded me, I can't today as I'm editing from an iPad and it's rubbish at keeping editing windows open when switching between windows. As for the project - I really should focus on other stuff first that I know more about, as wiki time is a little limited. But thanks for asking anyway..[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) == Southern Europe == The editor who made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-life&action=historysubmit&diff=394898767&oldid=394880982 this] edit is in Finland, which may explain why they would think of the UK as being "southern". This aside, I think he has a point: there's not much pro-life activism in northern Europe. Is there a way we could state this accurately? [[User:Dylan Flaherty|Dylan Flaherty]] ([[User talk:Dylan Flaherty|talk]]) 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC) : That might be the source of the confusion, although I would personally never consider Germany Eastern Europe because I'm British. Do we have sources that say there isn't much going on in the Nordic countries? Or perhaps it's Catholic countries plus the UK? (There'll be stuff in Ireland too, I'm sure).[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 01:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC) ::It's not easy to source. The best I've come up with are articles that talk generalities, such as [http://www.uscatholic.org/node/5075 this one]. Can you do better? [[User:Dylan Flaherty|Dylan Flaherty]] ([[User talk:Dylan Flaherty|talk]]) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC) ::: [http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uJtZ4tPA0psC&oi=fnd&pg=PA145& Here's one from 1996], which goes into some nice detail, although it would change what the article says. If you don't mind, I'll transfer this conversation to the Pro-life talkpage, so that other people can chip in.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) == Do you have access to ... ? == Book Reviews: Radical, Religious, And Violent: The New Economics of Terrorism By Eli Berman. By Michael Mcbride. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Volume 49, Issue 3, pages 575–576, September 2010? The reason I didn't separate the refs myself is that I couldn't find this one, so I couldn't tell what's based only on it. [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk:Tijfo098|talk]]) 07:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps a section on his book and reception thereof should be added as well. Insofar the article only summarizes Berman's research. [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk:Tijfo098|talk]]) 07:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC) : I can't get at it (it's so new it doesn't even appear on google scholar). My institution doesn't subscribe to it, so I'm probably not able to see it even in a couple of months time. I agree we need secondary commentary. His work seems to be cited a lot, so he's clearly getting attention.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 07:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) :: But [http://radicalreligiousandviolent.com/ this] has reviews. It doesn't help much, as we don't know how faithfully they are reproduced, but it's a pointer to where to look.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 08:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC) == Siberian nationality == Do you think, given the sources available on this topic, an article about siberian nationalism / the small movement would be justifiable or meet wiki standards of notability? --'''[[User:Lvivske|Львівське]]''' <small>([[User talk:Lvivske|talk]])</small> 04:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC) : Hi. There's an article called [[Siberian regionalism]] already. I think that would be the best repository of information. It has nothing on modern-day movements, and the material about the census could go in there.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 04:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC) == POV == Hi ... I missed how the ref-supported reference you removed at Hellfire was POV. You can respond here. Tx much.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC) : Hi. POV can occur in different ways, and one of those ways is what one does and doesn't mention. The way that "targeted killings" was used in effect gave a particular emphasis and legitimating interpretation of the use of the missiles that is in dispute (The Israelis claim careful, rational, legalish use, the Palestinians dispute this general characterisation). I was choosing a no-sides (let's not go there) rather than a both sides approach, appropriate for an article that should not be a fork for I-P issues.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) ::I hear you, but I'm not sure I see it. The use is the use by the UN (as they question it). The IP's point was, as I mentioned on the tp, IMHO akin to an article on what cars are used for saying "used for drunk murders" -- even though that's not the intention of the user. For targeted killing, I believe we have RSs (I can collect some) that say some countries have used it in Targeted Killings. This becomes important, because the level of the charge of the missile will ultimately related to proportionality, an issue for targeted killing (under Israeli, UN, Palestinian, etc. approaches). The article loses IMHO if we censor it out.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 08:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC) ::: It's not censoring. It can hardly be censoring if I think it's a coatrack/fork (ie this material belongs elsewhere). Furthermore, "targeted killing" is a contested term. It doesn't matter if you find RSs that use the word without comment as if it is neutral. There is, as I am sure you are aware, other RS that questions targeted killing as a euphemism for assassination, and other RS that challenges the assertion that "targeted killing" is carried out with the precision and oversight that the term implies and as is claimed. You might want to compare it with "unlawful combatant" and "enhanced coercive interrogation technique", which are terms propounded by one side. I fail to see how a simple statement to the effect that Israel has used them in the ongoing conflict in Palestine - which no one disputes - is POV. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 10:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC) *It goes beyond that. The U.S. uses all sorts of weapons in its ongoing conflict on the AfPak border. It is known for using Hellfire missiles in TK, specifically because of the collateral damage issues. As I've pointed out at the Hellfire talkpage. Calling it "in the AfPak conflict" hides the ball from the reader. I have no reason to believe that people think TK means no collateral damage -- that's clear in the article, and in all manner of discussions by those who use the term, including the UN. It has to do with the killer having a target, but does not speak to the issue of collateral damage. And all manner of RSs, countries, the UN, law books, etc. use the term, not just fringe ones or two.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 12:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC) The article is not about the propriety of the use of such weapons. That kind of discussion belongs in articles that cover the actions of governments. To try to introduce such a discussion here is coatracking. Your understanding of source use also appears to show a belief that wikipedia should tell "the truth", which it avowedly does not. Wikipedia does not take sides in substantive disputes. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 13:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC) *Yes -- I'm familiar with the fact that our goal is to reflect what is verifiable (i.e., what is reflected in RSs), rather than truth. That is understood in my comments. Of course it is not about the propriety of use of the weapons. Nobody said it was. But the features of the weapons are of moment, not at all coat-racking. The fact that they bear on issues relative to their use does not make it coatracking, concealing the focus of the article from view, anymore than it would be coatracking to have features of cars (safety being one of them, or their usefulness for certain purposes such as all-terrain vehicles) "coatracking". It's core to the functionality of the subject of the article, quite far from coatracking. Coatracking is where a nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of another subject, leaving the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject, which of course isn't at all what we are talking about here.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 14:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC) :: if you can link to the section in the instruction manual of the weapon that's entitled "when using as part of a 'targeted killing' political-military strategy" then I'll listen to your suggested editions. Otherwise, let's leave it, shall we?[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 19:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC) :::Well, yes, there seems little use having a conversation with you if rather than applying wiki guidelines you are applying personally constructed ones.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 23:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC) :::: So far you haven't actually cited any wiki guidelines here. I gave you what seems to be a fair criterion for establishing intended use, which we both agree is the salient issue here - and you're welcome to challenge it. I think it always is better to have one's editing guided by principles, rather than justifiying one's edits by whatever principles can be found. How about you?[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 01:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC) == Use:Tornadofan == Hi, You greeted User Tornadofan to Wikipedia for his intervention on [[Weather radar]]. It looked as an invertion of an IP vandalism but this edit was not a good thing as it eliminated the title of a section. I just wanted to let you know that I'm not so sure that this Tornadofan is a good editor. It seems to me an account created by the IP to confuse the situation and I had to return to the last good version of Weather radar. I will keep an eye on his future behaviour. [[User:Pierre cb|Pierre cb]] ([[User talk:Pierre cb|talk]]) 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC) :Hi Pierre - and whoops, I missed [[user:Tornadofan]]'s overenthusiastic deletion. (I was browsing the user creation log checking for vandals, thought s/he'd registered to remove vandalism, and so hit "welcome" on twinkle). My apologies. There's no evidence that this user is anything other than someone trying to remove vandalism who cut the whole line the vandalism was on instead of just the expletive, so I wouldn't worry about anything covert at the moment. I've warned the IP in question. All the best, [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC) ==Bindhyabasini Jagaddhatri== Hi, requested text is [[User:VsevolodKrolikov/sandbox2|here]] <font face="chiller"><font color="red"><b>[[User:Jimfbleak|Jimfbleak]] - </b></font></font><font face="arial"><font color="green">[[User talk:Jimfbleak| talk to me?]]</font></font> 14:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC) == Re:Creativity and intelligence == My understanding is that while there's been much effort to expand the definition of intelligence to include e.g. personality traits, these efforts have not generally been accepted by intelligence researchers. Creativity and genius often suggest high intelligence, but they invariably also imply traits that are not cognitive abilities in the sense that most intelligence researchers use the term.--[[User:Victor Chmara|Victor Chmara]] ([[User talk:Victor Chmara|talk]]) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) : Creativity isn't a personality trait. Most commonly it's defined as divergent thinking - which is unquestionably a cognitive ability. I feel you're pushing for the "truth", but wikipedia represents the balance of RS. I'm fully aware that some researchers (and it's not true that "intelligence researchers" have a clear view as a body of people) would exclude divergent thinking from "intelligence". My point is that enough researchers explore the Otconnection/interrelation for it to be justifiable for creativity to be part of the "human intelligence" template. I also think that emotional intelligence should be part of the template. That may not accord with the views of some intelligence researchers, but that's what the articles can explain. Otherwise we have a template that is there to push a particular POV which does not have the consensus support of RS.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 15:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) The following quotation from the "[[Mainstream Science on Intelligence]]" statement explicates the difference between intelligence and other traits: :1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings -- "catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do. :2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. '''They do not measure creativity, character, personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.''' [emphasis added] Of course, the statement reflects the psychometric approach, but it is the dominant perspective among intelligence researchers.--[[User:Victor Chmara|Victor Chmara]] ([[User talk:Victor Chmara|talk]]) 15:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC) : Yes, that's what some researchers say. Are these people experts in creativity research? No. Are they the clear majority of all researchers in intelligence-related topics, rather than those concerned with psychometric testing? No. And that's the issue. Wikipedia is not about "truth". There are far and away enough respected researchers in appropriate fields who consider creativity part of the general issue of cognitive ability to include creativity in this template. To exclude is to take a definitive, narrow position. To include, but have caveats and disputes listed in the articles themselves is NPOV. That's the principle you need to address, not which POV is "correct". [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 15:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC) : I should check {{Cite journal |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.42.2.137 |last1=Snyderman |first1=Mark |last2=Rothman |first2=Stanley |year=1987 |title=Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence and Aptitude Testing |journal=American Psychologist |volume=42 |issue=2 |date=February 1987 |pages=137–144 |issn=0003-066X |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WY2-4NDP4RN-4/2/8d3cfa782f6835cd7cf051026de78cd2 |accessdate=15 August 2010 |ref=harv }} and some of the citing secondary literature in the next day or so to clarify this interesting issue. I'd love to hear from you what you think about what this source says. Of course, there are quite a few other authors who write about this issue, and I'm still developing a sense of what their consensus is. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 03:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Creativity and genius are undoubtedly related to intelligence, but I think it's problematic to say that they are subcategories of the umbrella term 'human intelligence'. For example, if someone is a great painter or sculptor, most researchers would not regard them as highly ''intelligent'' just because of that. Perhaps someone like Howard Gardner would, but we must not privilege the controversial views of one or two researchers. To make the template "inclusive" by adding all sorts of controversial constructs and hypotheses to it is not necessarily a [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] approach. Rather, it may favor those that support particular novel views and disfavors those that think that intelligence should be defined in a stricter manner. [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight|Undue weight]] should not be given to marginal views. However, I think it's OK to list genius, creativity and emotional intelligence in the "Related" section of the template as long as we don't include the template in those articles.--[[User:Victor Chmara|Victor Chmara]] ([[User talk:Victor Chmara|talk]]) 16:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC) == Terminological distinctions == I was searching for something else, and came across a new book on psychology [http://books.google.com/books?id=OLXIsMI83JwC&lpg=PA226&dq=Dysrationalia&pg=PA226#v=onepage&q=Dysrationalia&f=false] with some discussion of the conceptual issues that you have brought up with your thoughtful comments on article talk pages and here. I may be able to circulate the book from the main research university in my town, my source for many of the books now in my office, in a few days. I'm trying to gather some quotations from standard sources on narrower (psychometric) or broader (common language or cognitive science) definitions of "intelligence." I think there are some straightforward ways to distinguish the broader and narrower senses of the term in Wikipedia article text through further editing based on reliable sources. See you on the articles. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC) : Thanks - I'll have a look a bit later.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 07:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC) == Second language learning merge proposal == Hi, and thanks for commenting on my proposed merger of [[Second language learning]]. This is just to let you know that I moved your comment to the talk page at [[Talk:Language education#Merger proposal]] as I didn't want it to get left out of any discussion. I hope I haven't caused too much confusion. <font face="Palatino"> — [[User:Gypsyjiver|<font color="#194D00">GypsyJiver</font>]] <small><i>([[User talk:Gypsyjiver|<font color="#0F0073">drop me a line</font>]])</i></small></font> 07:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC) : That's fine. Thanks for notifying me.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 07:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC) == RfC regarding [[User:Otis1017]] == Hello, I noticed that you have been involved in the low-level edit war taking place on [[Garry's Mod]] and was hoping that you would take the time to weigh in on an RfC related to the dispute: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Otis1017]]. Best regards, ~~ [[User:Lothar von Richthofen|Lothar von Richthofen]] ([[User talk:Lothar von Richthofen|talk]]) 23:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid I haven't been watching that page at all. Sorry.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 01:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC) == RFC/U == I might not know the right way to do this because I've never done anything like this at Wikipedia before. I didn't know my name needed to be there, but I added it now. I'm also not sure who I ought to notify about the RFC. Last month I commented in a thread where when the person who posted it contacted the various users who had been involved in dispute, the editor was accused of canvassing. If I don't notify the "right" people, I’m afraid of giving Mathsci more ammunition to use against me in the arbitration enforcement thread he posted. I'm sorry, but that risk is not something I want to subject myself to right now. You're welcome to notify any users yourself who you think ought to know about this thread, though.-[[User:SightWatcher|SightWatcher]] ([[User talk:SightWatcher|talk]]) 01:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC) : Actually, I can't find anything on the RFC/user pages about notifying anyone or any page except the subject. That seems a little odd. I haven't ever set up or been "involved" in an RFC dispute as far as I recall, so I'm kind of in the dark. It may be worthwhile getting clarification for future reference, but that's another matter entirely. My main concern was getting it certified - which has been done by now. the RFC is to get outside comment, rather than transferring disputes to a different page.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 03:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC) ==Thanks== [[Image:WikiThanks.png|43px|left|WikiThanks]]<!-- Template:WikiThanks --> Thanks for your recent comment at [[WP:AE]]. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC) ==WP:Further== I agree [[WP:FURTHER]] could be codified a bit more, with a main page dedicated to it. One thing that often happens for example is that people add their self-published books to that section. The wording of [[Wikipedia:Spam#Bookspam]] is too fluffy to be of any use; people can always argue that their book contains "useful and relevant information". --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 15:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC) : Hi. I'm surprised I haven't seen more abuse in Further Reading sections (I've seen loads in external links). It looks ripe for self-promotion and POV conflict. As per some comments on the [[WP:FURTHER]] talkpage, I tend to think we should simply remove such sections. If a book is that good, it should be in the sources. I can see a reader-based argument for a list of sources we would recommend to start on were a user interested in going deeper into a topic (including books already referenced in the main text), but in practice that would cause havoc on any topic where there are fundamental disputes, as well as raising issues of OR (who are we as anonymous volunteers to recommend one high quality source over a whole series of others?). What do you see as the function of these sections, given that the encyclopedia is in a more mature phase now than when they were introduced?[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 16:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC) :: (posted after edit conflict cleared) Most professionally edited encyclopedias have further reading references at the end of their articles. That seems to be a general characteristic of many of the subject-specialized encyclopedias that are acquired by academic libraries. I invite the editors looking on here to try the experiment of visiting an academic library reference section and looking for encyclopedia sets on various subjects. Many of those dead-tree encyclopedias have articles that end with a bibliography of book-length works that readers can refer to for more information on the article topic. The Manual of style [[Wikipedia:FURTHERREADING#Further_reading | section on the issue]] makes clear enough that this has been routine practice on Wikipedia for years as well. What I try to do with further reading sections is to put well researched, thoroughly edited references into them as I discover those references, and then eventually (sometimes many months later) dig into those sections for sources for further edits of article text. Most of the {{numberofarticles}} articles on Wikipedia need a lot more editing, but as far as I know most of us few thousand active editors are volunteers who are either working or studying full-time besides editing Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that not every possible edit is done at once. Listing a further reading source with an article, as long as it is a well chosen source, has immediate usefulness to every reader of the article, and it has lasting usefulness to any other editor who surfs by and thinks "I could improve this article if only I knew of a source on this topic." On my part, now that I have gathered [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji#Source_Lists_to_Share_with_Other_Wikipedians | hundreds of sources]] published by major commercial or academic publishers, purchased by major academic or public library systems, I simply don't have time simultaneously to edit all of the hundreds of Wikipedia articles that could be edited on the basis of those sources. I have my particular priority list of articles to edit on my volunteer time between work and family responsibilities. It may be that other editors have fewer means for finding such sources, but more time to ''use'' such sources once someone else finds them, so that if I share a reference to a source or sources in an article further reading section, those other editors can use their volunteer time productively updating the articles based on current, reliable sources. Division of labor helps everyone get more work done more efficiently. I have seen instances of further reading sections being spammed for political or commercial purposes, and I boldly delete sources from such further reading sections (which, fortunately, are not commonplace) if I find them. The main thing is to keep looking for [[WP:RS | reliable sources]] all the time that have usefulness for follow-up reading by readers of Wikipedia and eventually usefulness for editors editing Wikipedia. I would expect every active Wikipedian to be curious and to delight in learning about new sources. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ::: First, Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia and it has hypertext, so it can use detailed footnotes, which encyclopedias typically do not. That is why we can dispense with further reading sections, which will implicitly have been used in the main body of a paper encyclopedia. Secondly, if you don't have time to read sources, you should not be adding them to articles. That's really simple. It's fine to put them onto the talkpage instead, with a note that they look useful. It's a real tragedy there are not a million dedicated people working night and day on content, but that's not an excuse for adding all these titles to the article itself. Further Reading is not for future sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maunus&diff=399128482&oldid=399070132 as you were told seven hours before posting here], and ten hours before you posted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&curid=12936136&diff=399212694&oldid=399210615 this attack (second added paragraph)] on editors (mainly me) disputing precisely such an (ab)use of the further reading section. I know you don't read the books you spam pages with, but it would be nice if you could demonstrate that you've read things that other people address to you on Wikipedia. Using the section in the way you do clearly causes problems in NPOV monitoring. This has happened, as Sightwatcher found, in the [[Linda Gottfredson]], [[Richard Lynn]] and [[Glayde Whitney]] articles. These people are barely mentioned in the book you added (which you'd know if you'd actually, er, ''read it'') and to put a title like that at the bottom of their articles sends a clear message to the reader that these people are unequivocally scientific racists. This is very troubling editing.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 23:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Yesterday WeijiBaikeBianji added books like this to "further reading" for around a dozen different articles. Half of them or so were reverted, but I feel that some of the remaining half might not be okay either. The books he adds always seem to be accusing the people of being racists, even when this isn't the only thing they're notable for. When "further reading" only has books like this it seems to be implying that their opinions on race are more important than anything else. Would either of you mind giving a second opinion about whether the rest of the articles he did this to were appropriate? He also did this a few months ago, such as- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linda_Gottfredson&action=historysubmit&diff=387826577&oldid=379208286], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Lynn&action=historysubmit&diff=387736512&oldid=386467932], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glayde_Whitney&action=historysubmit&diff=387818992&oldid=384653130], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Pearson&action=historysubmit&diff=388339971&oldid=388286686] I feel these should be looked at too. And the first two are even about living people so I'm not sure if its okay to do this in a BLP.(Oops, just realized that the Roger Pearson article is a BLP too) -[[User:SightWatcher|SightWatcher]] ([[User talk:SightWatcher|talk]]) 19:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I have just read this discussion, and added a comment in WeijiBaikeBianji’s RFC/U. Others might want to look at my statement there and see whether they agree. --[[User:TrevelyanL85A2|TrevelyanL85A2]] ([[User talk:TrevelyanL85A2|talk]]) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC) == Request == Please could you move your comment to your section on [[WP:AE]]. ArbCom noticeboards are not forums for threaded discussion. Please read the instructions at the top of the page. Thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 05:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC) : Done - I had mixed up the heading structure and hadn't realised it was still part of your initial report. Apologies. I had already read the discussion and personal sanctions list. I'm still in the dark as to the material difference between your topic ban and that of the other two. Voluntary bans are better, but if they're "binding", they're still enforceable, aren't they?[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC) == Please accept my apology == I knew it was right for me to say sorry to you, and now I have.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WeijiBaikeBianji&diff=prev&oldid=399631300] I appreciate the sources you have already told me about--I have to figure that anyone who is looking up interesting sources is an asset to the project and someone I would like to get to know better. So всего хорошего; 頑張ってください. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 01:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC) : It's much appreciated - I really don't enjoy wikistress, and get annoyed spending time not on content, especially now I'm using wiki editing as a means of guiding my immersion in a very new area for me (creativity). There's clearly a lot of wikipolitics and history going on in the intelligence articles that I do not have a handle on - I certainly didn't expect things to blow up like this (and it's disheartening finding oneself inadvertently on one "side" of some old religious divide). Anyway, you might be interested in this idea: [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Source_Dumps_for_article_pages]]. I think it will, together with the further reading guidelines, solve the problem of where to put sources for future inclusion. I thoroughly appreciate your lists of new sources - just not where you were putting them! [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC) == Advice == Details of the latest account that appears to be involved in meatpuppetry have been sent to an arbitrator, who has passed them on to the rest of ArbCom. On November 18 I sent you privately some information about my concerns with meatpuppetry, with no details attached. I wrote there that ArbCom seemed to share some of those concerns. The latest evidence appears to be more serious and in addition corroborates the previous evidence. In these circumstances, of which you must now be fully aware, might it not be a better idea for you to exercise a little more circumspection when making comments on pages which only concern decisions to be made by ArbCom? Thanks in advance, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 10:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC) :: Ah. If you had notified me of that email it would have helped. Like I imagine quite a few people, I have a specific account for wikipedia to safeguard privacy. I rarely check it. I have just now. I'll send you a reply shortly. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 11:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC) == Closing the RFC? == I looked through the RFC/U closing policy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Closing] and it looks like it can be closed by agreement if there's consensus for it on the talk page. Do you feel that we're ready for that now? If so, would you mind making the motion to close, and propose a summary for the outcome? Seems like it would make the most sense for you to do that, since it was you that WeijiBaikeBianji apologized to and agreed to improve his behavior.-[[User:SightWatcher|SightWatcher]] ([[User talk:SightWatcher|talk]]) 23:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC) : WBB and I certainly want to move on, and it seems you do too. The one thing is that this RfC has opened up a can of worms. You know that you're under suspicion of being a meatpuppet/sock as are as far as I can tell, a couple of other users who commented on the RfC too. If you ''are'' a meat/sockpuppet, then matters will soon take their own course, or so I've been led to believe. If you're not, then there may just be more unnecessary wikistress in trying to reach formal agreement on a closing. My gut feeling is this: the record shows that we all consider the matter finished, want to move on and go back to editing. I'd rather just let it go inactive.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC) == Advice to both VsevolodKrolikov and SightWatcher == I will repeat the advice I gave to SightWatcher on his talk page. These detailed rules must be followed in closing an RfC/U [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing]]. In particular, if there is still activity, the RfC/U cannot be closed prematurely. That is a common courtesy to allow other editors to comment in different time zones and with possibly limited availability. ''It is often the case that those opening an RfC/U, will be criticized themselves.'' That happens fairly often, e.g. in the case of [[User:Charles Matthews]] who initiated [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII]]. As appears to be happening here, an RfC/U can turn into a criticism of those instigating it. That might be embarrassing for you, but it can provide helpful information for the community and in addition for the instigators, who can then use the feedback to modify their own conduct on wikipedia. You should leave the RfC/U open for at least one week more and should request an ''unvinvolved'' administrator to help with the closure. This RfC/U is as much about the conduct of both of you as of the user you set it up about. In other words [[WP:BOOMERANG]] probably applies here. Thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 04:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC) : Is it your plan to turn it into a criticism of the two of us, MathSci? If, as you claim, there is evidence against Sightwatcher more serious than just the RfC, then the RfC is not the place for it. As for my input, no one has suggested that the behaviour I raised was unproblematic, WBB has very gracefully recognised that his communication could be better, we have both expressed our desire to work well and collegiately with each other, and we're ''all'' happy to move on. As I said above to Sightwatcher, the RfC has been coloured by the possibility of more serious offences on his part. The RfC is not the place to resolve those, so letting it go inactive (which policy allows for) might be the most productive use of everyone's time and of best benefit to the encyclopaedia. None of us are interested in prolonging a dispute.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 06:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC) ::I have no idea to what you're referring. I have no plan to turn the RfC/U into a criticism of you, since I have no intention of taking any further part in it. Your actions have been criticized in the RfC/U and it could well be that more criticism is to come. I don't think that warrants your uncivil reponse to me. Nor do I understand why you mention meatpuppetry here. Did I mention it here or in the RfC/U? Thanks, [[User:Mathsci|Mathsci]] ([[User talk:Mathsci|talk]]) 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC) {{ec}} ::: I welcome your decision not be involved in any more discussions in this topic. However, your accusations of incivility are simply not acceptable, and unless you can provide diffs, I would ask you to strike such accusations. More bizarrely, you claim you didn't mention meat puppetry. Anyone with a bit of vision can see just a few lines above above here, where you write "On November 18 I sent you privately some information about my concerns with meatpuppetry". That, and the suggestion that I've been criticised in the RfC (when I have not been), suggests a need for you to step back.　MathSci, I was serious in our email exchange when I said I thought you were a valuable editor for the project. You didn't accept this, but I still offer it as something I believe in. Please can we give this whole thing a rest?[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 16:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Krolikov, I’m not sure if this’ll make a difference to you, since I haven’t actually seen the evidence that Sightwatcher and Woodsrock are socks or meatpuppets. (I asked Shell about this in an e-mail two days ago, and so far she hasn’t responded.) But I think it’s worthwhile for you to know that during the approximately a year that I was involved in these articles, it’s been the case that every time a newly registered user gets involved in them, they get accused of being a sock or meatpuppet—especially if they disagree with Mathsci, who’s generally made this accusation more often than anyone else. In my own case, when I first got involved in these articles in summer of 2009, I was accused of being a sockpuppet of [[User:Legalleft]] (although not by Mathsci) despite my having been registered at Wikipedia since 2006. Now that I’m being called a sockpuppeteer rather than a sockpuppet, what it looks like to me is just more of the same inevitable reaction that happens whenever someone new shows up with this viewpoint. It’s true that Mathsci has correctly identified sockpuppets several times in the past, mainly those belonging to [[User:Jagz]] and [[User:Mikemikev]]. But the point I’m making is that since this accusation gets made against ''every'' new user with this viewpoint on these articles, whether they’re actually a sock or not, I wouldn’t read too much into the fact that it’s being made yet again in this case. It’s possible that this time there really is some convincing evidence that Sightwatcher and Woodsrock are sockpuppets or meatpuppets, but I kind of doubt it. According to his post above, Mathsci e-mailed ArbCom with his evidence about this on November 18th, almost two weeks ago. I think that if there were convincing evidence against these users, they would have been blocked or topic-banned already. --[[User:Captain Occam|Captain Occam]] ([[User talk:Captain Occam|talk]]) 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC) :　Occam- what's going on right now is all a bit of a dog's breakfast. I don't know if you're guilty of anything, if sightwatcher is guilty of something and so on. If you really are messing about, of course I want nothing to do with you. (Please don't take offence if such allegations are groundless) Furthermore, that you've been mailing an ARBCOM member, just like MathSci has, further makes procedures opaque to those not privy to discussions. I raised the same point with MathSci about openness; he didn't respond (off-wiki) at all well. I say the same to you - it's simply bizarre that topic banned editors are privy to information that editors in good standing taking part in this discussion aren't. : I got caught up in all of this over a dispute that is now resolved. I would like to remind those who want to prolong disputes that (a) editing wikipedia is a hobby (b) costumes are for Halloween and (c) egos are for wimps.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC) ::It’s all right, I’m used to hearing this sort of thing about myself from other editors, especially from Mathsci. If you look through the evidence and findings of fact from the arbitration case, you’ll see that these sorts of accusations against me (as well as against a few other editors who’ve disagreed with Mathsci) have been going on since sometime this spring—I’d give specific examples, but it’s probably best for everyone if I don’t try to dig up old dirt now. And one of the things I learned from this case is that generally, personal attacks reflect more poorly on the person making them than on the person they’re directed at. ::Also, I should clarify about my correspondence with Shell: she e-mailed me first, and my message was a response to her. She wanted to know whether Sightwatcher or Woodsrock is a member of an evolution community that I run at DeviantArt, and my answer was not that I’m aware of, but that the community has over two hundred members and I’m not personally familiar with most of them, so it’s possible that Sightwatcher and/or Woodsrock are members there without me knowing about it. I also asked Shell whether there are specific members of this group whom she suspects of being the same people as these Wikipedians, and if so what that suspicion is based on, but she hasn’t replied to that. --[[User:Captain Occam|Captain Occam]] ([[User talk:Captain Occam|talk]]) 18:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC) :::Your openness about off-wiki communications is appreciated. It's disappointing that MathSci has not yet chosen not to strike or back up his accusation against me despite my request, and his comments to Cirt are troubling - it doesn't lie well with the spirit of withdrawing from the discussion, or indeed, asking for a topic ban based on incivility to be lifted. Still, I suppose everything will be sorted once this evidence he says he has actually becomes available in one form or another.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 02:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC) == AGM-114 Hellfire : "Removing details of use in I/P conflict as per talk" == I noticed the section "Combat history" has been significantly shorten, with the removal of two examples that were both referecenced. In the meantime, facts without reference where kept. In the title of your removal ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AGM-114_Hellfire&oldid=400460308]]), you write is was "as per talk". My understanding of the discussion you refer to was not that these examples should be removed. Why facts related to I/P conflict should be selectively removed? On which wikipedia rule do you base your removal? My suggestion is to simply remove the title "political issues" and to reintegrate the facts recently removed in the section "combat history"? [[Special:Contributions/79.89.14.185|79.89.14.185]] ([[User talk:79.89.14.185|talk]]) 11:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC) : Hi IP 79.xxetc. My reading of the discussion was this: three of us had agreed that specific mention of the Hamas killings and the ambulance deaths were inappropriate for that article. The principle we invoked was [[WP:COATRACK]], which means that one article should not be used to present/discuss POVs of a completely different article topic on the sly. In other words, there was too much I/P conflict information in the article which didn't actually add to people's understanding of the weapon itself, but instead was a commentary on Israeli military actions. A fourth editor - you - had said "I believe the article will be better off without the section Political issues and that Combat history should list chronologically the uses of this missile, as it did before." This seemed to agree with the other three editors. I had understood your arguing over the ambulance to be contingent on the political issues section was left in. However, I must confess that I didn't go back and check thoroughly how the article was before the "political issues" section existed. I have now, and I see that mentions of both Yasin and the ambulance have been in and out of the article a few times over the years, even before the political issues section was there. The other editor was epeefleche, who opposed the exclusion, and who seemed to give up the ghost both on that talkpage and on my own (see above) without ever invoking policy guidelines. You also did not respond to the general move in the discussion towards removing both cases, even after your edit-warring block had ended, so in any case, there is still an argument for consensus to remove. Anyway, if you think my removal was unjustified, then you can revert and we can return to the talkpage. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 14:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) :: Thanks for your prompt answer. I could not go back quickly to the discussion page, and when I did it looked like the issue was settled and the changes were made. I agree with you that a political discussion do not have be part of the page. But obviously, the various facts about combat history belong to this page. I am going to follow your advice by doing the revert and adding a paragraph on the discussion page. [[Special:Contributions/79.89.14.185|79.89.14.185]] ([[User talk:79.89.14.185|talk]]) 15:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC) == Captain Occam appeal at AE == * [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Captain_Occam]] Captain Occam is appealing the decision made by EdJohnston at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75#Captain_Occam]]. This is a courtesy note to make you aware of the request. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 04:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC) == The "left-wing" and "right-wing" labels. == As a rule, I tend to oppose broad terms such as "left-wing", "right-wing", "far left", "far right", especially the last two without extreme due care. Hence, I'd describe the SWP in the first sentence as "a Trotskyist political party" -- even though the wear the term "far-left" with pride --, the EDL as an "anti-Islamic protest group" (or even, "Islamophobic", but we must be careful there), and the UAF as a "anti-fascist pressure group". That'd even extend to the main parties, where there is no dispute about the Labour being "centre-left" (I'd use "social democratic") and the Tories being centre-right (I'd use "conservative"). <small>(With the Lib Dems, there's a marked Beveridge/Orange Book split in the party, so I'd just use "liberal").</small> To our credit, for the main parties, we do that. On Wikipedia, though, we do have a tendency to jump to attacking the far-right more than anyone else. This debate actually shows this: we're having a long protracted battle over the non-dirty "left-wing" where the use of "far-right" in the BNP or the EDL articles was disputed a little but eventually used. One of the things I try to do on Wikipedia is to limit usage of these words as much as possible, because they don't really mean anything. I eventually was able to get the lead section of [[Osama bin Laden]] to dispense with all the scholar name dropping and just use terrorism in relation to international law enforcement agencies. I mean, really, what reads better: "The British National Party is a far-right political party", or "The British National Party is a [two descriptors] political party"? Personally, I think the second version does. Adding a few extra words doesn't pollute the lede, and we should be writing articles such that we can describe them in the lede and infobox alone. With "far-right", you end up with a lot of citations and rambling about political positions, and the "he said/she said" bullshit we could more easily cover in the first sentence! For example, the first paragraph of the EDL article rambles a lot. For example, I've just written a version of the first paragraph off the hoof just now: {{quote|The English Defence League (EDL) is an anti-Islamic political group operating in the United Kingdom. Formed in 2009 by members of the [[football casual]] subculture, its stated aim is to oppose the spread of Islamism, Sharia law and Islamic extremism in England and uses street marches as a method of protest. It presents itself as a "multi-ethnic" and "multi-faith" group, but has shown hostility to the general Muslim population at several marches. The EDL's membership figures are ambiguous; in October 2009, their leadership claimed to have "thousands" of members with 300 active supporters. In 2010, a march in Newcastle-upon-Tyne had an estimated attendance of 1,500 to 2,000.}} From there, we can describe why it's far-right in a more natural manner: association with the BNP, Sweden Democrats, the far-right in America. The lede also needs to talk about the EDL/UAF conflict as it's extremely important to understanding of the group -- certainly more so than the splinter/sister groups, which should be near the bottom of the article, really. In general, though, we need to have more intelligent debate. Blind devotion to "the sources" is never good; what we should be using these talk pages for is to dissect all the sources for the contentious stuff to make sure we get the best sources and the best presentation. That's what I really want on Wikipedia. Less use of Searchlight in these articles, more use of political dissertations and theses! If we do that, the articles get better, the talk pages get less confrontational, the editors are more cordial, and who knows? We might draw some people away from the EDL; they can complain about left-wing smear pieces all they want, but when confronted by beautiful political argument, and not rhetoric, the far-right really can't retort. So, thoughts? '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ^{([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])} 05:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC) : Thanks for taking the time to post a thoughtful message. I agree that the labels right-wing and left-wing can be problematic. In modern British political discourse, both Labour and Conservative leaderships have favoured "centre-left" and "centre-right" to describe themselves, as if left and right used starkly indicates extremism of some kind. Where they are used consistently and in volume by sources with a good (rather than a passable) reputation for objective characterisation, I would still want to use them. Academic analyses still use the terms, and if used carefully, they do actually mean something. I'm rather uncomfortable with equating the EDL and UAF situations. The EDL is consistently characterised by all reliable UK news sources as right-wing (far-right, extreme right). It's probably one of the most common adjectives used. Do we keep this out of the lede, as your version does? There are certainly concerns raised in some RS about the direction of the UAF leadership, but the consistency of reference, the quality of sources and their volume simply isn't there for the first sentence. Certainly for a paragraph further down, I've no problem with that. : I'm more generally worried by the underlying reasons for this dispute. Several editors have wanted what they see as "equivalent" treatment for the UAF compared to the EDL and also the John Birch Society, while at the same time and in the same breath stressing that they do not like labels. This seems to be pointy and politically motivated editing. They do not show any interest in comparing the quality of sourcing in the different cases (and sourcing quality and volume is important in such circumstances). How else can one characterise the proposed use of the Daily Star and random racists websites, or the cynical attempt (with laughable sourcing) to reclassify the Conservative party as in the centre rather than on the right of British politics? : To be honest, I'm not sure that removing the categories of right-wing and left-wing would bring any peace. Islamophobic will no doubt be challenged for EDL (I wouldn't be surprised if they then try to insert anti-semitic into UAF). I agree on the notion of "less use of Searchlight in these articles, more use of political dissertations and theses." However, given that the John Birch Society article uses pretty much exclusively good quality academic imprints to source its description and yet is still seen as an example of unfair labelling, I'm not convinced it will change much. Beautiful arguments won't hold any power over people fixated on specific outcomes. There does not appear to be any attempt to put forth their own standards for label sourcing; at least one involved editor can be found right now arguing precisely the opposite sourcing case for [[Glenn Beck]]. That's the frustration here. There is no negotiation or persuasion, no consideration of evidence according to widely accepted principles. Outside views were asked for, they came back pretty clear, and were ignored, caricatured, misrepresented. It's difficult to reach consensus with people behaving like this.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 06:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC) ::We don't keep far-right out of the lead section at all; we leave it out of the lead ''sentence''. If anything, the lead sentence should be tweetable summary of the entire article, much like the lead section is equivalent to a book blurb; hence why I think "anti-Islamic" works better than "far-right". The first paragraph of the EDL article I wrote here was what I would write were I creating the EDL article from scratch. An article about the EDL, though, would probably need two or three paragraphs in its lead section; the second paragraph would then go into its history and its association with the far-right. This way, we make a more convincing case for the movement being far-right than if we just do the "he said/she said" thing we do on many articles relating to extremism, including the EDL article. Indeed, this rewrite of the EDL article says more about them being on the far-right than the current version does. ::On the subject of the "volume of sourcing", I think there is also a case of there being too much of a good thing. On [[white power skinhead]], there used to be sixteen citations for a single sentence! I have a simple personal rule that if you are unable use three or fewer authoritative sources to cite a fact, then it probably isn't a fact at all -- or, at the very least, disputable enough to not be used with attribution. On the whole, however, the ''quality'' of sourcing on articles about extremism is generally excellent. ::Your point about the JBS is actually interesting, in that it shows some systemic bias on both Wikipedia and in the sources themselves. The JBS shares about 99% of its viewpoints with the Tea Party movement: i.e., far-right economic views, and nothing more than lip-service to social liberalism. In fact, [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22tea+party%22+%22john+birch%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Google Scholar] throws up some sources that appear to make this comparison. However, there was, for a long time, a disparity between the articles of the two movements in that the JBS was described as far-right but the Tea Party wasn't. Maybe it's due to the fact that there are seasoned editors that are also Tea Party sympathisers on the project, or that the SPLC doesn't have them on their list of hate groups (but it still scathing in its criticism of the Tea Party nonetheless), or even both. But this, to me, strengthens my opinion that care really needs to be taken with these terms. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' ^{([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])} 18:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC) ::: When I say that labels need to have lots of sourcing, I mean that on the talkpage, any editor presenting a case for a controversial label has to demonstrate that there is a lot of very good sourcing. It's not necessary to include all the sourcing in the article itself. And by a lot, I mean going into dozens, or at least five or six good academic analyses from acknowledged experts. ::: The tea party issue is a good one to raise, because of the similarities with entryism in the UK Labour party in the 1970s and in student politics too. Tea partiers (including Birchers or Birch-ish fellow travellers) are doing the same thing to the Republican party; I wouldn't be surprised if there have been a few tea-party people reading up on Militant and the SWP's work in the UK, which are seen as classic examples of how to take control of larger political organisations. ::: But the teaparty is lacking a clear ideology; they're basically "angry". I wouldn't see JBS -style views within tea party groupings as a sign of anything substantial yet - the tea party seems to house a great number of contradictory views. But there ''are'' people on that part of the spectrum in the US (who are taking their lead from Glen Beck and others) trying to rehabilitate the JBS and its worldview, it seems to me in order to give the tea party movement a philosophy. We see it on Wikipedia with visiting IP editors and the rhetoric they try to insert. This habilitation of the radical right may happen, and sources may cease to characterise it as extreme or radical, or even "right wing". However, Ludwigs2 point on this was excellent - wikipedia is not part of that process. Wikipedia changes after, not before or during. ::: The solution to this is, instead of engaging in political discussions, focus on applying principles of sourcing. I absolutely do not see this as a battle of left against right (I do not push my own politics on here at all). It's a battle between POV (which in this case is right-wing) and NPOV. There seems to be some interesting sources to support a short paragraph's critiquing SWP activities within the UAF, and how the SWP views the group as a whole. But it's abundantly clear that there's very little out there (some of the sourcing efforts are frankly comical), compared to the plentiful and high quality sourcing there is for labelling organisations like JBS, EDL or SWP. That should, if we were all good wikipedians, be the end of the matter. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC) == Further reading guideline == Hi there, just wanted to drop by and see what you thought about turning this into an actual guideline now. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Further_reading] It's been a while since anyone posted about it. I have no idea how to go about turning it into one, but I figured you would.-[[User:SightWatcher|SightWatcher]] ([[User talk:SightWatcher|talk]]) 02:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC) == Good New Book == Hi, VsevolodKrolikov, I've been digesting ideas I learned from human intelligence scholars at the International Society for Intelligence Research conference in December 2010 and reading some of the latest literature. I thought I'd share here the full citation of a book that I may have already mentioned to you on an article talk page. {{Cite book |title=Innovations in Educational Psychology: Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Human Development |editor1-last=Preiss |editor1-first=David D. |editor2-last=Sternberg |editor2-first=Robert J. |editor2-link=Robert Sternberg |coauthors=John Baer, Ronald A. Beghetto, Peter Bryant, Matia Finn-Stevenson, Florencia Gomez, Patricia M. Greenfield, Elena L. Grigorenko, Patricia Imbarack, Patricia T. Kantor, James C. Kaufman, Heidi Keller, Alex Kozulin, Xiaodong Lin, Samuel D. Mandelman, Javiera Mena, Sarah Michaels, María Elena Mora, Adam J. Naples, Terezinha Nuñes, Miguel Nussbaum, Cathy O'Connor, David R. Olson, Blanca Quiroz, Natalia Rakhlin, K. Ann Renninger, Lauren B. Resnick, Carrie Rothstein-Fisch, Alan H. Schoenfeld, Robert S. Siegler, Marcos Singer, Keith E. Stanovich, Paula J. Stanovich, Florence R. Sullivan, Alex Torres, Elise Trumbull, Richard K. Wagner, Edward Zigler |year=2010 |publisher=Springer Publishing |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8261-2162-2 |laysummary=http://books.google.com/books?id=OLXIsMI83JwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Innovations+in+educational+psychology&source=bl&ots=Azgcs2rV_C&sig=GR6br8qEandT9CeZlNs5rL8zDKM&hl=en&ei=aXkOTYSbDMTEnAeW9pjWDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false |laydate=19 December 2010 |ref=harv }} The article by Keith Stanovich and Paula Stanovich in this book is especially good for defining the term "intelligence" in relation to such terms as "cognition" and "rationality." My impression of the current literature is that this framework will become the accepted mainstream framework soon, and already it is an influential minority view among widely published psychologists, who have been citing Stanovich's writings for years. The terminological distinction Stanovich draws is useful for resolving some of the ambiguities present in other professional literature on the subject. I'll be posting some updates to the [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji#Source_Lists_to_Share_with_Other_Wikipedians | source lists]] soon to reflect the most recent reading I have been doing. I hope you are enjoying a happy new year and are not quite as buried in snow as people here in Minnesota are. Amazingly, we are still getting out for walks and my wife has even been on a bike ride in the last twenty-four hours. Take care, and see you on the articles. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 14:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC) : P.S. You mention on your user page that you're still trying to figure out how to format the arrangement of user boxes more to your liking. Try out the [[Template:Fix_bunching | Fix bunching template]] (you'll see an example on my user page), which has some helpful documentation, and see if that gets you what you desire in terms of layout. As always, всего хорошего; 頑張ってください. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]], [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Editing|how I edit]]) 14:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC) ==Feedback requested on new R&I lead== I just made a proposal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#New_lead_proposal here] about a possible change to the lead of the race and intelligence article. Feedback about it would be appreciated.[[User:Boothello|Boothello]] ([[User talk:Boothello|talk]]) 19:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC) == Completely new abortion proposal and mediation== In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles ([[Pro-life movement|pro-life/anti-abortion movement]], and [[Abortion-rights movement|pro-choice/abortion rights movement]]) to '''''completely''''' new names. The idea, which is located '''[[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement|here]]''', is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles [[Talk:Abortion-rights movement|here]] and [[Talk:Pro-life movement|here]] can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. '''Even if your opinion is simple ''indifference''''', that opinion would be valuable to have posted. To avoid accusations that this posting violates [[WP:CANVASS]], this posting is being made to '''every''' non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. [[User:HuskyHuskie|HuskyHuskie]] ([[User talk:HuskyHuskie|talk]]) 20:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC) ==Feedback requested== Your input would be appreciated in the discussion [[Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Geographic_ancestry_section|here]].[[User:Boothello|Boothello]] ([[User talk:Boothello|talk]]) 05:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC) == Formal mediation has been requested == {{Ivmbox | <!---MedComBot-Do-not-remove-this-line-Notified-Opposition to the legalisation of abortion--->The [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]] has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. [[Wikipedia:Mediation|Mediation]] is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opposition to the legalisation of abortion|request page]], the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy|formal mediation policy]], and the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide|guide to formal mediation]], '''please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.''' Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by {{#time: F j|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}{{#if:|, {{{3}}}}} +7 day}}{{#if:|, {{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{{3}}}|December {{#expr: 32 - 7}}, {{{3}}}={{#expr: + 1}}|}}}}, 2011. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.<br> <small>Message delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]] ([[User talk:MediationBot|talk]]) on [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|behalf]] of the Mediation Committee. 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)</small> }} ==Tatars== Dear Vsevolod, Could you please undo the changes by Papersteamboat and return it to 1 August 2011 96.49.122.85 (talk) (35,016 bytes) version ? I tried hard previously to put together all the nice photos... [[User:JackofDiamonds1|JackofDiamonds1]] ([[User talk:JackofDiamonds1|talk]]) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC) : Hi Jack. This is really an issue for [[talk:Tatars]]. Papersteamboat gave reasons for editing the photos that seem reasonable to me. What's wrong, in encyclopedia terms, with the changes Papersteamboat made? [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 15:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC) == Apology? == You owe me an apology for saying "This looks like an attempt to misdirect ARBCOM" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests&action=historysubmit&diff=443128180&oldid=443124723] with regard to me. I understand how it looked, but now you know what you said was wrong, even if you didn't know it when you said it. If you're not willing to admit that you jumped the gun and made a serious but entirely inaccurate accusation, and sincerely apologize for it, well, I really don't want to have anything to do with you any more. And I doubt you would with me if the tables were turned. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 06:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC) : You don't seem to acknowledge that there is anything improper at all in you editing - without declaration - the text of a policy that is at the heart of a dispute you are involved in, and in your favour. And it ''looks'' how it ''looks'' (note the words) - that's the point of people recusing themselves from processes where there is a potential conflict of interest (and I'm not talking about WP:COI). So, I don't "know" that I was wrong. Essentially, you're asking for an apology before you give one yourself (which in my opinion should be given to the people in the dispute on the ARBCOM page). I also notice you don't remove insults directed at me ("you moron" and "kiss my ass") from your talkpage, although you will edit it for civility at other times. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 07:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC) ::I apologize for missing those insults and thank you for bringing them to my attention. I saw them, but I did not read them as references about you, but you're right and I've struck them now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorn2cycle&action=historysubmit&diff=443150492&oldid=443136389].<p>You're right that I don't acknowledge that there is anything improper in my editing - because I'm not aware of anything improper about it, and nobody has pointed out anything substantively improper about it. If I did something improper, like change wording to favor my position and then quote that wording - like you wrong accused me of doing - then I would apologize. But that's preposterous for I would never do anything like that.<p>I understand recusing and why it's done. I simply don't agree that everyone or anyone involved in a dispute that is about some policy page should recuse themselves from all edits to that policy. I don't hold anyone, including myself, to that.<p>Now, moderators, arbiters, and anyone else who will be making a judgment, sure, they should recuse themselves and be concerned about appearances. But a schmo? I don't see the point. <p>In any case, what you accused me of is clearly wrong. Why don't you acknowledge that and apologize for it? --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 08:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for deleting kenatipo's insults. I accept that you hadn't noticed them - I hope you accept that your not deleting them rather troubled me as to your good faith. I have redacted as best as I can any suggestion that you intentionally intended to disrupt process, and duly apologise for that implication.<p> What I have not redacted is the charge that you shouldn't have done what you did. Here I hope we are on wikipedian, rather than personal grounds. You have said that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=443141049 you don't care about appearances] - but this is counter to established notions of due process. I'm sure you know the phrase "justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done". The sentiment of that applies also to wikpedia. Even if your edit to policy text was - in your terms - innocent, because of the obvious possibility that it could be cast as partisan, it should not have been made.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 03:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC) :I think "appearances" are important, sometimes more important than actuality -- in TRW and in WP -- to people who are in positions of power... judges, teachers, professors, police, politicians, managers, admins, moderators, etc., because of the appearance of impropriety can be a serious problem to them, while to ordinary citizens and editors what really matters is ''actual'' impropriety. In other words, for ordinary folk, concern over "appearances" is optional. I don't know how appearances are relevant to due process except in regard to people in positions of power.<p>I can see that the timing and appearance of my edits might ''seem'' bad to someone who violates AGF policy, but his or her failure to AGF is on them, not on me. We are supposed to assume good faith, and act accordingly. We are not supposed to assume that others ''won't'' assume good faith, and act accordingly, which is what you seem to think I should have been done. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 03:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC) :: You seem to be arguing that impropriety can only occur if there is bad faith. That isn't true. There may be explicit rules for admins and arbitrators on dealing with wiki-conflicts of interest, but the idea behind those rules applies to all of us. People who edit policy pages should avoid making any edits to policy pages that impact upon disputes they are currently involved in, and especially without any declaration of interest (this is not only my view, remember, it's what other editors have called "unacceptable" and "not a good tactic". My initial strong reaction was because I thought this principle would be so obvious that you must have known what you were up to - something I now accept isn't true). While you personally are utterly convinced of your interpretation of policy, it should be very clear to you that this interpretation is not universal - after all, a mediation has just finished where the !majority clearly didn't see it that way, and nor did the closer, a very experienced and trusted editor. We are supposed to demonstrate good faith too, which means taking care not to make it difficult for others to AGF. Hence we should give the impression of propriety, not simply trust in our own sense that we're good guys meaning well.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 04:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC) :::I am not arguing that impropriety can only occur if there is bad faith. I'm saying that characterizing good faith edits to policy pages, for which no substantive problems are actually identified, as impropriety, is contrary to AGF. :::I am not convinced all of my interpretations of policy are consistent with consensus.<p>These notions are novel to me: :::* "the idea behind [rules for admins and arbitrators on dealing with wiki-conflicts of interest] applies to all of us" :::* "[demonstrating good faith means] taking care not to make it difficult for others to AGF." :::I agree with this: :::*"People who edit policy pages should avoid making any edits to policy pages that impact upon disputes they are currently involved in" :::But the corollary of that is: :::*"People who edit policy pages may make any edits to policy pages that do not impact upon disputes they are currently involved in" :::And what's relevant here is that behavior that appears it might be the former must be assumed to be the latter, per AGF, until proven otherwise (i.e., when in doubt ask, rather than jumping to conclusions). --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 05:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC) (reworded) --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 05:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC) :::: I don't think we're getting anywhere here, as I've made clear I've withdrawn any accusations of bad faith. This will be my last comment on this matter. ::::* [[WP:AGF]] explicitly states that assuming good faith does not preclude criticising the actions of others. My criticising what you did does not mean I am not assuming good faith. ::::* If a principle is violated in good faith, the good faith does not make that violation go away. ::::* The difference between the two situations you outline above is not whether or not good faith is present (it's irrelevant), it's whether or not the editor is making changes that impact upon a dispute they are having. Three editors believe that it does.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 06:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC) {{od}}Actually, we ''are'' getting somewhere. * It's true that criticizing actions is not necessarily a breach of AGF. But criticizing someone for not acting in good faith (which you did) ''is'' of course not assuming good faith. That's a syllogism! Further, criticizing someone for behavior that merely ''might'' be against the rules, or against consensus, without verifying that it is ''actually'' against the rules, or against consensus, is also not assuming good faith. You did that as well. * Agree - a violation is a violation regardless of whether it's done in good or bad faith. * No, three editors say they believe that it ''might'' impact upon the dispute, and object to it on those flimsy grounds, without even making the effort to explain how it might impact the dispute, and, apparently, without even making the effort to look close enough at the changes in question to see if they really do have that potential. Frankly, that's just disruptive. --[[User:Born2cycle|Born2cycle]] ([[User talk:Born2cycle|talk]]) 06:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC) == This Guy No Like Engrish == This guy deleted my funny edits! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.6.130.177|24.6.130.177]] ([[User talk:24.6.130.177|talk]]) 03:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> == Vsevolod, I admire you == I admire the fact that you have modified your position on Born2cycle's recent edits to the [[WP:AT]] policy. And, anyone who appreciates ''The Great Wave off Kanagawa'' can't be all bad. So, I apologize for the little jabs I've been aiming at you. I will do my best to cease and desist, immediately. (I think it's your username that irritates me -- every time I see it I say "I'm not typing all that!") --[[User:Kenatipo|<span style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''<big>Kenatipo</big>'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Kenatipo|speak!]]} 05:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I should have read your remarks above before I wrote this. You seem eager to take back with your left hand what you've just given with your right. My advice to you is: AGF! --[[User:Kenatipo|<span style="color:#933;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''<big>Kenatipo</big>'''</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Kenatipo|speak!]]} 05:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC) == Can we work on this? == Vsevolod, I hope that I can address you by your first name. It’s kind of difficult to say which etiquette to follow :) I know that one etiquette that I’m violating here is the reason why I’m contacting you. I do hope that you will forgive me this. I’m contacting you to find out if you will agree to evaluate options for working together on a further development of a creativity management method. So, initially I would like to know if you would just consider what I’m offering below. I found information about you because of other reasons, but working together would interest me the most. Another Wikipedia administrator recommended contacting you because I have trouble with having an article on CreativityModel Method creativity management method posted in Wikipedia. So, that’s how I found information about you. However, after reading material that you have posted in various places, I am much more interested in trying to find a way to work with you on CreativityModel Method development and usage related areas, than I am on trying to persuade you to help me to publish an article on this Method in Wikipedia. In order to avoid confusing the topics, I would prefer leaving the article posting out of our discussions altogether. So, that’s the background. I also have to say that I don’t know if what I can offer is suitable for you, because it all involves development. More specifically, I do not know if you would like to work on developing a large scale project from an early stage to a successful outcome. That kind of work can be very different from evaluating material – which, as far as I can tell, you can do superbly well, if you want to. So, that being said, is there a way we could communicate on possibly working together on CreativityModel Method development and usage related areas? Please at least consider it and let me know what do you think. You can contact me via Wikipedia or Creativity Management Network, CreativityManagementNetwork.com (Thomas Eklund). I do believe that when CreativityModel Method development and usage are concerned, reasonable people who are interested in creativity as a subject matter can work out solutions that are mutually beneficial. In essence, this describes the spirit of the discussions that I would like to have with you. [[User:ProjectDeveloper|ProjectDeveloper]] ([[User talk:ProjectDeveloper|talk]]) 04:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC) : I'll have a look at this over the next couple of days.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 15:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC) :: Thank you. :: [[User:ProjectDeveloper|ProjectDeveloper]] ([[User talk:ProjectDeveloper|talk]]) 04:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ::: Sorry for taking a long time to reply to you. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can help you much. I agree with [[user:Born2cycle]]'s view that a page on Wikipedia for CreativtyModel method is (for the time being) inappropriate. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia is not a place to publish original work. That is, we are not a way of gaining recognition, nor a way of advertising new ideas, organisations or websites. Before there can be a page on CreativityModel method, it has to be recognised in the real world - what we call [[WP:NOTE|notability]]. This means there are academic articles and books written on the subject, and/or substantial non-fringe news coverage. Alas, CreativityModel method doesn't seem to qualify. (If your [[User talk:ProjectDeveloper/CreativityModel Method]] were put up as a real page, it would probably be deleted by newpage patrollers within a few hours on grounds of notability and probably advertising.) If it gets established and has good third party coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] then a page would be appropriate. (As B2c points out, you would need to work within our policy on [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]]). All this citing policy may seem complicated - but it's just part of how we get thousands of anonymous volunteers from around the world to create a quality encyclopedia. If you do have expertise in certain areas, please feel free to join in the fun. ::: As for working together on the project - again I will have to disappoint you. My interest is in creativity in education, rather than in business; I already have enough on my plate to branch out of that little ghetto. ::: If you are looking for people to exchange ideas with, there appears to be quite a few people on twitter around the world bouncing around ideas on creativity in business. You might find that a way of making contact with likeminded people. If you search on the hashtag #creativity, you should turn up quite a few people. They generally have blogs where you can check out their specific interests. I hope this helps. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 04:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) :::: Thank you, this is quite OK :) :::: [[User:ProjectDeveloper|ProjectDeveloper]] ([[User talk:ProjectDeveloper|talk]]) 06:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC) == Request for mediation rejected == {{Ivmbox | The [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation|request for formal mediation]] concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Rejected requests|declined]]. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Opposition to the legalisation of abortion|mediation request page]], which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Chair|Chairman]] of the Committee, or to the [[User:Mediation Committee|mailing list]]. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]]. For the Mediation Committee, [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]]<small> <nowiki>[</nowikI>[[User:AGK|&bull;]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)<br> <small>(Delivered by [[User:MediationBot|MediationBot]], [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#MediationBot|on behalf of]] the Mediation Committee.)</small> }} == RFAR on Abortion == An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion]]. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence]]. '''Please add your evidence by {{#time: F j|August 12{{#if:|, {{{3}}}}} +14 days}}{{#if:|, {{#switch:August 12, {{{3}}}|December {{#expr: 32 - 14 days}}, {{{3}}}={{#expr: + 1}}|}}}}, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop]]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration]]. For the Arbitration Committee, - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] &#124; ^{[[User_talk:Penwhale|dance in the air]] and [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|follow his steps]]} 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC) == The removal of the News Corporation link == Please re-add the link or explain here why not (your arguement is not valid) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#See_Also_section_-_Adding_News_Corp_Scandal_link [[User:Gise-354x|Gise-354x]] ([[User talk:Gise-354x|talk]]) 01:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC) : I have explained, and I won't revert. I'll explain again here: the grist article is by its own admission speculation, and the newscorp page doesn't mention climategate at all. You are sailing very close to the wind in terms of your editing behaviour in a heavily regulated topic area. I suggest you take things down a notch. By the way, have you ever edited wikipedia under another name?[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 01:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC) :: Please use the discussion page at the wiki in question, I did not saw your reply, prior to me posting here. [[User:Gise-354x|Gise-354x]] ([[User talk:Gise-354x|talk]]) 02:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) == Removing of Link to hacked Climate Emails == Please re-add the link you just removed from the News Corporation Scandal wiki entry. The argument you bring forward is not valid. There are indeed facts supporting a connection between both cases! Please use the talk page at the NCS wiki for a further discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:News_Corporation_scandal [[User:Gise-354x|Gise-354x]] ([[User talk:Gise-354x|talk]]) 03:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC) : No - and I've replied. I'll ask you again - have you ever edited wikipedia under a different name?[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 03:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC) :: Why do you ask me this? Why do you ask me to leave wikipedia and go blogging ( at the talk page of the CRU emails)? I get the feeling that your intentions are unfaithful, because you keep ignoring facts and what you say to me. [[User:Gise-354x|Gise-354x]] ([[User talk:Gise-354x|talk]]) 03:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC) ::: I ask because you've launched yourself at great speed at a single topic which has been plagued by [[WP:SPA|single purpose accounts]] in the past. A simple answer would have done; it's disappointing that you don't feel able to give one. As for accepting that you are editing in good faith, that's precisely what I'm doing when I suggest you blog about the topic instead, if you are most of all keen to get your ideas out rather than follow the principles of building the encyclopedia. By accepting your actions as being in good faith, I am drawn to the conclusion that you are not clear on how Wikipedia works. [[WP:TRUTH|Wikipedia is not about "the truth"]] as you see it. It's about condensing already established reliably sourced information. We don't do research here, we just put together other people's work.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 03:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC) :::: Dude stop with the accusations, you ask for facts, i provided them, you ask for original research i provided that. And again with the Ben Santer controversy the link is well established between News Corp and CRU. Your words are the opposite of your actions, you refuse to bring up valid arguments, ignoring mine, you have clearly an agenda. [[User:Gise-354x|Gise-354x]] ([[User talk:Gise-354x|talk]]) 05:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC) ::::: I have made no accusations, and I specifically said you should NOT do original research (as any editor knows not to do). Take a break to read what the policies say about the use of sourcing and the prohibition on users' original research. It would be the courteous thing to do, given the number of times you've been asked to do so.[[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 05:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC) == Wikiquette discussion == Just that you know, i have started a discussion about you [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#User:VsevolodKrolikov]] [[User:Gise-354x|Gise-354x]] ([[User talk:Gise-354x|talk]]) 08:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC) : Why thank you. I appreciate the homage. [[User:VsevolodKrolikov|VsevolodKrolikov]] ([[User talk:VsevolodKrolikov#top|talk]]) 08:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) == A treat to share == {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG|135px]] |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | The support of several fellow editors during my recent episode was gratifying and humbling; thanks to each for your confidence. ~~~~ |}'