User talk:Enric Naval/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Furter just added warning to user Cukiger of 3RR and to ARBMAC

I'd like to note here that Futper has now warned Cukiger long after the incident and only after I complained to you about his double standards in the incident. (the next day). I would say that makes it obvious he's reading my posts to you and trying to cover his tracks... which says something about his authenticity I would think.

He's now added both our names to the admin Notice board (presumably to make himself appear balanced). In his comments against me...

• He makes no mention of his prior foul comments to me as a new user
• he doesn't mention our long history (other than to throw everything in my corner)
• he doesn't disclose another admins Todd's prior recommendation to him to stop threatening me with blocks (and leave it to other admins)
• he neglects to mention both my prior blocks were by him
• he doesn't mention this conversation (nor mention the long delay in warning Cukiger until AFTER I contacted you)
• he makes no mention that he is in a potential conflict of interest (whereas I openly do so)

If that's not evidence of FP being manipulative of his admin powers at the expense of average contributors I don't know what is. Would you please make mention of this discussion on the noticeboard Enric?. Again... regardless if any admin on the fence ends up taking my side or not... I will not back down. Out of principle I'd rather be blocked then tolerate his constant harassment of me and constant undermining of Greek ethnicity. WP isn't FP's personal blog to terrorize Greek contributors that disagree with his anti-Greek POV pushing. --Crossthets (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy can't even read a timestamp. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually FP my initial complaint to Enric was at 02:35, 28 October 2008 and you notified Cukiger at 14:27 ( a full 12 hours later). My secondary post to Enric was 15:50... not long after... which should have made you realize that when I began my long post.. you hadn't made the complaint to him yet. Granted I should have checked the time later but how was I to know that you would write up Cukiger so many hours after to me? You seemed to have only me in your mind when you made your first post to the noticeboard at 07:26 (and continue to canvass in the hopes of getting someone to block me on your behalf). Funny how you didn't seem fit to disclose to the noticeboard that I had talked with Enric and other admins about you before you made the complaint... or our long history. --Crossthets (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

What next

In virtually every dispute instance I've observed (between admin and average user) other admins appear to look for a quick resolution not a long drawn out affair that pits them against another admin for the sake of some WP meme of "nationalists". The above out-of-the-blue comments by Han is the exact sort of railroading effect that has kept me from going directly to ANI or opening an RFC. he simple fact of the matter is when a newb goes up against an established admin with lots of admin friends and associates here... its a tough fight. (on the plus side I've managed to hang on despite his best efforts).

When I go to the typical admin to talk about FYRoM/Greece issues they typically do acknowledge some of my concerns but nobody seems to take ownership of the issue. (and in the meantime FP continiously brings up my name at the noticeboard to cover up his own COI.. thus undermining my credibility further) I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect. Hell I'm not sure if even having this conversation is kosher but since your an admin who seems impartial I figure you'll help steer me in the right direction . As a newb I have broken rules here but not once intentionally (and as a programmer it would not be especially hard to sockpuppet myself to appear from Mongolia). My posts are authentic and verifiable. I'm not trolling. And here is the current situation as I sincerely see it Enric.

FP is a major contributer to articles that relate to the region (I wouldn't be at all surprised if he or some of his family is from there)

There exist descretionary powers (largely pushed by FP and FYRoM nationals) that currently hobble Greek, Albanian, and Bulgarian contributers.... people that typically know the region far better than the average contributer. That they are superior in numbers is true about every single political article in Wikipedia... so why is FYRoM currently receiving special treatment?

FP has exhibited a decidedly anti-Greek POV Consider some of his justifications for descretionary powers included the statements... "Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder", "Greeks and Bulgarians come to their aid just to annoy the Macedonians".

Those are reasons for descretionary powers?. Sometimes it may not be clear when one isn't a target why things are offensive to others... so let me rephrase the statements to hopefully make it appear clearer.

• Jews come to WP to annoy Palestinians
• Blacks tendentious editing can generally get away with murder
• Gays come to WP to annoy straight people.
• etc..

Consider how enormously patronizing that sounds for a moment. I'm no WP expert but I am a human being not a stereotype. I sincerely think given his contrib history he's in a conflict-of-interest. Imagine someone that's on the board of directors of a corporation that also holds public office... that then gives no-bid countracts to his own company and sends the well intended police to harass competitors. To me, it appears like common sense that FP should either stop being a major contributer to articles related to the region... set aside his admin powers... or that the descretionary powers should be lifted and the articles allowed to take their normal course. (my preference would all three but I'd be happy with at least one for now). The trick however is how do I open an RFC on FP when I know the first thing he'd going to do is dismiss all my points as "harassment" and a wack of people friendly to him will pop out the woodwork to attest to his character... rather than the articles and issues in question?

Enric... you more than anyone probably knows how many FYRoM nationals are trying to rewrite ancient history. How many unauthentically phrase things like "Greece is trying to oppresss the Macedonian idenity"... when they know full well Greeks already consider the Macedonian identity part of their own cultural heritage. No amount of evidence will satisfy them that Alexander the Great saw himself as Greek. No amount of evidence will convince them that the communists kicked out of Greece weren't "the persecuted" but "the persecuters" They don't care about lack of census data nor the US officially calling talk of a Macedonian nation "demagogory". Nor their own officials admitting they aren't related to ancient Macedonians.

Bottom line... I didn't force those US congressmen nor Obama to introduce that resolution (Nor am I responsible for FP removing mention of that rather bill from WP). Are their claims of propaganda and hostility fabricated? So I guess what I'm saying here... is what do you recommend as my next step?--Crossthets (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(btw - sorry for filling up your talk page)

AfD nomination of Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece

An article you may be interested in, Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exodus of Ethnic Macedonians from Greece. Thank you. PMK1 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

not acknowledged pathan

is a big failure on Tanoli tribe, for which his background is afghanistan, and are not acknowledged Tanoli pathans is a source of afghanistan, which ruled in wikipedia.org origin of Tanoli are not, before the Mughal branch of Tanoli swat arrived at this time by fighting between neighborhoods tribes moved defrentes location,

Northwest Frontier history tanolis arrived early the 13th century, but it is not correct that Tanoli from afghanistan missing since 11th century,

what seems more about tanolis that this time between the tanolis were strongest and most famous of Afghanistan, also indicate that belongs tanolis the Afghan Royal family, which by the many war defrentes tribes disappeared from his place, and started the nursery with defrentes tribes in Punjab so by the tanolis as famous histry in between this time used his title, which does not seem Tanoli,

Please do not line up on that you do not get anything Tanoli its origin, which accounts tanolis Pathan us and what we speak Pashto,Some also spoke Urdu and HINDKO where most speak this language. there is also a major ruling on Afghans what they are talking about HINDKO,

between what they learned this time is not his own original language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilkhan (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the nth time, provide reliable sources on Talk:Tanoli for the claim that Tanoli are Pashtun instead of spamming your personal version.

Pashtuns are from Afghanistan and Pakistan

I removed the unneccessary hindi script from the Pashtun articles as it doesnt make any sense to have the sanskrit writing of it since no Pashtun uses it. Also, there are many claimants of people claiming to be pashtuns all over South Asia(indian, bangladesh, burma) who are by and large NOT PASHTUNS but nonetheless claim to be so for social and most probably caste related reasons, they are not accepted as being Pashtuns by any parent tribe.

(I excuse myself in advance if I am too harsh on my reply, I just dealt past week with an editor that was consistently removing references to India from several articles, and he removed also that transcription, so I'm right now a bit wary of any edit removing India-related stuff)

It appears that there are descendants of pashtons on India[1] and the Britannica lists the Hindustani form on their Pashtun people[2] (there is no transcript because they only use the english form of the name on all articles). In the Pashtun people article, you can search for the sentence "There is also a sizeable community in India, that is of largely putative ancestry" and check the two sources for it. Additionally, part of the Afridi (Pashtun) tribe lives at India.

P.D.: I just noticed that you changed the sentence that I quote above, replacing India with South Asia. However, that sentence has a source, and that source only talks about India. This, and also stuff like "western Pakistan", and removing the sentences about marriying into into indian bloodlines. Seriously, please don't try to remove India-related stuff from articles when the sources say that it's adequate to mention India, ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Things seem to have calmed down somewhat. It was a huge attack and I responded in a bit of a panic. Looks as if everything's blocked. I'll post details a bit later; I was just going to sign off. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Chagatai people

Can you suggest a verifiable reference for Chagatai people? The whole "article" (one line of text!) is highly dubious -- not only because of the unverifiable reference, but mainly because Chagatai language says that this is a Turkic language. So how can we be sure that Chagatai people are Tajiks? Any help you can extend with this will be appreciated. Meanwhile, I hope you won't mind if I remove the link to Chagatai people from Tajiks. --Zlerman (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I only restored it because it was removed by a sock of blocked editor User:NisarKand. Anyways, I found the online version of the book and I added it to the article, but I'm too dense right now to check it out. Btw, if you look for "chagatai" inside the book, there is also information for the chagatai language. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely great reference. I have edited Chagatai people, restored the link in Tajiks, and added the article to the disambig page for Chagatai. Anything else? Perhaps we should now deal with the Kharduri, whoever they are. Best, --Zlerman (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find anything at all for Kharduri :( No, there is nothing else, I just stumbled on that area while checking the contribs of a sock. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Water to oil

I have pasted the relevant paragraphs below as hidden text. My email isn't set up on this computer, so I can't mail you sorry! Nouse4aname (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll make some work on the article tomorrow. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD as keep. Thank's for your additions to the article. --Flewis^(talk) 14:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all :) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Retaliatory {Notability} tagging

Hi Enric Naval. The primary author of Mayya Singh Saini put what I can only assume is a retaliatory {Notability} tag on the article on inventor Van Phillips (see diff), an article I created (but has been materially edited by others). You may want to keep an eye on articles you've done work on for similar vandalism. I'm not reverting because I don't want to get into an edit war and I know the article will withstand prod, speedy, or AfD. Bongomatic 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I gave a long rationale on the talk page and removed the tag. This inventor really appears to be notable, and the message on talk page should protect the article from more notability tags.

However, scholar's tagging could have a good faith mistake due to not understanding policies well. It could have been that he saw your tag on his article, he looked through your contributions and he saw an article about some inventor guy that appeared to be non-famous. You have worked on many articles and he only tagged one. (And, yeah, he might have had the idea of finding a non-notable article that you have worked into so he could slap a tag on it, but at least he didn't tag any article that was totally clear that it was really notable.)

And thanks for the warning of watchlisting my work :) I had already been doing that, and now I have 2,215 pages on my watchlist, which makes my watchlist look very intimidating when I have been on wikibreak a pair of days (lol) I'm still working on removing stuff from it. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the untagging and the comments here and at the talk page. Bongomatic 03:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

About DWSS

I'm a little bit confused. If DWSS is owned & operated by Supreme Broadcasting Systems, why is some of its format almost similar to DWBL? I wonder if Supreme Broadcasting Systems is a sister company of FBS Radio Network Inc. Most articles say that DWSS is owned & operated by Ultrasonic Broadcasting Systems Inc. Does DWSS have no proper programming. There are more about this on Talk:DWSS.

Underblast (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

replied on Talk:DWSS --Enric Naval (talk) 12:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion request

I am not asking you to participate in the MfD I am going to speak of, but wanted to get your opinion. Based on your comments about User:Rev._Michael_S._Margolin in the MfD for that page I am wondering what opinion you might have that leads pages such as that and User:Itsmarkmc to fail What may I have on my user page? and What may I not have on my user page? but yet allow pages such as User:Johnbuckman to be viewed as acceptable? I seem to be overlooking something and would like some third opinions on the issue before I started doing MfD's on those grounds again. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer on on an hour or two, when I go back to the other computer. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, the other computer broke down while doing a test :(

See, the Itsmark page tries to imitate a wikipedia article, talking in third person and describing the life of the person. Jonh's page is an actual personal page where he speaks on first person and gives a brief list of stuff that he has done. Also, Itsmark page is a vanity page, talking about things that only interest him and his friends, like how he had such and such guitar when he was younger, the local soccer team, etc. John's page talks mainly of important stuff that he has done and only gives one paragraph at the end for personal details that only him and a few near persons will care about. From WP:USER; one of the uses of the user page is "a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working"

See also "Some people add information about themselves as well, possibly including contact information (email, instant messaging, etc), a photograph, their real name, their location, information about their areas of expertise and interest, likes and dislikes, homepages, and so forth". Obviously, four photographies of how he is playing the guitar and playing soccer are a bit more than necessary to communicate how he is, and goes into "look at how cool I look like when playing the guitar" :)

Also, if an editor has been editing wikipedia actively (or if he edited a lot on the past) then he is given a lot more of latitude for doing whatever he wants with his user page. If you look at itsmark contributions, he has only edited his user page and four images for his page, so he is obviously not using his user page for other of its main purposes: "organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia", since he is only working on his user page. If someone stops editing then the user page is usually never touched, it's just left there in case he returns someday.

People who edit a lot will usually be told nothing if they skip a bit some of the points at Wikipedia:User_page#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F, specially if it's nothing too controvwersial. If someone has only a long long flaming rant on some nationalistic topic, then that might be sent to MfD, but will probably only succeed if the editor is someone who only makes provocative edits on that specific topic.

People who have an article about them will probably be tolerated always as being a notable person, unless they have done absolutely no edits outside of their user page, in which case you should leave first a note on their talk page. As soon as they have done a few edits their user pages should be safe unless it's extremely promotional.

Basically, the system rewards good editors who have given a lot of time to editing articles, and punishes people who come to wikipedia to make promotion of themselves or their companies or products. And also a little bias towards towards open source / free software things (because wikipedia uses them) and against anything that smells of commercial promotion / POV pushing. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. So, "in a nutshell", there is selective enforcement of the polices and guidelines based on who the user is. I can understand part of that and I do look at past histories before doing noms. Actually it is how I stumbled across User:Johnbuckman. I came across a copyvio and it traced back to him, so I looked at his edit history and it seemed that he mainly joined Wikipedia to work on articles about subjects that he, or his companies, have ties with. (BookMooch, Magnatune, Amarok (software), John Buckman) Interesting is the Peter Cox (author) article that Bookman started. Took me all of 30 seconds to find this: "With Peter Cox, literary agent" posted by John Bookman on BookMooch : The Official Blog. he also did a lot of work on the Ramsay Wood article, and "Ramsay Wood" is a member of "BookMooch" and who, as an author, has written "A Cat May Look at a King", which is "distributed for free to members of BookMooch.com as part of an experiment in reciprocal generosity." So I mean, overall he came off as someone who mostly worked on things on Wikipedia that promoted his projects, friends and users. So I did the nom and it was a landslide "keep". In the case of a real editor who has done lost of non COI work here I could somewhat understand it a lot more based on your explanation. But considering that, just like User:Itsmarkmc, Bookman is "not using his user page for other of its main purposes", unless working on Articles that relate to yourself fits the "organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia" part of his userpage. Thanks for the opinon. Soundvisions1 (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Text size

Hi Enric. Would you please make your comments about Ayurveda normal size so I can read them? -- Fyslee / talk 06:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

heh, sorry about that. I hadn't thought that some people couldn't read it. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a nice way to vary the size of text without making it too tiny. cheers Jim Butler (t) 02:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's see if I can reply to the cold fusion page tonight or tomorrow, I'll be travelling. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 42	8 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones	Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43	10 November 2008	About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week	ArbCom elections: Nominations open
Book review: How Wikipedia Works	MediaWiki search engine improved
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved	News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 44	17 November 2008	About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de	GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license
Wikimedia Events Roundup	News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:EL and linking to social networking sites

On the talk page discussion Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_13#ED_Facebook.2C_myspace.2C_Bebo_links you said: "Notice that ELNO says "except for a link to an official page of the subject", it doesn't say "except for links to every official page of the subject" We should link only to the most official website, not to multiple "official" websites, as in one link per every networking website where they have an account. Otherwise, articles about certain musicians would have dozens of links. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC) "

• But I counter that it says an official website, not the official website. So it's not like the paragraph is meant to limit to one website or something like that. However I would like to look at the Stephanie Adams discussion and see what to conclude from that. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I replied on Talk:Stephanie_Adams#Alternative_solution --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

heh! :-)

I feel I've learned much from observing your approach at Giovanni di Stefano, and am very heartened by the way the article has come on. I thought I'd swing by and let you know though, that the addition of the Crippen information was one of the specific bits of editing sanctioned by arbcom (see this bit and here - and here for my slightly nonplussed take on it) - personally, I'm not really convinced that arbcom have any particular problem with that info. going in, but thought you should be aware of its history :-) hope you're good too... Privatemusings (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

uffff, seriously? Man, I had no idea that part was so contentious. Giovanni sent me a link to Dr. Crippen's article with no explanation, and I had to google around to see why he had sent me that link, which is when I found his statement at his website. When looking up some third party sources, I found a local newspaper[3] and a few sources based off a press release on PR Newswire, and I went ahead thinking that there must be some paper source somewhere that was not on google. Now I'm looking at google again and I see that those are the only results. Agh, I thought that this news bit was more notable, or that if had been included on other articles that talked about Giovanni :(

Hum, I think I'll leave it there. It seems that he filed the request on behalf of the doctor's last living relative, so it's not a frivolous request, he's actually doing it for a serious client. I wonder how much heat I'm going to get for using a local newspaper as source -.-

Thank you very much for the warning, man :) I am happy that you think that I'm doing well, in some articles it feels like I'm stepping into landmine fields every time I edit, lol. I saw that you have presented candidacy for arbcom. I don't know if you'll get elected, but I wish you luck. Just as an advice, remember not to answer to all oppose votes, let other editors defend you. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pé de Chinelo

[4] — it may interest you that a request for comment for user conduct has been initiated against the user in question. To add comment, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pé de Chinelo. MuZemike (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

link on your arbcom statement

On your arbcom statement, your link to "CSI idea" should point to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 56#A wiki equavalent of CSI (developing idea), for people like me who don't follow the village pump closely, and didn't see the discussion when it happened. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. At this stage although archived the idea itself is still a developing one. It seems very few people pay any attention to WP:VPP, so I hope to resurrect the idea in the near future in some other median (not sure which median is the best). A number of the people voting seems to like at least some of my ideas even though they have voted oppose so my idea may have a chance unlike my candidacy. -- Cat ^chi? 09:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

About User:Maragool

User:Maragool is very mayabang & he said that I make hoax articles & things in Wikipedia. The truth is that I make good articles. Can you help me solve this fight with User:Maragool?

Underblast (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I left him a message on his talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

is to improve

is to improve tanoli is pashtun tribe but i can,t live some coments tanoli talk page..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tanoli so tell me how i can live there about the origin of the tanoli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.226.131 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have some reliable sources on the pashtun origin of Tanoli, then post them here, and I will copy/paste them to the Tanoli talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quin etc.

I am sorry, but I felt I had to revert your edit concerning the history of homeopathy in the UK. It sounded too much like glorification of Quin and conspiracy theory, and the source seems very unlikely to treat the topic scientifically, since it's not even in the focus of the book. There are much better sources around [5] [6] [7], but I don't have time to extend the article right now. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat vague and tangential to the above, thank you for the comment you left on my talkpage about the list, regards Peter morrell 20:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Attack?

How did i attack Allknowingallseeing? Both of you have accused me of attacking, and i don't understand what you're talking about. All i did was defend myself from his strange accusations. Naturallyblind (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, try to defend yourself a bit less aggressively. If his accussations are without merit, then other people will notice it. You only need a short statement saying that you didn't intent to attack anyone, and explaining why exactly you made that edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what i tried to do. His accusations were baseless. When i see other people noticing that, i'll stop making that point. Naturallyblind (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, bark all you want- you showed up out of the blue and started to edit all Kim Basinger movies, designed to attack. You aren't Kim Basinger. You know too much about Wikipedia. You are a regular user who signed up as an attack account. If you deny it ask Enric to run a check ID. But you won't because you know I am right Allknowingallseeing (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:Checkuser can't be used to prove someone's innocence. Please try to chill out a bit and keep writing in other places. In a few days you will be thinking why you got so riled up about this. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Night

Enric, it's been nice talking but I must get to sleep. Thanks for the patience! I'll make sure to read your comments. --Espencat (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, I had already stopped editing that page, as, given the hour, there was little chance that spanish people could read it. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

FG an "important phenomenon"?

Hey there, could you please take a look at this discussion? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

reply

I like the new picture in the infobox because its clearer in a thumb view. All the best.Mike Babic (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

you're right

Hi Enric. Regarding this edit [8] you are absolutely right. Admitedly, I spotted that quote while editting some other part of the text and I just took this one as some "explanation" by some editor with the usual bias.

This said, that piece of text is not correct. The name has not been traditionaly País Valencià, unless we decide that a name which roughly started to be read (not even heard) in the 1960s is "traditional" and that they are either the CCRTV (aka TV3 et al.) or ca:wiki the entities in charge of assigning "traditional" status to these things. All in all, the "País Valencià" thing is, basically, a Catalan thing starting by, roughly, the 1960s. In the Region of Valencia it never gained real popularity and, actually, it is kinda losing whatever usage could have had outside the nationalist circles, so relentless (and successful) is -and has been- the PP "Comunitat" propaganda. In any case, the term is not "traditional" whatsoever.

But, again, if that guy quoted just swallowed acritically what someone told him (or, possibly, read at ca:wiki) his literal words are not to be changed anyway, as you point out. My apologies. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, since the quote is misleading on that part, I'll just edit that out. I'm preserving the "like basque country" part becasue it shows how the País Vasco name is also translated that way, and the thing about reaching a compromise. Please tell me if there is a problem with those.

Can you find a source explaining when the name "País Valencià" started to be used? That would give a lot of context to the text. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are sources here. Good night --Enric Naval (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Davkal sock tagging

The Arv function in my wikibrowser is what I usually use to file sockpuppetry reports because the process is otherwise ridiculously cumbersome. Unfortunately, I do not think it possible to fix that functionality as you recommend. If they would make it easier to report sockpuppets, I'd be grateful, but it to me looks like they've decided to keep a cumbersome process. If you have any suggestions beyond this, I'd appreciate it. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

you have a message

Enric, where do you want to discuss GDF's personal life stuff? Here, my talkpage, or GDF's talkpage? If you open a door to Serbia, my research tells me that GDS's personal life involves murder, intrigue, cocaine drug smuggling with Pablo Escobar, and so on and so forth. Did you read my comment (subsection:Personal life [9]) to you at the GDS talkpage? Hag2 (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the missing info is, for example, trying to create a "Lega Sud" (South League) party on Italy, as a counterpart to the Lega Nord (South League) party (I'm not very sure that I read this correctly, so take with a grain of salt, I'm only sure that he tried to create some party or something). That's the sort of stuff that should appear on a biography.

Hag2, when you start adding the most controversial stuff, you may want to break the info in small parts, and make only short mentions first. Also place them on the relevant parts: the info about being speaker for a serbian party should go on the political carreer part, the info about being friend of Arkan and Milosevic on the personal part, his legal defence of Arkan on the notable cases part, maybe make a new separate "bussinessman" section for Hong Kong tapes, MGM, Telekom Serbia, Ellington mines, etc.

And don't add all of the stuff on the same edit, it scares people :) . Make the edits one by one, even fact by fact, and make a short edit summary, so people can revert only the relevant changes when they spot an error. Also, this way the section title appears on every edit summary, and people can check the edits more easily, to see what the whole section looks like after the edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Enric, I have no desire to browbeat GDS anymore with controversial details surrounding his biography. I doubt that I can look as objectively as you, as I am sure that you now realize about me. I will begin reviewing my history from six months ago, and then I will link YOU to the various controversial paragraphs (links) which I have at my disposal. Whatever you choose to do with them at that time will be fine with me. I have made up my mind that GDS is not the sort of person that deserves the benefit of neutrality. I hope this will be satisfactory with you. Thank you for your thoughtful words here and over there. Hag2 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine with me. I'll see what I can do with the sources. Sorry to see you leave this, I'm afraid that controversial articles always cause burnout on editors. It still would be nice if you checked once in a while that I didn't misinterpret some source. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Biber (submarine)

What do you think need clarifying?Geni 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New Romanticism

I suppose I should have been more concise in my edit description when removing that bit, but I was still surprised to see that someone would revert it. I think I just assumed anyone who saw it would agree that this uncited claim about the Falkland Islands War and "surplus male energy" was complete nonsense. After all, it's an encyclopedia article, not some cheesy undergrad paper on feminist theory. --Bri (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Enric, the Falklands War took place in 1982, the New Romantic movement started at the end of 1980, and it reached it's peak in 1981. By 1982, it was already a well-established feature of the British and Irish music/club scene so how could the Falklands War have been an influence on the movement?--jeanne (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's claimed by Helen Reddington, please check her article and tell if he can be taken as a knowledgeable source on music of that time (I'm not very sure about english music). I'll try to find other sources for that. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

P.D.:Ah, it's also claimed here, and gives more reasons [10], I'm going to add it to the article, and reword that part to make attribution to Reddington. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Slogans of DWSS

DWSS has 3 slogans:

1. Let your heart speak.
2. Entertainment radio.
3. Para sa diyos, Para say bayan.

I don't know what's the real slogan.

It's better that DWSS plays only music.

Underblast (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Homeopathy and Oscillococcinum

I appreciate your concern for bias and accuracy in the Oscillococcinum article, but I disagree that the section I removed was relevant to the section in which it was written. The section is about "efficacy" and has little to do with whether the treatment fits within the bounds of current mainstream chemistry theory, and the two remaining paragraphs clearly describe the clinical trials which have been done and their results. Additionally, the information is redundant, as it is mentioned in the previous section about "preparation."

I hope you will recognize that I am simply trying to take baby steps to correct Wikipedia's overwhelming bias against things like alternative medicine, parapsychology, etc., and that I have no intention of misrepresenting any treatment or ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.212.97 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but wikipedia articles should represent the mainstream view even on articles about non-mainstream stuff. This has been discussed for a looong time. You will want to see the current arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science, specially the subpages Workshop and Proposed decision and comment on their pages and talk pages if you want (be careful, the "proposed decision" page can only be edited by arbitrators and clerks, you can only edit its talk page, read the headers on the pages).

The part about how many molecules are there on an homeopathic dilution can surely be shortened, like in Atropa_belladonna#Alternative_medicine. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 3	17 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: New board members, changes at ArbCom	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: Featured article writers—the 2008 leaders	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Pharmacology
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GdS editing

Hi Enric, when you are making relatively rapid edits to the di Stefano page could you please be sure to reread paragraphs you've modified to make sure they still make sense? An example of what I mean is "In Italy he went to live to Italy, although his legal residence is in the Westman Islands, in Iceland." And also "He considers himself a "citizen of the world".[8], and has started an array of businesses in several European countries. He considers himself an Italian despite his London accent.[10]" Thanks, Avruch ^T 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

heh, I'll try to pay more attention, thanks for the call to attention. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

High Court

Enric, see Avruch's talkpage. I think Avruch has suggested that the U.K.'s "High Court" (responsible for appellate decisions) may not be the same court as the "Essex Court". No need to answer me here. Jump into the possible discussion on Avruch's page. Dixie Hag2 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I reply on Avruch's talkpage --Enric Naval (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

good deletion on Stephanie Adams

Thanks. Good to see you're watching the article also. Valrith (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Adams v. Poling

Enric,

I disagree with what you find is "not notable" about the lawsuit in question. I've cited official government records in the matter. Please explain your issue with this.

I was curious about this case and know others are interested in it as well. Ms. Adams certainly should be considered a person in the public view. She is in fact probably more known due to her lawsuits than anything else she has accomplished.Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with the removal. I haven't found anything yet but will continue to search. In the meantime I added the information to the talk page so that others are looking they might find a reference. You've no problem with that I take it?Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, I dunno about other editors :( I suppose that it won't be controversial to keep it there until so someone will find sources for it.

On a related matter, I'll ask that the article is unprotected, since you say that you aren't going to keep trying to add it there. See User_talk:Jayron32#unprotection_of_Stephanie_Adams --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I never implied that I wasn't, I was reacting to your objections. I stopped when I failed to find a valid source according to the guidelines. PeaceFasttimes68 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting User page

I do not understand. Are you trying to delete the contents of my user page or are you trying to delete me? (Block my account?)

I simply saved the Odin Brotherhood article because many people had worked on it and I wanted to archive it. Remember: just because it was deleted does not mean it deserved to be.

Be that as it may, if it is inappropriate to write material on my user page, just tell me and I will erase it.

You do realize that user-page content does not show up on Wikipedia's Go/Search function, so what is the issue?

OK, I deleted the material from my user page which offended you. Now, if you could, remove the delete tag.

I only kept the link because the delete rubric says "do not blank" the page. If you want to blank it, go ahead.

Asd for providing personal information on the user page, no way. After making posts under my real name under another account, I had two annoying cyber-bullies stalking me on the web. I am just too good looking, I guess. --Tsmollet (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

--Tsmollet (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no need to provide personal information, just stuff like "I like nordic mothology". I just withdrawed the nom. (and, yeah, there is a lot of arcane wikipedia policies, sorry for giving you a harsh contact with them) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Diff?

Was this diff the one you were intending to add? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the correct diff, I was referring to the edit summary not to the changes on the article. I have changed my message to make it clearer. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

When you recover...

would you offer an opinion over here? Thanks.__Dixie Hag2 (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams

Since you seem to be following this article, can you comment on the following?

From the Biography Section ;"The driver was fined, and his license was revoked by the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams#cite_note-12. However the cited reference says the driver's license was suspended. Nothing about him being fined or his license revoked. Thanks.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a source that explains in more detail what the Commission ruled [11] (strange, I was able to edit the article, it must be only semi-protected) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the wrong article must have been referenced.Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 5	31 January 2009	About the Signpost

Large portion of articles are orphans	News and notes: Ogg support, Wikipedia Loves Art, Jimbo honored
Wikipedia in the news: Flagged Revisions, Internet Explorer add-on	Dispatches: In the news
WikiProject Report: Motto of the Day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Tanoli

Tanolis are a Pashtun tribe They claim to have migrated from a place called "Tanubal River" in Afghanistan Some Tanoli tribes still live in Gardaiz and Ghazni (both cities of Afghanistan). Tanolis came to Swat from Afghanistan after the invasions of Sultan Sabuktagin. They came to form a new state. The head of the Swat state at that time was Anwar Khan Tanoli The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... The Pashtuns (also Pushtun, Pakhtun, ethnic Afghan, or Pathan) are an ethno-linguistic group consisting mainly of eastern Iranian stock living primarily in eastern and southern Afghanistan, and the North West Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan. ... Ghazni (Persian: غزنی , Ğaznī) is a city in eastern Afghanistan, with an estimated population of 149,998 people. ... Anwar Khan (born December 24, 1955, Karachi, Sind) is a former Pakistani cricketer who played in one Test in 1979. ...

The Yousafzai tribe came to Swat in approximately 1450 and began fighting with former Pushtun tribes of Afridi, Tanoli, Swati and Dilazak. After several bloody battles between the Tanolis and the Yousafzais Tanoli Sultan Ameer Khan was martyred while fighting with Yousafzais at Topi (near Swabi). The Tanolis were pushed to the eastern bank of river Indus. The Yousafzai or Yusufzai (also Esapzey) (Urdu: یوسف زئی ) are an Afghan tribe. ...

Tanolis migrated to the Tanawal in 1472 and defeated the Rajputs and Rajas. After gaining hold in the area, the Tanoli jirga appointed Zabardast Khan as the head of the state Tanawal. The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... Amb was a small princely state in what is today the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. ...

Zabardast Khan Tanoli gained the title of Suba Khan from Ahmed Shah Abdali for his bravery in the historical battle against Marahatas at Paniput.

Tanolis have a vast historical background of several wars against Sikhs, Yousafzais, Durranis, Swatis and many other tribes. The majority of them reside in the former state of Amb in the Hazara division of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Their main langauge is Hindko, but those living in Pashtun dominated areas also speak Pashto. Tanolis are the richest tribe of Hazara in terms of land ownership. They are the largest in population. Upper Tanawal and Lower Tanawal which cover the greater part of Hazara have been ruled by Tanolis for centuries. They have ruled the state of Amb of Hazara since the beginning of 18th century. During the late 17th century, Turks were overthrown by Swatis in areas of Upper Hazara. Tanolis, however, remained loyal to the Turks until the end of latters rule in Hazara. Tanolis were later involved in the rebellions against the Sikhs in the 19th century. They also allied with Ahmed Shah Abdali in his conquest of India. Many Khans and princes of their dynasty have gained mass popularity as heroes. Amb may refer to Amb (princely state), is a South Asian region. ... Religions Sikhism Scriptures Guru Granth Sahib Languages English, Punjabi] A Sikh (English: or ; Punjabi: , , IPA: ) is an adherent to Sikhism. ... Ahmad Shah Durrani Ahmad Shah Abdali (c. ... Khan (sometimes spelled as Xan, Han, Ke-Han) is a title. .redirects here. ... The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... The Tanolies (also spelt Tanauli, Tanawali) are a prominent and famous Muslim tribe residing mainly in the Amb, Hazara district of NWFP Pakistan. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ...

Charles Allen referred to them in his book Men who made the North-West Frontier as "the extremely hostile and powerful Tanolis of the Tanawal Mountains, brave and hardy and accounted for the best swordsmen in Hazara." Charles Allen can refer to: Charles Allen (athlete) (b. ...

Pashtun Origin The most prominent theory is that the people who came to be known as "Tanolis" are identified as such due to their link with a particular geographical setting in which they found themselves (i.e. Tanawal State). The Pashtuns (also Pushtun, Pakhtun, ethnic Afghan, or Pathan) are an ethno-linguistic group consisting mainly of eastern Iranian stock living primarily in eastern and southern Afghanistan, and the North West Frontier Province, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluchistan provinces of Pakistan. ...

Contemporary Tanolis are not a singular tribe but a collection of smaller groups which consists of those who call themselves Tanolis because they have resided in an area called Tanawal and those who are sub-groups, septs or clans of different Pashtun tribes representing major Afghan khels (sub tribes) in the State of Tanawal.

Many other Tanoli clans have argued the theories of their origins. For example the Hassanals have always maintained that they are actually Hassanzais from the Kala Dhaka or Black Mountains - Tur ghar and adopted the nomenclature of the Tanoli area when they left their own areas, due to tribal feuds with other clans located there. The fact that there was also a non-Hassanzai group with that name did not matter as there are many sub-tribal names which are identical but with different tribal affiliations. This also seems quite plausible given the fact that Tanolis in ;; Agror Valley, Mansehra[[and the surroundings speak Pashto as their first language if not exclusively. This is documented in the first Hazara Gazetteer written soon after the settlement of Hazara by Captain James Abbott This book also mentions the fact that the original language of the Tanolis was Pashto but some have forgotten it and now speak Hindko in areas where the majority speaks this language. spoke Pashto. Pashto also known as Pakhto, Pushto, Pukhto Pashtoe, Pashtu, Pushtu or Pushtoo) is an Iranian language spoken by Pashtuns living in Afghanistan and western Pakistan. ... It has been suggested that Hindku be merged into this article or section. ... Jim Abbott (born August 18, 1942 in Toronto, Ontario) is a Conservative member of Canadas House of Commons. ...

Related Books

AL-Afghan Tanoli written by Ghulam Nabi.

History of Tanolian written by Syed Murad Ali Shah.

Historical Background of Tanolis written by M. Ismail afi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.156.90 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a copy/paste of an old version of the article... it doesn't address that reliable sources say that the pashtun origin is not a credible claim. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephanie Adamins references

Regarding your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_Adams&oldid=268560756 you stated

"the first two sources support no longer labelling herself a lesbian, added quotes to the references, the third one says nothing about her being an hetero now"

Could you please identify with a number which article refs you are refering because I am not seeing what you are claiming.

Also, the #1 and #3 references in the article are dead links. What is supposed to be done in situations like this?

Thanks--Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The refs saying that she no longer labels herself a lesbian are #7 and #8 on the link above.

The "third reference" was the third of the three references that you removed on your last edit[12], it read like this:

"and eventually went back to being heterosexual [13]"

That page says nothing about her being heterosexual or homosexual, and the other ref says that she doesn't discuss it, so I didn't restore it.

When you find a dead link, you can add a {{dead link}}, or you can search the title on google to find another online copy, or you can remove the link (if it was just an online copy of a paper source), or you can go to archive.org, copy/paste the address on the text box there and click on "Take me back". That takes you to all archived copies of the page, if there is any. For example, archive.org had two copies of the first reference, from 2005 and 2007[14]. Unfortunately, it has no copies of the other one[15]. I have updated the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

One more item, on the same page http://www.prwebdirect.com/releases/2007/2/prweb504164.htm is used as a reference. Is this considered a reliable source via wikipedia standards? It seems to be a press release by Miss Adams herself. This article seems to be a :BLP which suggests that sources from the person in question are valid. But in general how should a source like prwebdirect be treated?Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be treated with caution :) I made an edit, the edit summary has an explanation. For hard facts you want to use independient sources. Press releases should usually be attributed with "Subject says...". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since the article does reference the "press release" and the article itself references the court case document with a reference number, why remove that from the article?Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm not sure if this the $5 million lawsuit against the city. It's possible that it's a lawsuit against the city, but not one where she is asking 5 million. Feel free to re-add in a manner where it is understood that it's a lawsuit against the city, but that we don't know the details. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the reference back because the "press release" (#7) from the subject references the lawsuit as well, which is a supporting reference. That reference mentions the lawsuit against the city with respect to the taxi driver so it is fairly clear they are the same suit. However if the "$5 million" point still does not agree with you, we can also add to the article that there may be multiple suits against the city and leave the cite. I think this would muddy the article as it is fairly obvious they are one and the same suit. But if you disagree I'll add "non 5 million" suit as a separate item.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, let's just leave it like this until there are more news about the lawsuit, or a source that explains it clearly. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Mothering Sunday SLCM Bitola Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film) WCWM Battanni Dera Ismail Khan District Shirani Ballistic missile submarine Parents' Day Sadozai Paniala Havelian Stanley Pons Gujar Khan Ibrahim Lodhi Economy of Pakistan Azad Kashmir Chitral District

Cleanup Ministry of Magic Montana Freemen Punjabi people Merge AOL MSN Hotmail Forward looking infrared Add Sources Quetta Derajat Alleyn's School Wikify Khattak P-15 Termit Fictional submarine aircraft carriers Expand Dari (Afghanistan) Financial adviser Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Golden Book of India

The Golden Book of India Sir Roper Lethbridge on page 328 states about Nawab Muhammad Akram Khan, Sir, K.C.S.I The Nawab Bahadur is Chief of Amb, on the right bank of the Indus, where he and his ancestors have long been independent. Belongs to a Pathan (Muhammadan) family.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.150.5 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

replied on Talk:Pashtun tribes --Enric Naval (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you go to submit an article that one wants other people to review?

Obviously I'm new here, and since you seem to be patient enough to answer. I was browsing at random and ended up Penis Envy. Yes, you should be envious :) However the article seems like a piece of junk, espcially the section on critiscms. Is there a group somewhere where I can request it to be reviewed? ThanksFasttimes68 (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You want to look at Wikipedia:Peer_review. However, you should be ready to put a lot of work into it before and after the review, or people will refuse to review. We are all unpaid volunteers after all :)

If you start working on improving it, you will probably see people starting to correct you as you change things. This article is probably on the watchlist of several editors familiar with the subject, it's just that thay are doing other work somewhere else. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Farm

Before creating a section within the Stephen Gaskin article about The Farm, you might want to review the article already exiting about it. Rosencomet (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help.Rosencomet (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Killed Discussion

When someone writes something like this:

I believe you (and the reference you cite) are dead wrong. Drop it. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

--and then, after I explain why it is obvious that I'm not "dead wrong", as follows:

So far, from what I can see here, there is a rationale that the electron shells allow deuterium nuclei to approach each other as closely as 100,000 nuclear diameters under ordinary physical conditions --and no closer.

and

"If there is a rationale for how a deuterium could lose its electron shell inside solid metal, then where does the electron go?" Wouldn't it join the vast numbers of loose electrons already in the metal? And wouldn't there be interactions between those many electrons and the deuteron left behind? And is it not obvious that if the deuteron's original electron was able to freely leave, then none of those other electrons would have to start orbiting the deuteron? And couldn't those electrons shield two deuterons from each other? And, because the electrons would not be orbiting the deuterons, could the deuterons now be able to approach the quantum tunnelling distance --thanks to first losing their electron shells?

--the same person deletes the discussion instead of explaining, with supporting data, a mere belief, THAT is POV at work, regardless of any collaboration about it. Except, of course, none of the people agreeing with him offered any significant argument or evidence, either. V (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the evidence I presented, remember that FUSION is as much the topic as "Cold". If it is considered reasonable to talk about nuclear repulsion as a thing to overcome, so that fusion can occur, cold or otherwise, then any other thing that MUST be overcome deserves mention, too. No double standards! And as soon as I decide how to word this on the other discussion page, I'll be saying it there. V (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fusion is fusion, cold or otherwise. Having to specially link something like electron shells to cold fusion, when they are very plainly discussed in a GENERIC fusion article, is bureaucratic nonsense. That's like saying you need a specific reference between eating bagels and gaining weight, when there exists a generic article about eating starchy foods and gaining weight. Simple obvious logic is not Original Research, and doesn't need somebody else to have done it first. V (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ANY sort of fusion requires nuclei to get together. And atoms under normal conditions have electron shells that prevent that. Cold fusion is EITHER special in that it can happen IN SPITE OF the existence of electron shells, or some other mechanism than high temperature is involved, that lets nuclei escape their shells. Again, simple obvious logic. Now here is some OR, though.... http://knol.google.com/k/vernon-nemitz/proposed-cf-experiment/131braj0vi27a/3 V (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's fairly easy to get nuclei for hydrogen or deuterium without "electron shells." It's not the electron shells that interfere with fusion when we have ionized deuterons, as in a plasma (a relatively cool plasma suffices) or in, say, water, where some of the hydrogen/deuterium is ionized (that's what pH indicates). It's the Coulomb barrier between the nuclei themselves, the bare nuclei repel each other. Electrons, being negatively charged, don't particularly interfere with fusion, if I'm correct, and negatively charged particles can assist fusion, that's what [muon-catalyzed fusion] is. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, the next time you are here, please read the third indented paragraph at the start of this section. V (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Objectivist, I read that paragraph, and I reread it. The sharing of electrons in the "cloud" reduces a certain kind of barrier. A low-energy barrier that chemical reactions routinely overcome. The answer to the question at the end of the paragraph is "No." Deuterons without electron shells are common, sharing of electrons is common, In a deuterium molecule, D2, the electrons are shared. The nuclei don't approach each other because they each have a positive charge, and so they repel each other. As I understand the situation, the electron charge concentration close to the nuclei doesn't rise to a level such that it has significant shielding effect to allow the nuclei to approach. Remember, the electrons aren't in one position in low energy situations, they are smeared out. Now, if you can't explain your approach successfully to physics PhDs, nor to generalists like me (I sat in the Feynman lectures that formed the basis for his standard physics textbook), would you still claim that what you are saying isn't Original Research, but only simple math? --Abd (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think one misconception here would be that it takes high energy to remove the electron shells. It doesn't. That happens at low temperatures, relatively speaking, even very low temperatures. I mentioned water. As I recall, the hydrogen ion concentration in water at neutral pH is 10^-7; in acids it gets much higher than that. If the pH is 3, it's 10^-3, one thousandth of the hydrogen nuclei in the liquid are ionized, H+. Linus Pauling for Chemistry, but it was many, many years ago. --Abd (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. In compounds such as deuterium molecules, shared electrons are still orbiting electrons (however fuzzily). The nuclei may be a bit closer than when two monatomic deuteriums bump into each other, but not significantly so, compared to how close they need to be to fuse. In a liquid like water, you may have loose hydrogen nuclei, but you do not have any loose electrons available to shield any deuterons from each other. The whole point about the conduction band is that electrons are not orbiting particular atoms. It is a different kind of sharing than a normal chemical bond. So they should be able to approach deuterons more closely than standard orbital distance, thus shielding two deuterons that happen to be on a collision course. One other factor, not so obvious, has to do with the low temperature. The more energy an electron has, the smaller its fuzziness. In a hot plasma electrons are much more particle-like than in solid metal. Between moving more slowly and being "bigger", electrons passing between two deuterons in metal can do it longer than they can in a hot plasma. That would help the deuterons approch more closely. And, of course, with hordes of loose/big/fuzzy electrons in the metal, and with the highest concentration of positive charge existing directly between two approaching deuterons, it logically follows that as soon as one electron sufficently exits the zone, another will enter it. V (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I see I forgot to answer your question. That paragraph was a response to this claim in the deleted discussion:

Your thing with the shells is not a question of "common knowledge and simple logic". I believe you (and the reference you cite) are dead wrong. Drop it. --Art Carlson (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "thing with the shells" is that they pose a problem for Cold Fusion, and that IS simple. His claim about me being dead wrong is what I was refuting in that paragraph; I was attempting to explain how much easier fusion could be, if the shells weren't in the way, for deuteriums in a metal lattice. His response, to delete the discussion, was pure intellectual dishonesty, of the Religious/Authoritarianism or cowardly kind (maybe both). V (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Enric, where's the sink? I want to wash my hands. V., last chance: redact that statement immediately, edit it and put a <s> before it and a </s> after it.. The fact, if it's a fact, that you cited, has your conclusion as a possible interpretation. But there are other possible interpretations. You picked the worst. That the discussion was useless is a reasonable position, whether it's right or wrong. This has nothing to do with electron shells, and the substance has to do with Wikipedia process. I carry no conclusion that you are wrong, and consider Carlson's statement to be marginally uncivil. But Wikipedia is full of marginal incivility. However, calling people's actions cowardly and dishonest not only is not justified by what you quoted, but it's beyond the pale. Redact it. Disregard this warning at your peril. If I wanted to see you blocked, I'd put a warning on your Talk page. You aren't, technically, responsible for being warned here unless you reply, which you did, above.

Ahem, Enric. Sorry. I'll go home now. Let me know if you need any help. --Abd (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

@V, man, they just don't think that you are right, that's all.

@Abd, thanks for trying to help. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is a difference between denouncing an action and denouncing a person. I know what I was denouncing, and I truly think it was the correct conclusion, because if Art had a valid argument that could "put me in my place", proving that I am dead wrong about the electron-shell thing (and his choice of words does not bother me at all, except for using "believe" instead of "can prove"), then I fully expect he would have posted such an argument. Since he didn't, I get to assume he didn't have one, and thereby lost the debate, except he didn't want to admit it. Actions speak louder than words, remember? If he and like-minded editors had simply stopped posting to that section, that would have been more intellectually honest, and it would have eventually been archived of old age. Instead, to enforce his mere opinion regarding the proposed improvement, he chose the course (the History clearly shows it was he who deleted it) that makes it much more difficult for any new editors to see that debate, and his losing of that debate; the accumulation of new editors well-informed on the topic eventually should lead to the proposed improvement getting implemented, due to there being no valid reason not to do it. Thus would the existence of the discussion have a use; it would be a lie to say it was useless (well, it would not be a lie for a detractor to say, "It is useless to my vested interests..."). The deletion diminishes the possibility of Art's opinion getting overruled by people possessing valid data, and is exactly the type of action that can be expected of the board-bashing losing chess-player, or of Religious Authority (how many WARS did they start, preceding even the Hebrew invasion of the Promised Land, to shut up their competition?). Enric, I repeat, "what [they] believe is irrelevant here; what [they] can prove is relevant." --paraphrased from the deleted debate. V (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

Comments regarding Hindu fundamentalists have been added  Jon Ascton  (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I have added one source, I don't have time to look for more now --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Martin Fleischmann

Enric, I've been concerned about edit warring at Martin Fleischmann. I warned JzG about it yesterday, when he had made his fourth removal of the Fleischmann paper from the article. He basically blew off the warning and immediately removed it again. So I took this to AN/I, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JzG_edit_warring_on_Martin_Fleischmann Thought you might like to know. By the way, I don't think there is any doubt about Fleischmann's notability prior to the CF affair, and the proposal to merge his biographical article with Cold fusion is preposterous. We should, indeed, have more detail about prior work. --Abd (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative counter

I noticed on User talk:Interiot that you were experiencing the same problems with the edit counter as I was. I've located another edit counter that you may want to try, if you haven't already found it. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this one looks good :) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

On Odinism

Hello.

Regarding the http://www.odinbrotherhood.com/ Odin Brotherhood, it is in fact one of the more significant branches of Odinism. Some ill-informed people did delete a bad article on the subject, but any complete discussion of Odinism must include it.

Note that the deleters claimed the Odin Brotherhood is fiction, a false point. It is mentioned in these standard works : Melton, J. Gordon. Melton's Encyclopedia Of American Religions (Encyclopedia of American Religions) 8th edition. Gale Cengage, 2009. ISBN 078769696X , the definitive book on American religions.

It is also detailed in Streeter, Michael. Behind Closed Doors: The Power and Influence of Secret Societies.. London: New Holland Publishers, Ltd. 2008. ISBN 1845379373 * Harvey, Graham. Paganism Today: Wiccans, Druids, the Goddess and Ancient Earth Traditions for the Twenty-First Century. Thorsons, 2001. ISBN 0722532334 * Kaplan, Jeffrey. Radical Religion in America: Millenarian Movements from the Far Right to the Children of Noah. Syracuse University Press, 1997. ISBN 0815603967 * Kick, Russ. Outposts: A Catalog of Rare and Disturbing Alternative Information. Carroll & Graf Publishing, 1995. ISBN 0786702028

Also, if you think we do not exist, visit us here (cut and paste, the spammer kicks in):

odinbrotherhood.freeforums.org/index.php

Thank you for your time. --Tsmollet (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

From the deletion discussion of The Odin Brotherhood, I'll just quote this comment from AdelaMae:

Delete unless someone can point me to either A) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the historical claims made in this book by someone with academic qualifications, or B) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the book by a member of the polytheistic reconstructionist community and an indication that this is considered an essential text by some segment of the community. Until then, there just isn't enough information for us to write an NPOV article on this book[16]

What I ask is: are those books critical analysis, or are they just uncritical compilations that don't check the validity of the claims that they list? (and how much space they dedicate to the brotherhood, and do they uncritically parrot the claims made by Mark Mirabello on his book?

Adelamae's sound great, but they are not valid. If nearly 200 people are from aacross the planet are in the organization and discussing it, if obviously exits. Does anyone believe that 6,000 posts were created to fool wikipedia?

Of course, when Adelamae posted his comment, the forum did not exist, so that explains his opinion

Now, I know 200 people does not sound large, but most neo-oagan groups are small. The odinist fellowship, the Asatru Folk Assembly, the Asatru Alliance, the Odinic Rite, Theodism and others all have wikpedia articles and all count their membership in the hundreds.

Her reasons are valid for wikipedia. I don't want you to have false hope and get desilusioned later. Forums don't count as reliable sources, period. Get reliable sources, or the article doesn't really have a hope at recreation. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: And, for the love of all that is holy, what the heck is a secret society doing with a public internet forum where they explain all their rules and where the members introduce themselves? Are you really saying that this forum is the actual society? --Enric Naval (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Note that everyone posts anonymously.

As for secret societies, note that all the rules of the Freemaasons can be found in books and web sites. mafia initiation rituals also can be found. The Thuggee initiations and rules can be found. The Leopard Men can be found and so forth.

Members of the odin Brotherhood keep their own initiation and involvement secret. We are "Clark kent's" by day and superman in secret, so to speak. That is the reason I use T Smollett, a fake name for posting here.

--Tsmollet (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, but those societies you listed didn't put their rules themselves on the internet, and much less on a website maintained by themselves, and they don't have forums open to the public.... --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they do. Here is one freemasonic forum:

http://freemasonryforums.com/Site/

And here is a Skull and Bones web site: (It is diguised as an article, but Skull and Bone used Robbins to get the "sanitized version of their group out in the pubblic.

Skull and Bones

Using outsiders to spread the lore is an old idea, and that is how the Odin brotherhood used Professor Mirabello. Note that virtually all his work is in other areas:

Mark Mirabello

I do not want to list them, but even illegal groups such as bin Laden's fellows have forums, web sites, and so forth.

As for the Odin Brotherhood, the forum I directed you to is moderated by one memeber on his own. Since the Odin brotherhood has no leaders as such (we are "a conspiracy of equals") and everything on the web and so forth is done by individauls wwith initiative.

I should also mention that the Odin Brotherhood had a web site, crafted by a member, before the vatican had a web site! Many of our members are young men and they like technology

--Tsmollet (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(before I get more involved in the discussion, please remember that simply having an official forum or an official website is not a proof of notability per wikipedia standards)

On masons, see Freemasonry#Principles_and_activities, masons are claiming that they are no longer a secret society.

On Skull and Bones: riiight, or maybe Robbins is an investigative journalist who happened to write a book about the society because she went to Yale and she was a member of a rival secret society, and, from the book excerpts[17] (last paragraph) it was individual persons who decided to filter secrets to her against the society's desires. Anyways, the important point here is that Robbins' book has more reviews even that Mirabello's book[18] and it still doesn't have an article, and that's even although she is a way more famous author than Mirabello. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I almost forgot, the only good book on Skull and Bones is this one.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-Establishment-Introduction-Order/dp/0972020748/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235971895&sr=1-3

Note that it is "out of print." Do not confuse 'sales" with "quality." Although that Mirabello book has been in print since 1992 and has been with two publishers.

--Tsmollet (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And even the Freemasons sell the odin brotherhood.

http://www.freemasonstore.com/product_info.php?products_id=35826

--Tsmollet (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Point

Regarding the delete discussion, did you note that the National Library of the FBI has a book on the Odin Brotherhood. If the group did not exist, would the FBI bother?

Here is the link to the FBI Library Collection. Type "Odin Brotherhood" to find it.

http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/

--Tsmollet (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, maybe their criteria is mechanically getting one copy of anything that has to do with secret societies, independently of any other concern. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, secret societies are routinely monitored by the 'authorities," especially since 9/11. The Odin Brotherhood does nothing illegal, but they watch us nevertheless--just in case.

Of course, they only watch what exists.

BTW, it is refreshing to encounter someone who actualaly discusses the points. Usually, when the subject is a secret society or a neo-pagan religion, people ahve minds that are "rusted shut."

--Tsmollet (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's posible that the FBI simply buys everything about secret societies "just in case" to have it available when they need it, as it's more efficient that spending resources in checking first if they exist (and of course, in order to check the existance you need to check the material on the first place, so you would have to buy it anyways!)

Yeah, I suppose that they must have had a lot of problems on that area in the past, so now they are harsher dealing with that stuff. (you should see how macedonia-related topics are dealt with) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. In fact, the odin Brotherhood is the only book they have on Odinism. In fact, they have two copies of the book on the subject. --Tsmollet (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A Question

Since you obviously know a great deal more about wikipedia rules than I do, I have a question. I was under the impression that just because an article has been deleted (and the original article on the Odin brotherhood was amateurish and by a "newbie"), that does not mean the subject is forever banned. Is that correct? For example, someone deleted this, but it reappeared:

Ummo

--Tsmollet (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this was voted as delete, then relisted and closed as keep, I have fixed the links to the debates in Talk:Ummo.

But, yes, you can re-create the article. You can send a userspace draft to WP:DRV, or you can re-create directly and send it to WP:AFD if you think that it will be discussed. However, you need to address the concerns raised at the AFD or it will be deleted again, maybe even with a speedy deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

But, although I know a great deal about Odinissm, I think I lack the skill to write a decent article on wikipedia. Would you mind if I return Odin Brotherhood under the list of neopgan practices and Odinism. That way, someone who knows wikipedia will be inspired to write the article.

Besides, it really is thye oldest and most significant Odinist group. The second poldest, the Odinic Rite, dates back only to the 1970's.

--Tsmollet (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the brotherhood has a problem of sources, not a problem of writing style. Don't add it again until it has an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I do not understand wikipedia's rules. How can you forbid me from making a valid edit? I understand that you can delete my edits, but can you prohibit me from making them? --Tsmollet (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I can't actually prevent you from making the edit, but I can complain very loudly if I see it and I find that you haven't solved the problems with the sources, then point at the AFD and the redlink, and point out how List of Neopagan movements only has blue links, aka movements that have their own articles (actually, there are a couple red links waiting for someone to write an article on them, innocent until proven guilty at AFD and stuff, or until someone shows at some talk page showing that they are non-notable).

Since this was already discussed at AFD Normally I would tell you to go to a related wikiproject and ask for advice and help there, in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject_Neopaganism, but you already went there back in 2006 here and there was a related discussion here, where they said about the same thing I say here: you need better sources.

My informed suggestion: write an improved version of the article on another wiki or on your computer, make sure that you cite those books and that you quote them enough to see if they make just an uncritical copy of Mirabello's claims or an independient analysis. Then place it in a page in your userspace and then send it to DRV. On the DRV nomination explain how you have addressed the problems raised at the AFD. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am afraid you have lost me with AFD's, DVR's, and such.

I will let the matter drop for now, but again, I need to repeat, that Dr. Melton Gordon, the author of Encyclopedia of American religions, the DEFINITIVE work on the subject, does not include imaginary groups. The odin brotherhood was included only in the latest edition, the eighth, so the people claiming in the 2006 wikipedia that the Odin brotherhood does not exist had an excuse. That excuse is no longer valid.

Best wishes. --Tsmollet (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Syrian Social Nationalist Party

Hey man, in regards to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, you considering them a terrorist group does not mean they are one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4destruction (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Redundant references in Stephanie Adams

Eric, another editor is involved, so please use my talk page to handle discussion there. Thanks! Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I got your last message on my talk page. I'll put discussions on the article page instead and wait for consensus or silence there. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasttimes68 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oscillococcinum reviews

Hi EN. Can you provide more info about the study you just added? Thanks--JeanandJane (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

My question was about Oscillococcinum--JeanandJane (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Talk:Oscillococcinum#.22Complementary_Medicine_for_Treating_or_Preventing_Influenza_or_Influenza-like_Illness_is_about_Oscillococcinum.3F.22 --Enric Naval (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources per sentance/subject

Eric, where would one propose a standard talking about multiple references per subject? ThanksFasttimes68 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

• Books extension enabled
• News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
• Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

Wikipedia:N#NCONTENT: The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not regulate the content of articles, except for lists of people.[10] Instead, various content policies govern article content. 79.179.38.150 (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right about that. However, from that same section "an encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details". Certainly a list of all available plugins goes a bit beyond a summary of accepted knowledge....

Mind you, we do have articles like List of Firefox extensions, but only as a complement for the category linking all Firefox plugins (meaning that it only includes extensions that have their own articles. There are some complicated arguments on when it's appropiate to create a list like this one and I'm not going to enter them here, I'll just say that, except justified exceptions, stuff shouldn't appear in lists of stuff if it doesn't have its own article.) --Enric Naval (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

astaa mor kus

astaa mor kus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.125.133 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

what? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

VGCats

Yeah, that looks fine. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 09:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

• News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
• Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Disruptive removal of Talk page discussion.

Enric, you reverted my edit to Talk:Cold fusion, removing my comments. For the record, this is the history:

• 02:46, 10 March 2009 208.65.88.233 ("- →He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. C

This was a response by Jed Rothwell, an expert on cold fusion (published and well-known) to my email inquiry for his opinion on a paper we had been discussing. (The edit is signed and IP is characteristic).[19]

• 03:08, 10 March 2009 Phil153 (Revert posting by sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user and spammer JedRothwell) [20]

Because the edit was clearly identifiable as being by Rothwell (signed! characteristic IP!), this revert was completely legitimate; edits by banned editors may generally be reverted on sight without regard to content.

• 14:21, 10 March 2009 68.19.97.19 (Undid revision 276185987 by Phil153 (talk))[21]

Characteristic Rothwell IP. He always signs contributions but might not identify himself in a revert.

• 14:24, 10 March 2009 [User:Hipocrite|] (Undid revision 276274326 by 68.19.97.19) [22]

This revert is certainly acceptable as legitimate.

• 16:44, 10 March 2009 Abd (Undid revision 276185987 by Phil153 (talk)rv proper rv of banned editor, as useful for discussion.)[23]

Edit acknowledges that prior revert was proper, and that editor is banned, and asserts usefulness for discussion. With this edit, I took responsibility for the content being appropriate. Normally, this should be enough. Cold fusion conditions are not normal.

• 16:47, 10 March 2009 Verbal(Reverted 1 edit by Abd; Rm post by banned editor. (TW))[24]

This is getting dicey. Verbal also [25] warned me on my Talk page. However, at this point the Rothwell edit was bare, with no frame. Okay, so maybe that's not okay.

• 17:41, 10 March 2009 Abd (→He, J., Nuclear fusion inside condense matters. Front. Phys. China: new section)[26]

With this edit, I created a new section, same name as the Rothwell one, and quoted Rothwell in it, and responded, including argument as to why the comment was worthy of discussion.

• 17:59, 10 March 2009 Enric Naval (Undid revision 276315223 by Abd (talk) please don't enable banned editors)[27]

Discussing content doesn't "enable banned editors." Bans exist to prevent disruption; however, a non-disruptive communication may be inserted on a Talk page, and even an edit asserted in an article, that originated with a banned editor, provided the inserting editor is willing to take responsibility for it (i.e., incivility in it would be treated as if it were the incivility of the inserting editor, etc). This is particularly important when a banned editor is an expert, that is, likely to have an informed opinion. As a COI editor, Rothwell was long prohibited from editing Articles, and he accepted this. But by the same token, COI editors are normally welcome to suggest changes or make civil comments in Talk. In any case, ban policy is aimed at protecting the project, and not at punishing banned editors, so the ultimate concern is always content, or, on Talk pages, discussing aimed at improving the article.

Now, Enric, if it does not become moot, please revert your removal of this content. It will be moot fairly quickly, so this is an opportunity for you to back down. If you decide to revert, but don't get to it in time, please indicate that you formed the intention, that will be useful to me. (Note to others: there is discussion of this on my Talk page, at User_talk:Abd#Cold_fusion_and_Jed_Rothewell. Thanks.

replied on your talk page --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's like an episode of 24. It's a good job it's cold fusion, I doubt Jack could get to worked up about that. Verbal chat 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Jack: Jed's post will explode if it's not reverted in 24 hours! :D --Enric Naval (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Too late. Moot. It's buried in History, so when it explodes .... I'm disappointed, Enric, all this fuss for nothing. People will read what they are going to read. --Abd (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I think that you should start it only if you can do the whole job, which means you shouldn't begin with this or that but take an hour or two and list all the diplomatic relations articles from all countries that are not notable and list them for deletion based on Serbia-Luxembourg precedent. Keep in mind that some articles are notable and long like Russia-Serbia relations. There are a lot of long higher quality articles regarding the relations of New Zealand for an example so keep your eyes open for those. There might be some surprising places where you will find a longer article, not just a sentence, for an example I wrote an article on relations with San Marino. However most of these good or good as they can be articles got buried under the pile of almost bot-like created articles with one or two sentences, sometimes even about two countries that have no diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level; therefore I support your action entirely (but only if you can do the job properly which also means that it might consume two hours or so of your time).--Avala (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

  — 16 March 2009

• News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Language

You are, I gather, not a native English speaker and so may not appreciate that your language in this talk is unacceptably uncivil. Please amend it. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it a bit. Thanks for the warning. I am a native Spanish speaker. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Another non-native speaker here who doesn't see the problem. Enric's original language seems to be commensurate with the stupidity of taking these sources seriously. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The F word should not be used lightly and references to other editors being mad may also be taken amiss. The comment I read came across to me as irate, crude and vulgar and I doubt that Enric Naval wishes to be thought of in this way. Of course, this may be a generational matter - I recall when such language would lead to instant censure or dismissal. Such invective weakens over time - folk used to be shocked by damn, which I find innocuous - but there are both old and very young readers on Wikipedia who should be considered. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wontedly tell speakers of English as a second language to skirt having any bash at the word fuck altogether. Although it's heard in movies all the time, this word has many nuances and if put mistakenly by someone who doesn't understand them, can and will very easily sound no more friendly than "I wish you were dead, asshole." Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Well.... thanks for the good advice, I'll be more careful in the future when using certain English words. (and Warden, I understand better your comment a few months ago about non-native English speakers editing wikipedia) I just had a misunderstanding in ANI because I used "harassment" to describe mild questioning. (It could have been worse... a few years ago I could have used "molest", which an unaware Spanish person will translate as "molestar" (disturb, annoy) and which has no sexual connotations whatsover in Spanish and is very commonly used in many situations...) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll like this one then, Enric: In North American English, annoy means only to "bother" or "disturb" but in UK English, annoy can mean "molest." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol, very good one, that. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

• From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
• Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
• News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chile-Whatever_relations#Barbados.E2.80.93Chile_relations

I want to !vote in this AfD, but it's confusing as to which articles are actually being nominated. I suspect that's why no one else has voted yet. Any chance you could maybe refactor it a bit to make it easier to figure out. Also, I would suggest removing Chile–Estonia relations as the that AfD is still open, and it's weird to have two AfDs for the article running simultaneously. It also invites all the !keep voters over there to vote !keep on the omnibus AfD on the basis of that one article, thereby confusing and possibly derailing the whole thing. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I stroke out the article that already had a AfD, you are right about the problems that it could cause. I formatted the whole thing again, tell me what you think of it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! One question though: What's up with the with the "Barbados-Chile" and "Chile-Mexico relations" subsections? Are those articles being considered seperately? I'm guessing no, but I still think it's confusing to have those dangling sections. Maybe they could be moved to the talk page?--doesn't look like there are any !votes in those sections. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC) PS I do intend to vote at some point, but I also want to check the articles over thoroughly first, so I probably won't cast my opinion today.

Yes, I know that they fill the page, but I think that those conversations are necessary to remove from the nomination any article that happens to be notable.

I'm not sure what to do with them. And I'm afraid that I might be accused of hiding stuff if I move them myself to the talk page. As the nominator, I don't want to start making decissions on what to move to the talk page; many users would see it as inappropiate, and I'm not sure that I can be neutral in my decissions. Feel free to move yourself anything that you think necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For jumping on the Websense case and restoring criticism that appeared credible and relevant. And for generally seeming to the point and neutral. II | (t - c) 08:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I try to do it as well as I can. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your comment in the RfAr on Cold fusion topic bans

[28]. Enric, there you present a very incomplete and inaccurate summary of my argument. I'd like you to reconsider. In summary, what you say is correct. The lack of those things doesn't prove that there is no ban; but there are other defects which, indeed, mean that there is no ban. A ban is generally considered to be a community affair, no individual can establish a ban -- as distinct from a block. However, I haven't been arguing that those things being missing is the problem with the ban, the lack of some of them only supports the central argument, which is that only one involved administrator decided that there was a ban, for whatever reasons, and then declared it and supported it with some blocks. By the way, two of the blocks were of IP not Rothwell or Pcarbonn. JzG sees Pcarbonn underneath every expression of POV that seems to support Cold fusion; he has a long history of involvement with the article and shouldn't be touching his admin tools in connection with it with a ten-foot pole, absent an emergency.

A topic ban may be established by anyone, actually. I could warn an editor that if they edit a certain article, they would be blocked, that their apparent goal there is disruption, etc. I've actually done this with an SPA editor with a clear COI. And then, if the topic ban were violated, an uninvolved administrator could block on that basis. Normally, though, such a warning would have more meaning and power if made by an administrator who has a block button.

The problem with JzG is that he argued for the ban, being involved, *and then concluded that it existed,* and enforced it with blocks -- and more. His obligation, being involved, would be to go to AN like any editor, and ask for a block or ban. And then a neutral administrator would make a decision. JzG is popular enough that he might get such a thing just because it's him asking, and that is how, in my opinion, newenergytimes.com got sustained in the local blacklist, and lenr-canr.org was globally blacklisted; the closing admin there disregarded the evidence against the blacklist almost entirely and seems to have accepted JzG's account uncritically.

There was no decision by a neutral administrator, this is why I say that there is no ban. I've seen this defect before; at some point, if the defect is pointed out, an admin takes responsibility for declaring the ban and handles necessaries such as logging it if broader enforcement is desired, warning the user, etc. But when there is dispute on the basis for the ban, and especially when the admin who claims there is a ban is involved and argued for the ban before it was claimed to exist, there is no ban. There is only a warning and/or a block, possibly improper.

JzG is asking ArbComm to ratify something quite dangerous: censorship of content. The only basis for a meat puppetry charge is similarity of POV. So anyone with a POV that supports Cold Fusion could then be considered banned. And this has actually happened, JzG blocked IP that was not Rothwell, based only on his imagined similarity of arguments. From other evidence, I'm quite confident it wasn't Rothwell. If JzG succeeds, this will be extended, I'm sure. Note that the only alleged linkspam and argument is Talk page comments by Rothwell. Rothwell explicitly doesn't edit articles. So preventing him from editing Talk, based on POV and alleged agenda, is pure censorship. He makes an inappropriate edit to talk, easy to take it out. Or to discuss it. Or to ignore it. He could be blocked for incivility, etc. But not for "POV pushing," since we expect that of SPAs and COI editors, that's why we ask them to limit their participation to Talk!

Thanks. So far, your whitelisting request, which I supported, is being pocket vetoed, looks like. We were told, when the lenr-canr.org delist request was being considered, "No problem: need a page, it can be whitelisted." Not if the arguments for blacklisting are swallowed and considered to apply to every page, no matter what! I'm afraid that it's political. I've been warned not to confront JzG, "pissing in the wind" is the description that was used. Well, I wasn't pissing at him, but he seems to have taken it that way. I simply disagreed with some actions, which became, as I investigated, a disagreement with a pattern of actions, but that's where it stood. I was considering the next step, which would have been, probably, involving a mediator, not AN as some suggested, and certainly not going to ArbComm, though I've been in private consultation with an arbitrator on a similar matter. I've avoided raising this issue with that arbitrator or others. So far. JzG popped the matter up, though. Well see if ArbComm takes the case or declines. Declining would be perfectly appropriate, on the face. But taking the case, well, it might be time to confront apparent admin abuse, and confirm it or reject it. --Abd (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(I hadn't seen you comment until now) sorry if my statement inaccurate, it's just a summary so I avoided going into detail. I added "5 the banning admin is involved" in order to patch it a bit.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you. I think that Jed is a SPA and a COI editor, and that he is here with the explicit and exclusive purpose of POV pushing the fuck out of the talk page.

whitelisting is stuck because of dealing with a complex issue + long comments + derailement of discussion. It will probably get stuck unanswered until it gets so old that some admin finally decides to get it out of the way one way or the other. It doesn't matter that there was spamming or not, what matters is that there is no reliability or copyvio problem with those two specific links.

One thing, you are talking about two IPs that were blocked, but who belonged to a person who was neither Pcarbonn nor Jed. I suppose you mean User_talk:69.228.220.30 and User_talk:69.228.207.247 from 31 December. The point is moot because they would have been blocked anyways for outrageous POV-pushing edits, and of course because of naked wikilawyering and playing stupid[29] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. What are the guidelines regarding COI editors? (They are stronger than for SPAs). WP:COI suggests that COI editors not edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. What are they supposed to do? They are to make suggestions in Talk. Read the guideline, it doesn't prohibit their participation in Talk. Why do we have the restriction? It is because someone with a COI is likely to have or to express, preferentially, a POV. "POV-pushing" is offensive under two conditions: the most serious is the making of contentious edits to articles, where it becomes a burden. The less serious, and the most dangerous to try to stop, is when they present repetitive arguments in Talk, and continue beyond the point where it is clear that they are rejected by consensus. "POV-pushing edits" to Talk pages aren't, as a general matter, offensive and they do not violate guidelines. As to "playing stupid," well, it used to be that WP:AGF was a policy, and that wasn't dropped because AGF isn't important, it's because it's a tricky policy to enforce. You just violated it (though only as a general matter).

What was going on here? Basically, my objection to the ban and block of Rothman was procedural; and had it been that action alone, I probably would not have confronted it to the extent that I did. The more important issue, indeed, is the blacklisting. We'll get to that. The pocket veto of your whitelisting request is significant, and it calls into question the whole blacklist/whitelist process, which is being used to control content, not just linkspam, and which will be examined in due course. Here, though, I saw the blacklistings and realized that this was possibly improper. I was not aware at that point of the extent of JzG's involvement. I asked him to reverse them. He refused, with a barrage of arguments. I requested delisting here; this was made moot by JzG going to meta and asking for blacklisting there -- without informing any of us. However, the blacklisting of newenergytimes.com is still only local. So I became aware of the situation and started participating in the Cold fusion article. I then saw the claims of a topic ban against Rothwell, and I looked into it -- I always examined, with care, all the evidence that was presented. And I found it was defective. This wasn't mere wikilawyering. When an involved administrator takes action like that, it almost always inflames the situation and makes affected editors even more uncivil. Now, Rothwell was editing using two IPs. It appears that he has two regular places where he accesses the internet, both in Atlanta. Probably home and office. There is no evasion, no IP socking, because he always signs his edits. (However, if he evades a block by rebooting his modem or router, intentionally or unintentionally, it would be block evasion.) He edited for more than a week, with lots of involved editors reading it and commenting. Some were removing his edits because of the asserted ban. Nothing was done. The IP was not blocked. But when it was pointed out that a ban doesn't exist if it is not enforced, and when another editor went to JzG talk and questioned the ban and its basis, JzG then blocked Rothwell IP. There wasn't any serios disruption, no emergency.

Rather obviously, he was enforcing his own ban, a ban that he shouldn't have made in the first place. Please read the comments of myself -- and my evidence page -- and the comments of admin DGG, ex-admin Durova (on of the most respected Wikipedia editors), and arbitrator Carcharoth, one of the very best of our administrators. Now, he had simply been questioned on his Talk page, he wasn't being harassed, he hadn't been hauled before WP:AN/I, there was no dispute that could not be handled through ordinary process at a much lower level than ArbComm. He'd made a block and it was good or bad, and unless someone actually challenged it, he wasn't obligated to do anything. Asking him about it, asserting the problems with it, isn't a challenge. Yet he went to ArbComm; but did he raise the real issue? No. He made it appear that this issue was whether or not Rothwell should be banned. That could be argued either way, in fact, and we don't go to ArbComm with a problem unless lesser means have failed. Some arbitrators, initially, were sucked into giving advice about the ban, assuming that what had been said to them was true and balanced.

Why did he go to ArbComm? I could speculate, but that's all it would be. The result was as would be expected from precedent, unless something happens to change it. Request denied. Yet some are treating this as a vindication. It should be remembered that JzG made the request and it is his request that is being denied. And, because of the very real danger to all editors from the precedent that would be established had he actually been confirmed in what he asked for, I was forced to intervene with my comments, and then I was asked to provide evidence to back up what I was asserting (basically, involvement of JzG in the article -- which he had previously denied -- and actions taken in the presence of that involvement). There is much more going on than you see, Enric. JzG is not the problem. The problem is a culture and behavior that has arisen among some administrators, who become increasingly burned out fighting what they see as POV-pushing, vandalism, and disruption, until they start to take short-cuts. JzG was involved with Cold fusion, very clearly. He sees "POV-pushing." And somehow other editors are missing it, they are tolerating "fringe sources," and all that. He edits these out and they return and they stick. Well, he's an administrator, he's popular, and apparently he's gotten away before with going ahead when involved. So he just does it. He bans Rothwell. He blocks him and blacklists his web site the same day. Rothwell actually honored the block, at least he didn't edit for a month, as far as I've seen, but when JzG eventually blocked him again, he cited block evasion as one of the reasons. That was from those IPs blocked by JzG who were not Rothwell.

You are focusing on Rothwell. What you may not realize is that a pattern of incivility by administrators and established editors that continues for a long time can create -- in fact it usually creates -- incivility in response. What Rothwell would be like if he were treated like the expert that he is ("fringe"? maybe, but expert nevertheless, he knows the field and he's trusted by LENR conferences to edit papers, apparently. plus there is his book and the movie he scripted), I can't say. He has a reputation among people in the field of being abrasive; but my guess is that this could be contained. As it stands, Rothwell is a sitting duck for being banned. JzG could easily have gone to AN and obtained a ban, without the problem of his involvement, and that was pointed out by at least one arbitrator. Is Rothwell banned? That is a very complex question, which is currently moot. He's blocked. Bans only apply to editors who aren't blocked!

The big issue here is administrative intervention while involved, and it's created some difficult situations. If this matter does actually get up to ArbComm, and if JzG is intransigent, I predict, he will be desysopped. It will be a bloody mess, seriously disruptive. I've been trying to avoid this, and there are numerous steps to take before this question would appear before ArbComm again. Except that I just discovered that JzG is covered by an ArbComm sanction already, and it's possible that he's been violating it. I'm not prepared to assert that unless it's the opinion of other experienced editors that the time is ripe for it. What I'm hoping is that JzG's friends will restrain him, will point out that the course he is taking is leading to a cliff. He's not going to listen to me, I suspect.

At each stage in my approach to JzG, and in discussions on the blacklist page and on meta, his arguments shifted. He initially emphasized copyright issues, as he had in the past. That was actually libel, because there wasn't anything behind it but speculation and weak inference. One of the biggest shifts was in the argument he made before ArbComm, the claim of meat puppetry. When an action is justified by shifting arguments, in my experience, there is a hidden basis, which may be as simple as "I did it and therefore it must be right and if my first reasons turn out to be defective, there must be another reason." I've seen it again and again from administrators on and off wiki: boss fires employee, because the employee was involved in a loud argument. When it turns out that the employee had been attacked with, say, racial epithets, the reason for the firing becomes "employee was doing poor work." And when it's shown that performance reviews were good, another reason is asserted.

If JzG would simply acknowledge the error of acting when involved, the focus would move away from him. Wikipedia does not punish, it simply protects; at least that's the theory. But if he continues to insist that it was all okay ... I do not predict it will turn out well for him. --Abd (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(such a long post... took me a bit to know what to reply)

AGF is not a suicide pact, specially when it's the third SPA on a row wikilawyering the exact same point (notice the crucial difference between "defending the same point" and "making good-faith-straining wikilawyering on the same point")

At the end of the day, Jed was a SPA that had been disruptive in a talk page for a long period of time. I think that he was rightfully topic banned for that.

Now, you say that there are procedural problems on how JzG handled the situation (both ban and blacklisting/removal of links). I already suggested you to either raise the issue at WP:AN or make a RFC using your User:Abd/JzG page. Please consider doing it already

Finally, you are seeing ghosts here. The whitelisting is not "pocket veto"ed, it is stuck was stuck, while I was writing Dirk accepted part of the first one and is looking at the second one. I also see some issues with "Jed didn't edit for a month afthe the IP block" and other stuff, I'm not sure that you are getting the timeline right, or undertanding why dynamic IPs are blocked only for short periods of time even if the editor behind the IP should get a longer block. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* and the second whitelisting is declined because "the ISBN number is enough" and links can change.... geeez.... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No ghosts. I flapped and waved my hands about pocket veto in a few places.... It's supposed to be easy for legitimate editors to get a whitelisting. It wasn't. Why not? I'm not going to speculate, I'd prefer to assume that there are merely some coincidences. Rothwell didn't edit for a month, as far as I've seen (Well, 29 or 30 days, substantial compliance). He might have edited from a different IP on user Talk pages, but that's hardly disruptive -- unless the user didn't want the attention. Look, JzG asserted block violation, it would be up to him to show it. I'm going to assume, though, that if JzG was asserting block violation, he'd have blocked the other IPs. I reviewed his log of blocks. I understand thoroughly about dynamic IP. Should the editor get a longer block? Perhaps. But it shouldn't be an involved admin who decides. You seem to be missing this little detail. JzG is heavily involved. Not just a couple of edits. If I'm seeing ghosts, you might also dismiss DGG and Durova? Think she's hallucinating? As to RfC, lower process hasn't been exhausted. JzG popped an issue immediately to ArbComm, he's claiming confirmation, but that's preposterous, his request was roundly rejected; he simply got a little supporting comment from some not-surprising sources (and even that is possibly misinterpreted). Jed was disruptive, yes, in a context where there was very serious and extended POV pressure from the opposite direction. What he'd have been like without that, I can't tell. Have you noticed my appealing his ban, though? That's not where I'd start! Rather, the abuse of admin tools is very, very serious, and I have admin support on that. I'm trying to get JzG to take it seriously. If he doesn't, yes, probably an RfC/U. I'd very much like to avoid that. While Wikipedia can be difficult to predict, I can fairly confidently predict the ultimate result: one of two options: JzG apologizes to the community, or he's desysopped. The precedents and the consequences of blowing the matter off are far too clear and strong.

Think how this looks, if this gets to the media: New Energy Times publishes an article by Pcarbonn on the Wikipedia article. The article isn't a hit piece on Wikipedia, it actually defends Wikipedia. Pcarbonn is, as a direct result, topic banned and, at about the same time, New Energy Times is blacklisted. In this case, there was no linkspamming at all, the blacklist addition was unilaterally done, without discussion, by JzG. (Any admin can do it, it's a protected page.) The blacklist is being used to control content. That's entirely outside its mission, but, hey, give some people some power, they can find new ways to use it as they like.

I've responded to Beetstra. We could link to whatever we want, I showed how. What would happen? I'm not sure. It would force the issue, but it might be claimed that this was "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point." Except that the link wouldn't be disruptive, the response to the link would, possibly I'd say that editorial consensus should prevail, not the blacklist, which was only intended as a means of controlling otherwise uncontrollable linkspam.

Rothwell's alleged linkspam: have you realized that the blacklist doesn't prevent what he was doing? Since the blacklist doesn't prevent it, blacklisting is purely punitive. It simply prevents editors and editorial consensus at an article from making the decision about using a source or providing a link to a copy. In any case, this is, as well, an important issue, and it isn't only about Cold fusion. If it's done with this issue, it's being done elsewhere as well. Linkspam is quite clearly defined, and neither Rothwell's signatures -- not links but a title with no link -- nor, absolutely, NewEnergyTimes.com were not linkspammed at all. JzG managed to raise a barrage of irrelevant arguments, he's pretty good at it. And he's got, shall we say, friends, disposed to assume that he's right, without investigating or weighing the arguments.

Enric, I know what I'm talking about. At least usually! --Abd (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

30 days thing: Ah, you are right that it was was 30 days, if you only look at the blocks. According to User:Abd/JzG, JzG blocked the first IP for 1 month in 18 December 2008[30], and then blocked two other IPs for block evasion on 31 December believing that it was Jed [31][32]. On 26 January he blocked another IP for block evasion,[33] this time it was really Jed and the IP had been editing only since 17 January so the one month block had already expired. Now, you see, there is only one little problem.... In 31 December JzG had announced Jed's topic ban from the talk page. That means that the IP should have been blocked for ban violation and not for block evasion.... The IP would have been blocked anyways, JzG just picked a mistaken reason.....

RFC: well, then talk to JzG again if you want, but I doubt that he pays attention to your request. I think that a RFC/U is simply unavoidable if you want to pursue this matter. Not sure of how useful it will be because I think that you are mixing up valid and invalid issues.

Whitelist: well, I don't agree with the whitelisters criteria, but I don't think that they have applied that criteria because of a conspiracy to censor lenr-canr. I'm sure that they would have applied that same criteria to any other online book link on any blacklisted site. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the ban vs block. Basic problem: JzG was involved; as such he, by rights, could neither block nor declare a ban. I mentioned the fact that Rothwell substantially complied with the original block because block evasion was, in fact asserted. The erroneous blocks as Rothwell have double significance. Again, this is JzG, being involved with the article, using his tools to block based solely on POV. And this theme is continued in his RfAr: he asked ArbComm to confirm that Rothwell could be banned under the Pcarbonn topic ban. And tossed in Gen ato for good measure. He's involved, and when admins are involved, their judgment can be warped. Yes, probably, RfC/U, unless someone talks some sense into JzG, I'm not holding my breath waiting for him to listen to me. My obligation is simply to say it to him, not to stick his nose in it. But I'm getting indications from respected editors off-wiki that there are actually many examples like this, I've just researched the situation with Cold fusion. I may want to collect evidence more thoroughly -- off-wiki -- before filing an RfC, and then give JzG an opportunity, privately, showing him th evidence, to come to some agreement. Please understand, Enric, that before I file an RfC it will be vetted by experienced editors. Remember, I can't do it by myself, it takes two, as I recall. Take a look again at the RfAr, at those who commented on admin action when involved. Do you think I'd challenge a popular administrator like JzG without support? Now, JzG actually isn't the worst offender, among admins who cheerfully act when involved. It just happens that I stumbled across some very clear examples here. My hope is that JzG will smell the coffee, realize that he made a mistake, and simply acknowledge it and agree not to do it again. If he did that, ArbComm would not desysop him, I'd predict, so I wouldn't even go there. It's intransigence that puts him at risk. Of course, if he's right, if his actions were not violations of policy, then he'd have nothing to fear from my approach.

Now, as to the whitelist, I did not allege and do not believe that there is a "conspiracy to censor lenr-canr." So why you'd even say that is beyond me. Except that I do understand Wikipedia and human beings. My point is that they, the blacklist admins, shouldn't be applying those criteria! They have invented their own standards, they have usurped power from ordinary editors, all very quietly. And believing, I'm sure, that this is best for the project. I don't think that will go down well when it is challenged in a wider forum, plus, consider this: imagine a media report on the fact that PCarbonn wrote an article in New Energy Times, an article which I think described the situation here fairly accurately. The result: he was topic banned from the topic that he knows well, and New Energy Times was blacklisted by one of PCarbonn's chief critics. JzG also seemed confused, he thought that Rothwell was the publisher of PCarbonn's article, so these are all connected. --Abd (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good God, please tell me that User:Dtobias (or some other old foe of JzG) is not telling you off-wiki that you have his support to go against JzG.... I fear that you might be being convinced to pursue a sterile course of action just because it helps someone to annoy JzG

About whitelist's standards, Beetstra replied to you that "The purpose of this blacklist is as it is defined by the community here, and 'enforced' by admins, which may differ from the 'intended purpose of the blacklist'" [34]. I'll be following this, if only to see what is this "wider forum" that you want to bring this to :) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Menudo (band) your nuetral edits are being vandaled by someone can you protect page? Thanks for reading.--66.229.250.178 (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)