User talk:Calbaer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Articles for deletion 2 Diaconis 3 Information theory intorduction edits 4 Allah in the House 5 Request for edit summary 6 Collective punishment 7 Excuse me 8 Muslim conquest 9 1982 Lebanon War and Hezbollah power 10 IMAO 11 lead to AOIA article 12 0.999... Discussion Page 13 0.999... 14 Package Merge Algorithm 15 Jellybeans 16 Randy Newman 17 User:Marquisdebarrabas 18 Reuters 19 Information theory 20 Your edits to Knut (polar bear) 21 Replacing "Israel" with "Palestine" in articles like Syria 22 Re: Map 23 Infoboxes 24 NPA 24.1 Osama quotes and more 25 Lower bound on sorting algorithms 26 Thank you 27 Template for deletion review? 28 Template:Linkimage 29 Re: Archiving Beauchamp talk page 30 Unreliable narrator 31 Allahpundit 32 Request for Comment 33 Unreliable narrator II 34 Silver Bell

[edit] Articles for deletion

Hey Calbaer, thanks for your thoughtful comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allah_Is_in_the_House. Seing that this was unquestionalbly a notable blog, and the delete vote was being linked to by some of the bloggers mentioned, I think you helped Wikipedia avoid bad press (and, experience suggests, possibly preempted a flow of sockpuppet delete votes). ProhibitOnions 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much; the linkage and support was surprising and gratifying. Do you know which blogs (aside from Malkin) linked to it? Calbaer 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not offhand (the link has since disappeared from MM's site) but if I find it I'll let you know. Cheers, ProhibitOnions 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Glad to see you've created a user page. I've enjoyed reading your own blog. ProhibitOnions 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Calbaer, I am new to Wikipedia and appologize for any inappropriate entries. Thank you for taking the time to review my submitted article. Based on your feedback, I am neither spammer nor crank, I have edited hopefully all to which you object. Further discussion for improvements of the netricity article welcomed. Jthomp4338 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diaconis

His Erdos number is 1 as follows from this publication:

Diaconis, Persi; Erdös, Paul On the distribution of the greatest common divisor. A festschrift for Herman Rubin, 56--61, IMS Lecture Notes Monogr. Ser., 45, Inst. Math. Statist., Beachwood, OH, 2004

Please revert your correction. Mhym 19:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - Diaconis' web page doesn't list such a paper and I let the question of what this alleged paper was stand on talk:Erdős-Bacon number for two weeks before deciding to make my "correction." Looking it up now, it was originally a 1977 Stanford technical report and it was posthumously part of a book of lectures. Thus it is debatable whether Diaconis "published with Erdős." However, by the definition given on Erdős number, that it merely be a mathematical paper with common authors, in this case a technical report, it qualifies. Calbaer 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Mhym 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information theory intorduction edits

C, You left a comment on my talk page, and I have replied at Info theory. My changes were not motivated by any technical matter, but by clear writing concerns, and so, intellibility to the Average Reader -- the most difficult part of the audience for editors of technical articles. You may not tht I made not one change in a heavily mathematical section, nor to a technical point.

Is there a significance that an admin made changes not long after mine? As I understand it, being an admin (though not so actively admining one), there isn't any.

Thoughts? ww 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the changes were made by Chancemill because this user found the intro incomplete, e.g., no mention of lossless compression or entropy. Please see the talk section for my suggested more-thorough-yet-still-short intro paragraph. I didn't mean to imply that the admin status meant the user's rewrite was better; if I thought that, I wouldn't have reverted said rewrite. Calbaer 02:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

C, Looks like we've some differences on the English writing side of things. I've been watching for a while, and waited until things seemed to have settled down before attempting a cleanup. Your reversion suggests a love of certain phrases (grasp when meaning understood, for instance) which doesn't coincide with my own. More importantly though, I still think we're moving too quickly in the intro after your edits. Quantification of information is tough (if central) for the Average Reader to get his head around. I was dodging that until I'd gotten that Reader hooked (maybe we need John Lennon or the Stones to help with the hooks?) before going to the slippery concepts. IT is sufficiently odd that it's only recently that humans have managed to get to it, and it took Shannon's unusual mind to do it.

If you were to argue that it's longer that way, I'd have to agree. But I would observe that, like programming's tradeoffs, you can have any two of the C's (clear, complete, concise) and maybe an I (intelligible, interesting) but not all three. I chose clear and both of the I's. In the interest of comprehension builidng in the mind of our Reader first and foremost.

Have you and I reached a compositional (English, not content) impass? Perhaps we should hash it out away from the article and install after having reached teh big A (accomodation or agreement)? ww 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to approach this, but it seems like your revisions were trying to make things clear by adding notes and examples, but these made things less clear, in my opinion, for these reasons:

• I believe that examples absent of context confuse, not clarify, e.g., "Spectrum allocations by national Communications Regulation bodies are directly affected by this work." I got my degree in the subject, and this sentence requires more explanation for me, since I thought that spectrum was allocated according to frequency and power, not capacity (which is affected by a third variable, noise). The relation between these values is important, but only to the user, not the regulation bodies. This will confuse novice and expert alike.
• Rhetorical flourishes ("for the first time in human history," "intuitivly qualitative," "undersatnd the limits of possibility in maximizing use," etc.) distract flow.
• There are numerous spelling errors.
• Run on sentences make the revision very difficult to read, especially by a novice.

If you want to work more on the intro, it might be best to work it through on the talk page, since we seem to be able to find fault in each others' use of the English language, and Chancemill and 130.94.162.61 can contribute as well; hopefully, a middle ground will be more understandable to all. Calbaer 22:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allah in the House

My bad - a mistake on my part. I *did* nominate it - and then I saw that it had just finished a cycle with a KEEP result. I intended to go back and remove the nomination tag and forgot to do so. You are absolutely correct - there is no reason to renominate once it passed muster through that process. Sloppiness on my part for not cleaning up after myself. I'll fix it now if nobody has already fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out to me! --AStanhope 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It would help me if you told me to which article you're referring. Is it JPEG-LS? Special:Contributions/Calbaer shows that I do this for almost every edit that involves more than a word or two of change; when I don't, it's because I believe the edit to be self-explaining (by, for example, a diff). I can be more careful, but it's kind of a guessing game for me as to why you thought I needed a reminder. Calbaer 02:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collective punishment

I meant that those same supporters fell it should be applied, so it wasn't Pro-Israel POV, but you made my intention much clearer with your edit; Thanks! -- Avi 21:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I realized that it was a matter of ambiguity, I probably should've changed the edit summary, but, either way, glad it's better now. Calbaer 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me

That addition to the article on American music is not "spam." It links to another article about an important form of indigenous American music, including the music of composers referred to elsewhere in the article, such as Billings. However, I understand that because it is on the first page you would revert first, and read later. I will add it in again tomorrow. Amity150 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Our edits were nearly simultaneous, so I didn't even see what you'd written by the time I reverted. Note the time stamps. My revert deleted the "Hipinion" section. Calbaer 01:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim conquest

I had this question where did you get this information:

This, combined with military defeats and strong military resistance from Vikramaditya II of the Chalukya Empire and the Turkic Khanate in Transoxiana, I couldn't find those in the two pages you referenced.

The problem with the Turkic Khanate and India is bigger and one I was intending to re-orient they don't go well with the article which is limited to the Umayyad era. Indian expansion was basically driven by the Turk tribes who took over the Abbassid eastern portion, i.e the Ghaznavids and the Ghurids, while Persia and Arabia was overrun by the Seljuk Turks (against whom the crusades were launced) before they were all replaced by Mongols in the 13th century. For the Umayyads there was not one Khanate in Transoxania to contend with, while the Khazar-Arab wars particulary taxed the Umayyads in Caucasus, however all over Transoxiana was in flux after the crumbling of the Gokturk empire and the entry of the Tang, anyrate the contest with the Turks countinued for over 300 years until the Turks assimilated, converted and took over the Muslim worked, by the end of the 11th century. Anyrate I was intending to rework and fix a lot of that page just can't find the time!!--Tigeroo 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Like I said, I just poached the information from a variety of sources (especially Umayyad), some of which may have been changed to something else by now. I was just trying to get enough in there to get rid of the "Western viewpoint" tag. Thanks for doing it for me (from a more knowledgeable perspective). Calbaer 17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1982 Lebanon War and Hezbollah power

Saying Hezbollah came into power in South Lebanon in some nebulous "80s" timeframe as a result of this conflict, isn't false, it just makes too many leaps along the way. Various militant factions clashed over the territory southeast of Beirut when Israel retreated to the Awali river, and yes, the militia movement got a huge boost after the Lebanese army collapsed, but that wasn't until 1984. Hezbollah was barely even concieved in 1982, and certaintly didn't jump out from behind a rock and suddenly overcome all the other rival factions fighting the Lebanese Civil War and fill the PLO vacuum. Look at who was fighting in the War of the Camps, for example, and you would think you were staring at a bowl of alphabits.

Of course, the '82 war did lead to the 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, which does tell the tale of Hezbollah slowly growing in and consolidating its power, and the outcome of that conflict was indisputably Hezbollah control of Southern Lebanon.

I suppose my edits were only mildly more acurrate than what you put back. I'd be happy with "Various militias controlling South Lebanon (1983-present)" or you could even say it resulted in "Hezbollah's conception" or that a result was "the 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict" -- otherwise you are lossy compressing 18 years of history here. -- Kendrick7 01:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems is the definition of the "war" and when it ended; that seems to have been left nebulous. It's important to look beyond 1982 for the result, just as saying the result of the Vietnam war (Second Indochina War) was ceasefire, although technically accurate, doesn't include the eventual collapse of the ceasefire and North Vietnamese victory. The war period is difficult to define and the result can't be determined on the day the war ends. Another part of the problem is that some people like to say the war result was "Hezbollah victory," which, in light of your reasoning, is utterly ridiculous. This is another reason why the extended timeframe and explanation are needed. Keeping that in mind, the results section is entirely consistent with history. What isn't consistent is saying that Southern Lebanon was controlled by Israel until 2000 since most of it was not. Calbaer 07:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMAO

Thanks for the editing of the IMAO article. Since I saw it up there, I figured it was best to leave it alone if I wanted it to survive.--AmericanRonin 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lead to AOIA article

Are you saying the David Matas reference supports what you've added? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that was just lazy referencing on my part; I fixed it. Calbaer 05:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0.999... Discussion Page

Thanks a lot for what you added about squaring a "smallest possible number," which was passed off by JohnLattier as an infinitesimal. I was a little shaky after I started reading some of his comments, but I'm clear about it now. Robinson0120 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear it. After looking at JohnLattier's responses for a few weeks, I realize that he's not gaining much out of the discussion, so it's very heartening to know that others are. Calbaer 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0.999...

I tend to respond when JL has made an obvious error and I think he might actually understand it. There's no real purpose to it, I suppose, except that other people who are curious about the arguments will see that we actually do know how to answer his objections. His ranting about how I'm evil bothers me very little; my wiki-fu is strong, and I know exactly how far his accusations will get him. I guess in the end I'm just amusing myself, and not accomplishing much else. You may have a point that we should all, collectively, stop answering him... I'm not sure. -- SCZenz 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. He drives down the signal-to-noise ratio. I mean, he didn't even bother to look up the meaning of the word "bound"! He ignores the more mathematically interesting/involved posts. And his name-calling, while silly, allows us to suspend our assumption of good faith. Hanlon's razor prohibits me from judging him a troll. But, as is said on Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith, "Remember that at least trolls know they're trolls; the dedicated crank doesn't understand they're a crank." Calbaer 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Package Merge Algorithm

Don't you think we ought to remove the "importance" and "verify" tags from Package-merge algorithm? Those tags were posted when it was a struggling stub; it's filled out quite nicely, IMHO. Vegasprof 10:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jellybeans

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Newman

Copying our conversation from my talk page: "When you write a song for yourself, people sort of tend to expect the 'I' in the song to be yourself. That's not the case in my songs." So if you want to say that Newman's background is described by "Dixie Flyer," you're going to have to come up with some evidence. Yes, it is based on his experiences, but that doesn't mean everything that happens in the song happened to Newman. (By the way, I see you're a fellow E/Eels fan. I assume you've heard the French interview where E mentions Newman as an influence and the interviewer isn't sure whether or not he's kidding....) Anyway, I have the box set liner notes somewhere and that might have something to say about it when I find them.... Calbaer 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good old Randy. If you're curious, I wasn't the anonymous poster who posted the lyrics originally, but I saw them (after you reverted them) and thought, "hey, done right, that could be a cool addition to the entry." --Captadam 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Marquisdebarrabas

Our friend from the Unreliable narrator article seems to be back, bitching about an edit summary I used two months ago. In a related note, if you have no objection, I plan to add back The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari to the list with a reference. IIRC, it's in the AFI top ten (certainly in the top 100) and is one of the best known examples of a film with an unreliable narrator. I'll leave it to you to determine which of the movies on that particular list to take out. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and your explanation on the page you link to. My view is that anything reliably sourced is fair game and anything not is not; in fact, I was thinking of deleting everything in the list without a source. The list is meant to be helpful rather than exhaustive, and it might help circumvent whining if everything were reliably sourced. Maybe some day.... Calbaer 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reuters

Thanks for this excellent edit. Would you mind checking my subsequent edit? See also Talk:Reuters#March 2007 Changes. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Reuters 'Allegations of Bias' section, also the Little Green Footballs blog

Hi sorry to bother you, I just didn't want to clog Reuters talk page up any more.

You said LGF blog was well regarded?! It seems to me it sometimes takes Arab bashing almost as a sport. Of course people should be free to criticise, but this blog seems quite polarised. Any diplomat would be a disaster if he talked like this. Of course confrontation is sometimes necessary, but I think Iraq has shown that confrontation alone will leave the Middle East in a very big mess. I would think LGF is only 'well regarded' in well right of centre American circles. Wikipedia is supposed to be international. I'm sure that the LGFs blog would be seen as niche opinion in Europe. It is pretty strong stuff at times. It isn't highly likely to make new friends and influence people. There are some groups it would really antagonise, often more than it needs to make its point.--83.67.127.181 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

While one could quibble over whether Arab extremist bashing and Arab government bashing are the same as Arab bashing, I'll concede that it's a distinctly partisan website. However, if an employee of Reuters had threatened George Galloway or Le Pen (or Rush Limbaugh) with death, would that have been unimportant merely because they were partisan/extremist? I'd say not, as both are very popular and prominent. That's my point. A threat of death from a Reuters email to a prominent individual is notable, especially when it fits in with the anti-America pro-Arab-extremist bias alleged. Calbaer 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

George Galloway and Jean Marie LePen are politicians, massively in the public eye! One was a final candidate in a presidential election, the other WAS elected as an MP! An email to these guys would vastly exceed the 'man in the street' factor of Little Green Footballs. [later additional remark: don't forget that the email that was sent did not threaten death. It said 'I hope you die'. Not the same.]

Let me put it like this: would Reuters do much reporting on Little Green Footballs? No! Would they do much reporting on Galloway and LePen? Yes, and yes.

To tar Reuters as a corporation with this email is not for Wikipedia articles. I could go into work tomorrow and send a filthy email, and my employer might well be shocked and entirely unsupportive. To suggest that you then 'don't know what my employer did with me' means they support me is stretching it. We shouldn't be stretching points in Wikipedia articles.

I want to see more evidence of this 'anti-American' bias accusation. I'm very unhappy about it. In my view, the presumption on Wikipedia should be: "no allegations to be repeated here". The exception would be where allegations were widely considered intertwined with the public image of a subject. Do Americans in general have a problem with Reuters? I don't buy it.--83.67.127.181 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, you have valid points, although I think more Americans would openly associate with the views of Johnson than Frenchmen with Le Pen and (I hope) Englanders with Galloway. And I think that the way Reuters handled the threat — basically not giving any information about it except the vague "suspension" — is indicative of something. But, as you say, the anti-American bias is more difficult to show than the anti-Israel or pro-terrorist one, so perhaps the other allegations should be underemphasized. The fact that 9/11 didn't warrant "terrorist" but 7/7 did isn't necessarily anti-American, although many saw it that way. (To be fair, though, the allegation is that Reuters is anti-American, not that Americans are anti-Reuters!)

By the way, thanks for taking this to my talk page — we should probably come to an understanding about each others' views before subjecting them to others! Calbaer 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with your last paragraph, that's what I thought too.

"(To be fair, though, the allegation is that Reuters is anti-American, not that Americans are anti-Reuters!)". Clever point. But it slightly misses mine. 'Allegations' are not encouraged to be repeated on Wikipedia. For such allegations to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia it is not sufficient that they come from Johnson, or other websites which you admit may be 'distinctly partisan'.

To get into Wikipedia articles, I think 'allegations' should need to be accompanied by substantial evidence, or else represent concerns easily demonstrated to be shared by at least substantial parts of the relevant societal groups.

Excuse me if I didn't spot it, but Reuters didn't use terrorist for 9/11? Really? If this is true then it should be contrasted directly with the 7/7 treatment in the Allegations of Bias section. This would improve the section, and increase its justification.

Just before we contrast when we talk about 7/7 vs 9/11, are we sure that when they used terrorist on 7/7 they were not quoting a police statement?

And woah, woah! I just spotted you said 'pro terrorist'. That is out of order. To decide that terrorist is a loaded term, use a different one, describe the actions of said individual and allow the reader to form their own views on the actions is I think a valid neutrality policy. Now they may stand accused of not sticking to that policy, but pro-terrorist??! HUGE LEAP.--83.67.127.181 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I think I've made my perspective and concerns pretty clear. It has been great to exchange views, but unless you or someone else wants me to comment further, I won't.

I will have a look at the Reuters entry from time to time and give it a ponder. I will either eventually come up with ammendments, or else if I can't be bothered I will go away and shut up.--83.67.127.181 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The 7/7 — 9/11 contrast is useful. We could say:

On September of 2001, regarding their coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist." Reuters policy is thus to only use the word "terrorist" in quotes, whether quotations or scare quotes. However, when reporting the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the service reported, "Police said they suspected terrorists were behind the bombings."

By "pro-terrorist," I meant that they hired and tolerated folks who were terrorist collaborators and sympathizers and permitted them to use Reuters to further their agenda. I guess "terrorist-friendly" or "terrorist-tolerant" or something milder would have been better phrasing, but this is a talk page, not a Wikipedia article or news report, so hopefully I'll be forgiven for sloppy language. Anyway, Johnson gave evidence that wasn't refuted. His being partisan doesn't change that. And his #11 ranking among American political blogs (liberal and conservative) seems to easily demonstrate that his concerns are shared by at least substantial parts of the relevant societal groups.

Finally, no need to shut up, but I think our reply times will increase and quantity of information decrease as a discussion continues, so if you have nothing more to say, that's fine with me. Calbaer 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose I have a bit more to say.

I do not doubt the email was sent. But, we have no evidence to support Reuters' sympathy for that email sender whatsoever. We have no evidence for the idea that Reuters PLC management takes any notice of LGF Blog comment at any time. Since Johnson is so partisan (and had previously been attacking Reuters), we shouldn't be repeating his suppositions on what the incident said about Reuters (not on Wikipedia). I don't find #11 very impressive, considering it is only a blog. What did the New York Times say about the matter? Anything? They certainly would have said something about the Hajj matter.

'Collaborators'!!. What do you think Reuters is, Al-Jazeera?! I am concerned that people with such partisan views may be editing the Reuters article. Reuters neutrality is generally highly regarded around the world. Why do you think the vast majority of news organisations subscribe to them? I believe it's partly because editors find they can take a Reuters story and put any spin on it they like.

To put all this in perspective, go take a look at the article on Fox News if you will. This is an organisation for which a senior CNN figure has said (despite claiming the Fox CEO is an old friend) it is mainly 'an extension of the Republican party'. I doubt you could trademark a common parlance term like 'Fair & Balanced' in the UK. And yet Fox News feels the need to own this term. I see it a (little) bit like 'Deutsche Demokratische Republik' or 'Democratic Republic of Congo'. Why did they feel the need to call themselves 'democratic'? Why does Fox News feel the need to own the term 'Fair and Balanced'? Fox news is widely regarded as partisan. Even many Republicans would admit that.

And yet despite all this, we have given Reuters an 'Allegations of Bias' (stronger term) that is just as long as the 'controversies' (weaker term) section on Fox News. It seems to me that some people editing the Reuters article have an axe to grind with Reuters. This is the trouble with Wikipedia. Those who feel most strongly about a subject are most likely to write about it.

Good suggestion for the article. Do it. You may also have a look at my suggestion on the Reuters talk page.--83.67.127.181 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. I don't mean that there's some bigwig up at Reuters saying, "How can we help the terrorists today?" I mean that the structure of the organization — having stringers such as Hajj, hiring and retaining people like the still-anonymous death-threat fellow, refusing to call acts against Americans and Israelis terrorism under the assertion that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter — all help terrorists. Contrast Reuters' neutrality policy with that of Wikipedia's. Wikipedia lets anyone do anything, but then corrects any bad behavior and has them face consequences for what they've done. It tries to avoid charged words, but not because Jimbo Wales thinks that they're wrong, but just because other words can often work in their place. Reuters doesn't have the freedom to operate analogously, but it's undeniable that not only the rules but also the spirit is different: a disputed photo remains, the death threat matter was dealt with nontransparently, and Reuters is basically saying that the murderers of their own employees are freedom fighters by any other name, seeing as they struck America. That seems quite worthy of criticism.

Terrorism has an easy definition: The deliberate targeting of civilians for political motives, especially when committed by nonstate actors. (Mao, Stalin, and Pot were not considered terrorists, for example, though "terror" would be an apt description of what they wrought.) If you're consistent, that's fine, and it's a lot quicker than saying "The deliberate targeting of civilians for political motives by nonstate actors." Even Wikipedia uses it in the first sentence describing 9/11. Yet Reuters — which I sincerely doubt has "neutral point of view" as its first fundamental principle — won't use it unless they're describing attacks on the UK, and maintains a policy against it.

I don't expect you to buy my point of view on Reuters, but just to agree that they've been heavily criticized by people that matter. And, by the way, in Wikipedia, neutral point of view describes what's written in the articles, not who writes it. I'm not so concerned about what contributors may be thinking, but what they actually write, so the fact that I have an opinion on Reuters isn't a disqualification (and any notion to the contrary is basically argumentum ad hominem). You seem to have no problem with Reuters and feel passionately about it, so you've modified the section accordingly. Others, who've been more passionate, have deleted the section altogether. And, as I've noted, it wasn't restored until over a month later, so clearly the strong feelings work both ways.

I don't watch Fox News. I can't stand conservative television, so I don't know enough about the "fair and balanced" claim to argue about it. (I've heard other people argue that Fox News is closer to centrist American thought than its rivals, that it reports from "both sides," etc., but I'm not sure, because I don't watch it.) If you want to change "allegations of bias" to "controversies," that's fine; I think the former term is more specific, but if you think it's inflammatory, I don't mind its being made more general.

I'll probably get around to modifying the article later, especially regarding the 7/7 comparison, assuming you don't do it first. Calbaer 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You say Reuters policy is only to use the t-word in quotes. Actually, Reuters policy is to only use the t-word when it is attributable to another party. Please search www.Reuters.com for 'terrorist'. Look for non-UK stories in the results, there are several. You will find the word terrorist in these stories and NOT in quotes in most cases. In each case the word is attributable to the statement of another party.

They were overzealous in applying their policy on 9/11. They made a mess of explaining themselves, and apologised for that. But I'm not sure they've ever broken their t-word policy--83.67.127.181 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a change in policy; if you can find older articles like this, let me know. Anyway, at the risk of running up against WP:NOR, perhaps we could say:

On September of 2001, regarding their coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist." Reuters policy is thus to only use the word "terrorist" in quotes, whether quotations or scare quotes. However, when reporting the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the service reported, "Police said they suspected terrorists were behind the bombings." Although Reuters eventually stopped referring to the perpetrators of this event as "terrorists," the news organization has subsequently used the term "terrorist" without quotations when the article clarifies that it is someone else's words, thus apparently relaxing their policy.

If we can verify that they apologized for their policy and/or explanation, we should definitely say that. I certainly want the article to have responses to accusations (where there are any) along with the accusations themselves. Part of the problem, though, is a lack of response. Representatives may have explained themselves, but I'm not Reuters has ever had an "official" explanation that lays out just what a reporter should or should not write (and why). I get the feeling that information remains internal. Calbaer 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reuters' t-word policy, such as it is or was, actually springs out of their wider editorial policy. An official explanation is at: http://about.reuters.com/aboutus/editorial Other than this see my link on their 9/11 apology re self explanation, below--83.67.127.181 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I want remembered that much of the 'wording' allegations of bias against Reuters arise out of what Reuters would see as their attempts to AVOID bias. This has a certain irony. Accordingly I would like to see two sections. First 'Reuters Neutrality'. This would detail: t-word policy (was it applied re IRA? if so mention here), Malvinas policy, and general editorial policy with a link to their statement on it on their website.

Then I would follow up with a section called 'Criticism of Reuters Neutrality'. Here could be laid out the allegations against them, including of course Hajj. That there have been criticisms I accept.

Just on 7/7 inconsistency I did a quick general internet search and couldn't find anyone who accused them of hypocrisy or changing tack. They may be out there but I didn't find them--83.67.127.181 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

On Reuters apology and I think their final explanation for 9/11 handling: http://homepage.mac.com/bkerstetter/writersblock/reutersexplanation.html --83.67.127.181 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a very POV approach. The criticism isn't that Reuters is "too neutral," it's that its supposed "neutrality" policy is actually bias in disguise and/or that it's offensive. Your headers would imply that the Reuters policy actually results in neutrality. The criticism and policy should be simultaneously explained. (It would be ironically appropriate if the section were titled, "Reuters 'Neutrality'." However, that's a little to snarky for a serious article.)

The 7/7 complaint you seek is linked from the Reuters article, one of the Wall Street Journal links: [1] The original article reporting it is no longer up and no archive (legally) exists. The explanation you mention should be linked to (if it hasn't already been), and clearly their copious use of the "t" word nowadays contradicts an attempt to "avoid the use of emotional terms" (assuming that still applies to "terrorist" and "terrorism"). They've probably relaxed the policy to use the word whenever someone else does. Calbaer 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a 'very POV' approach. And I know exactly what the criticism is.

Look, Reuters make certain efforts, including some of the strictest editorial guidelines. These are stated to be part of a neutrality effort. This stated intention deserves to taken in good faith first before it is brought into question. Before we consider the more complex hypothesis of 'twisted neutrality efforts to disguise bias', we should first consider the more simple hypothesis that they are actually trying to be neutral.

Insisting on taking offence because of what they won't do? OK, but never confuse what they won't condemn with implicit support for something. That is a leap I won't take. If they were a Government I might. But a news agency has a different role in society. They have made it very clear they are not in the business of condemming people.

One of my problems with what you're saying is that you seem to insist on taking the idea of Reuters neutrality as a joke, straight up. I say: I don't think that's how they got into a position where almost every news organisation in the world subscribes to their wire. On the contrary, they built up a reputation for neutrality--83.67.127.181 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That implies that their official neutrality policy precedes their becoming a significant source of news. Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm not insisting that Reuters' policy is a joke. I'm insisting that it's widely criticized as diminishing, rather than contributing to, objectivity. And it is widely criticized. Whether the criticisms are valid is left for the reader to decide.

I still insist that your proposed headers imply that they're being criticized for being neutral, rather than for their "neutrality policy," and that having a (sub)section on the policy, without mentioning criticisms until later, would diminish this article. Calbaer 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The first of my two sections is supposed to describe their efforts to be neutral, and not to comment too much on whether or not they succeed. The section would extend the courtesy of assuming they are trying to do what they say they are. Perhaps I did not hit the right title. OK yes I did momentarily lose the distinction between detractors from their neutrality itself, and detractors from their precise polices. Both criticisms have been fired according to the current Reuters article, and are in any case closely intertwined.

I do think the notion that Reuters attempt to be, and often succeed in being a very neutral reporting organisation is widely held. I guess I better start looking for sources. Perhaps I will fail to find them. That would teach me! --83.67.127.181 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely your time on Wikipedia has taught you that even the best sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, I still think having two sections is a bad idea, for the reasons outlined above. Don't be offended if you decide to have two sections and I decide to merge them.... Calbaer 02:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment previously written here removed by me. I had felt... ...well never mind.

Anyway, I thought I'd better go back and read the section yet again. I've come round to the view that it now is couched in fairly neutral terms, which allow the readers to form their own analysis... just so long as the reader knows that Wall Street Journal Ed Op is not really down the centre. As a non-American, I had of course heard of WSJ but previously had no idea that their Ed Op is quite so stongly right wing. But WSJ is linked, so reader can go learn.

The allegation that Reuters might be "anti-Jewish" is quite serious. But it is based on a link titled "Reuters Questions Holocaust". Not actually strictly the same thing as 'anti-Jewish' (flying leap 1). Then, when you read the source, you see that they have got 'questioning the holocaust' from 'downgrading 6 million Jews killed to only a "widely held view" rather than "a historical fact" ' (flying leap 2). All this barrage, simply because because Reuters were refusing to take sides against Ahmedinejad. They probably did not want to be drawn into a position of debating the exact number of Jews killed. I do not think 'allegations' based on not one but two leaps of logic should be included in Wikipedia. The source is in any case a review of internet news on one day. There is no allegation of anti-Jewish bias over a period of time.

Just for the record, I'm quite sure that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis. Possibly quite close to 6 million or even above. But due to the appalling circumstances, it is difficult to speak of precise numbers as fact. I reckon I could have come up with a less offensive formulation than Reuters did and still avoid taking sides against Ahmedinejad (if that's what I was trying to do), but this is a tricky editorial course to chart.

I want to remove the allegation that Reuters is anti-Jewish, on the basis that actually the allegation was that Reuters ONCE did some editing which could possibly be seen as anti-Jewish. One off allegations that were highly tenuous to start with shouldn't be construed as allegations about Reuters more generally on Wikipedia.--83.67.127.181 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't think Reuters is purposely against Jews and other aspects of Western culture. But I think a European culture that, especially in the last decade, has turned against America, Jews, and Israel, combined with an editorial policy, has caused a culture within Reuters that is sympathetic to those who have murderous designs against Jews and Western culture in general, be they the leaders of Iran, Palestinian terrorists, or al Qaeda. That's not the same as wanting all Jews killed — in fact, I'm sure "some of their best friends are Jews," but, as is quoted in the Borat article, "Ian Kershaw ... said, 'The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference.' I know it's not very funny being a comedian talking about the Holocaust, but it's an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic."

I understand wanting to be objective. But when news is reported with an anti-X slant, it causes people to be more opposed to X, causing a positive feedback loop. A previous such loop contributed to the Holocaust, so I hope you understand why people are concerned about these issues, and believe every piece of evidence should be allowed. Many Europeans think, "Well, that won't happen again," but many historians disagree. Europeans thought genocide was a thing of their past prior to the Yugoslav wars and thought they were foreigner-friendly before the riots in France. I don't want to sound anti-European — I hope to visit the continent in a few months and enjoy the company of citizens while hopefully avoiding political discussions — I just want to explain why these incidences aren't dismissed by concerned folks as "one off."

You seem to believe that almost every instance of Reuters being against the "side" of America/Jewry/Israel/critics can be dismissed as an "isolated incident." I think it's vital to include all these incidents, however, so that people can judge from themselves whether or not they're isolated after all. Calbaer 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the section. Hopefully it will be to both of our likings. It's defense-heavy and the defenses aren't always sourced, though my adding in your links certainly helped to make it more balanced. As I said before, putting the defense before the accusation wouldn't make for a good read, so hopefully this is a good mix/compromise.

By the way, I don't mean to say that Europeans are unique in being in denial. If you'd asked average Californians in 1990 about race relations, few would have heard of "Driving While Black" and fewer still would have predicted the 1992 Los Angeles riots. That was "a thing of the past." Similar things can be said more recently about the events during Hurricane Katrina. So I'm not anti-European or pro-American, just anti-denial.

The Wall Street Journal is quite an interesting publication; although its news reporting is consistently judged as center or center-left, the editorial page too right-wing for even my die-hard Republican friends. I like the separation myself.

Finally, and I know this is ironic in light of this being a self-response, if you choose to continue this conversation, it would be good if your responses were only posted after being fully-formed. The "new message" alerts and edit conflicts make incremental responses a bit annoying. Perhaps it would be best to continue this off Wikipedia anyway; I'm not sure whether such a long and detailed discussion between two people is appropriate on the website itself. Let me know if you want to exchange email addresses, either through obfuscation or though public-key cryptography. Calbaer 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information theory

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. You're right that I should probably use a sandbox to do my edits instead of doing them one-by-one: I ended up getting distracted, and left things a bit sloppy (though I think it's still moving in the right direction).

I guess what I find is that my use of wikipedia is as a reference (so that I often have a question that I'm trying to answer) and that I don't read pages from start to finish. For that reason, my edits are geared to keeping articles structured so that information can be quickly found and to keep out redundancy so that you don't waste time reading things twice. With that in mind, I hope that the quantities of information section on the inf. the. page will have a list of all of the quantities of information, and will mathematically express them in terms of entropies, so that it's easy to understand them all as a whole.

Let me know what you think :)

MisterSheik 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If we had "all of the quantities of information," we'd have to include Tsallis_entropy, Rényi entropy (and divergence, mutual information, etc.), min-entropy, entropy of degree alpha, differential entropy (and associated measures), guessing entropy, smooth entropy, and so forth. We should draw the line somewhere. And we should work to make the page less technical, not more so. That's why I want to watch for article creep. That being said, if anything technical deserves to be added, it's divergence. I just don't want things getting out of hand, either in terms of quantity or quality. Calbaer 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. However, right now, the information theory article has three sections: history, applications, and quantities of information. An article about information theory should really, like you say, summarize the main points of information theory. For that reason, I'm not really convinced that quantities of information is a good idea for another article (unless it is expanded to include the measures that you mentioned.) In my case, I was looking for some information and had to check 4 different articles to find it. Ideally, I should see how the main quanties are related on one page, and if I need more information I can find it on the subpages.MisterSheik 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What information were you looking for? And why isn't "quantities of information" a good article to have? By the way, I haven't had time to look at your latest edits, but thanks for keeping the length down on the article. Calbaer 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking to relate KL-distance with the other quantities. I found it in terms of cross-entropy and entropy, which is not on the KL distance page, nor on the information theory page. Really, the quantities of information page has only a little bit more information than the quantities of information section in information theory. That means that when someone fixes something on one page, it will have to be fixed on the other. I really think we should just merge the rest of the stuff into information theory and be done with it.

Ideally information theory would have more than just a list of topics to click on at the bottom of page. Instead, it should help the reader (having whatever prior knowledge) build a mental map of the field. That's what I wanted and expected to find at information theory. What I ended up doing was learning a lot of stuff that I wasn't interested in so that I could be sure that I wasn't interested in it.

I suggest merging quantities of information into information theory, and giving one-sentence explanations of other concepts, like tsallis entropy. The point is to offer readers like me that mental map.MisterSheik 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Knut (polar bear)

Hello, I've noticed that you have been adding to the Knut article, correctly referencing your edits. However, there is one source ("Knut geht es gut") that is actually in German. English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia, and so it would be preferential if you could find another, similar reference in English. Please note that a translation of the same article through babelfish or Google is not reliable. Thanks! María: (habla conmigo) 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already "fixed" this, but I find your interpretation of Wikipedia:Attribution#Language mistaken. It explicitly states that "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found." You have reverted every translated source, contrary to this policy. There are some points for which I cannot find an English-language source, but I've left them out for now. If I or someone else decides to re-add them, please follow Wikipedia:Attribution#Language: Do not delete this information, merely try to see whether or not you can find an English-language alternative source. Calbaer 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just replying to say that I've seen that you have fixed it. For your information, I have only "removed" one foreign language link, and that was the link to the Berlin Zoo; I changed to the English version, which is more suitable. Furthermore, I did not remove your reference, I merely told you, "if you could find another," that an English link would be preferential according to Wikipedia:External links: "English language links are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia." It is rude to suggest that I am somehow terrorizing this article when in fact I am doing nothing of the sort. María: (habla conmigo) 19:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While I would not use the word "terrorizing," I stand by my opinion that you were misinterpreting policy, especially in this edit. Although note that Wikipedia:Attribution#Language is a policy, while Wikipedia:External links is a guideline. There is a difference. In any event, now that the NPR reference is there, hopefully there will be no more problems of whether or not to indicate that the quote might have been a misquote. Calbaer 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I want to make it clear that the edit in question was not totally invalid — the removed material included some POV stuff — but it would have been better had the POV facts been replaced with NPOV versions, rather than deleted altogether, along with their sources. Calbaer 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The auto-translated links are obviously not reliable sources, which can be seen in one quick glance at their garbled English. They were also added by an agenda seeking IP, but I suppose you didn't notice that. Finally, I was merely suggesting that you find an English reference that is more suitable for the English Wikipedia, which, funnily enough, is both policy and guideline. You couldn't, so you, and only you, removed the link. There is no need for futher misplaced lecturing. María: (habla conmigo) 20:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing "Israel" with "Palestine" in articles like Syria

Your "Palestine" edits are quite annoying. True, a few states don't recognize Israel and thus view a nonexistent state of "Palestine" as bordering Syria. But Wikipedia is not the place for anti-Israel fictions, pan-Arab propaganda, or Islamic-Revolutionary fantasy, but for verifiable facts.

Even if the PA could be considered a real government and even if its borders extended to the border of Syria, that alone wouldn't be enough. Consider Transnistria and its impact (of lack thereof) on the Ukraine article. Transnistria has a full governmental apparatus, its own coinage, a united military, full autonomy, and other aspects of an independent state which the Palestinian National Authority lacks. Yet the article on Ukraine, accurately, does not list it as bordering Ukraine, since its independence is not recognized the world over. Israel's is, even if a handful states deny it and insist that the legitimate country is Palestine.

Moreover, the Ukraine article also does not say that the Ukraine is part of the Soviet Union, because such an entity does not exist (like the country of "Palestine") and its successor state (Russia) does not include Ukraine (just as the predecessor of an independent Palestine, the PA, does not border Syria).

And, of course, Palestinians have no control over the Golan Heights or nearby areas. In fact, most of the Arabs in that part of the world do not consider themselves "Palestinians" but Arabs, Israelis, or Arab Israelis. Again, a few countries being in denial about this does not make it a lie.

Anyway, please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Perhaps your user name indicates that you strive to be a mere annoyance. I hope not. It's good to have multiple, diverse viewpoints checking facts on Wikipedia pages. But it's bad when someone replaces a fact with a fiction. Calbaer 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey Calbaer,

Thank you for your message. It saddens me that you appear to have a loose grasp on the facts pertaining to this issue. However, in the spirit of good faith, which is a cornerstone of Wikipedia, I will endeavor to assist you in your efforts.

Firstly, in direct reference to the subject/headline of your message, I have never replaced the term Israel with the term Palestine in any article. Rather, I have re-inserted the term Palestine to be in conjunction with the term Israel to read "Palestine and Israel". I will attribute this mistake on your part merely to your over-exuberance, and I do not take offense.

Secondly, the annoyance or otherwise caused to individuals is obviously regrettable. When truthful and accurate statements are an irritation to some, I humbly suggest that such individuals seek to develop a greater affection for the truth and reduce their inclination to be partisan on such issues. Articles should not be edited inaccurately to appease those who find the truth objectionable. Rather, contributors should always be mindful of truth in their edits in a manner which seeks to avoid controversy; the best means of achieving this is to be accurate.

Thirdly, your statement that "a few states don't Israel" demonstrates that your definition of "a few" exceeds two dozen, a curious and unique definition. Please note that I have never inserted any statement in any article which denies the existence and statehood of the State of Israel. Moreover, your apparent supposition that recognition of Israel and recognition of Palestine are mutually exclusive is flawed. Egypt, Jordan, and Mauritania for example (the 3 member states of the Arab League that have diplomatic relations with Israel) recognize both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.

I am delighted to note that you agree with me that Wikipedia is not the place for fiction, propaganda, and fantasy. By accepting this basic tenet of Wikipedia, you have taken a crucial step to conforming with its regulations and spirit. I trust that your whole-hearted aversion to fiction, propaganda, and fantasy in editing extends to pages which refer the Golan Heights as not being occupied, as not being part of Syria, and as being Israeli territory - statements that are incontrovertibly erroneous and clearly nothing more than pro-Israeli, anti-Arab falsehoods. I look forward with great anticipation to reading your suggestions on how such blatant abuses of the Wikipedia editing process can be stopped.

Fourthly, I believe the basis for the problem you are clearly having in understanding the re-insertion of the term Palestine is that you may be unaware of the distinction between a country and a state. For your benefit, I will provide a brief summation:

• It is incontrovertible that Palestine was a country and a distinct geographic unit until 1948 (though obviously not a state and lacking self-government). This is not a matter of controversy and as a statement it is neither pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. Simply because Palestine was not a sovereign state does not mean that use of the term is incorrect. Terms such as India, Nigeria, Iraq, etc, were all used prior to these countries becoming sovereign states. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 did not render the term Palestine obsolete. It remains valid as a geographic term for the entirety of the territory of the what was the British Mandate when used in conjunction with the term Israel.

• The State of Israel does not include all of the territory of the mandate and it did not suddenly become inappropriate to use the term Palestine when referring to the 22% of the mandate that does not form part of Israel (you will note that the government of Egypt, both under King Farouk and Presidents Naguib and Nasser, never annexed Gaza or made any territorial claims to it or any part of the former mandate; the official Egyptian position was that Gaza was under Egyptian administration to safeguard it against being absorbed by the State of Israel - contrast with the official policy of the government of Jordan at the time).

• The State of Palestine as declared in 1988 is a full member of the Arab League, and recognized by Arab states and many other states as a bona fide state. The fact that neither Israel nor the UN, nor a great many other states recognize the State of Palestine does not preclude use of the term. This is the case with the State of Israel, which is not recognized by most Arab and Muslim states. Use of the term Israel is not precluded by this lack of recognition.

• Those who claim that Palestine "is not yet a country" ignore the difference between the terms country and state. Once again, India was a country prior to it becoming a state. Moreover, such views ignore the fact that from the Palestinian perspective, the "establishment of a Palestinian state" means the recognition of the declared State of Palestine by Israel and the wider international community within mutually agreed borders. It does not mean that the Palestinians have revoked their declaration of statehood or that states which recognized Palestine have revoked that recognition.

• Attempts to remove references to the term Palestine on Wikipedia are akin to removing references to Israel; such editing tactics are blatant POV and proscribed. Perhaps your troubles stem from a concern that the term may be confusing due to the fact that some claim the entirety of the former mandate as belonging to the State of Palestine. However, one could also advance the argument that many claim the entirety of the mandate (and even beyond in the case of the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms) as belonging to the State of Israel. The possibility of such confusion is reduced when both terms, Palestine and Israel, are used in conjunction with one another.

I think that in view of these facts, you will find your attempted comparison with Transistria to be invalid. However, just in case you have a few lingering doubts, allow me to dispel them for you. Transistria is part of the sovereign Republic of Moldova, recognized as such internationally. Therefore, any claim to Transistrian sovereignty, valid or not, would be based on secession from Moldova. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are not part of the sovereign State of Israel. No government on Earth recognizes Israel's occupation as conferring sovereignty and all governments have rejected Israel's purported annexation of lands conquered in 1967. Indeed, Israel itself has withdrawn from Gaza and areas of the West Bank. Thus, Palestine is not an entity seeking to secede from Israel as it was never part of Israel. Once again, recognition of Israel and Palestine is not mutually exclusive.

Finally, I am obliged to point out yet another glaring error in your message. With the exception of the majority of the Druze and Bedouin communities in Israel, the overwhelming majority of the Arab citizens of Israel identify as Palestinian. Should you have the time and the inclination, you can verify this from a whole host of sources online. Most of them consider the official Israeli Government term Israeli Arab offensive. Moreover, the Arabs of the Golan Heights, who are mostly Druze, clearly do not identify as either Palestinian or Israeli because they are Syrian and identify as such, and most have refused to accept Israeli citizenship. The only state in denial about the identity of these people is Israel itself.

I implore you to make strenuous efforts to better inform yourself on these matters before you once more presume to speak with any intellectual authority on this issue. Falsely implying soapbox behavior to others without any valid substantiation while simultaneously producing a litany of easily refutable arguments is not the proper course of conduct on Wikipedia. However, I will treat all your actions, mistaken though they are, as being in good faith, and I wish you every success in seeking greater knowledge and attaining greater accuracy in your future edits.

My very best regards.

Louse 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to some of what you say, but not all. You clearly ignore what I say at points to give your own diatribe favoring your point of view. For example, while I clearly say that Palestine is not a state, and give the example of Transnistria as a clear indication that your contributions have been inaccurate, you reply by stating how Palestine is a "country." "Country" is a not the right term here, so it's not the term I use. My home state of California has a "gold country" and a "wine country" and other countries, but you don't see those on lists of what borders Nevada or Mexico, because "countries" and "nations" aren't what matters for these lists; internationally recognized states are. And Palestine isn't one.

There's a difference between denying that the Golan Heights is occupied and technically part of Syria, and asserting, through this fact's inclusion in the introduction to the Syria article, that the '67 war is more important to history of Syria than the Turkish annexation of Hatay, other wars Syria has been involved with, the 30-year occupation of Lebanon, the assassinations in Lebanon (especially United Nations Security Council Resolution 1595), their alignment with Iran, their role (official and alleged) in the current conflict in Iraq, their 1991 and 2002 support-via-absence for American-led UN actions against Iraq (which in 1991 was a war and in 2002 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1483), their past role as the most faithful independent ally of the USSR, and their union with Egypt, the union that produced the flag Syria still uses, the flag with two stars for Egypt and Syria. The international status of the Golan Heights belongs in the body of the text, not the introduction, which should be brief. Again, this stylistic note does not deny the status, merely the importance of this status as the paramount fact of Syrian identity.

Also, whether it is two states or two dozen states, it is still "a few" in the context of international politics, about 12% of the member states of the UN, which, by the way, in spite of its virulent anti-Israeli pro-Arab bias, views Israel as a state and Palestine as a non-state. And I have a difficult time seeing how Egypt could claim both that Israel exists and that Palestine borders Syria. Although I don't have the same knowledge of Egypt's official policy that you might, somehow think that, unlike you, it does not make this clearly wrong claim.

Ukraine doesn't have Transnistria listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. Turkey doesn't have Iraqi Kurdistan listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. Russia doesn't have South Ossetia listed as a bordering state, nation, or country. In fact, these de facto independent states aren't even mentioned in the articles for Ukraine, Turkey, and Russia. Making an exception for Palestine — which is neither de facto independent nor bordering Syria — is fantasy, and, again, has no place on Wikipedia. Perhaps the Egyptian government taught you differently, but that doesn't make it so. (On a similar notion, please read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion so you can discover the veracity of that as well.) Yes, Palestine used to border Syria, back when it included what is now Israel, Jordan, and the territories. But it hasn't for 59 years. Just as "Soviet Union" isn't a valid border state, neither is "Palestine."

Finally, your "correction" about the opinions of the Arab citizens of Israel is uncited. Granted, I made the statement uncited, but I didn't feel the need to, as it is largely irrelevant to the discussion, and thus it's not important whether or not you believe it. Nevertheless, if you really want to correct me, find a poll indicating the veracity of the statement. Unlike the territories and the stable Arab states, Israel proper has free speech, so such a poll should be accurate and relatively easy to find. I wouldn't be surprised if a recent poll showed that many of them did identify as Palestinian. However, I'm pretty sure that's a recent phenomenon, not one constant over the past 59 years. Again, though, that doesn't impact whether or not Palestine borders Syria, which it obviously doesn't. Calbaer 17:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Map

I just wanted to commend you on your boldness vis-a-vis that map. Perhaps we can also incorporate the Arab land? Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have the records, by all means do. However, I'm not sure there are sources that allow for that, especially since it may be difficult to describe "Arab land" and "Jewish land" in a simple manner, Calbaer 16:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Another little note. I noticed that you were active on 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies and wondered what you thought of this edit. I found it a bit biased in that it restates HRW's assertion about their not being a hoax, taking focus away from the actual substance of the report, i.e. the second section. Do you agree, or am I being overly sensitive here? Let me know. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to say that HRW claimed that "minor inconsistencies" and "[s]loppy and sometimes exaggerated reporting in the news" may have led to the conclusion, but emphasized that it was "not a hoax." Calbaer 15:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Cool set of infoboxes!

I copied the NPR box. I already had the Cal box on my User page.

Thanks! --AStanhope 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, I noticed your remarks about Sanchez's credibility. It would be helpful if you gave examples of what you meant. A lot of people are saying he's not credible due to his prior jobs (doing gay porn), and that's the type thing that borders on homophobia. Using a term like "Dirty Sanchez" (i.e., User talk:Bmedley Sutler#Dirty Sanchez) to describe him, indicates your questions about his credibility are due to his past sexual activities. If that was not your intention, you might want to modify the wording of your arguments accordingly. I've observed you acting in good faith in the past, so I hope that the implication I inferred was, as I assume, unintentional. Tolerance and goodwill are as important as honesty.

FYI, the reason Malkin et al. like Sanchez is because he provides information they can't get elsewhere in "Internet time," and I don't recall their being "burned" by him before. In that respect, his wikiEtiquette notwithstanding, he seems more reliable than Beauchamp (who no one denies misspoke about the events in Kuwait), though I suppose only time will tell whether the way things seem to me now are the way they'll sort out to be in the future. Calbaer 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

I removed your attacks. Please don't insult me again. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not an attack; it certainly doesn't lie in the criteria listed in WP:NPA#What_is_considered_a_personal_attack.3F. You claimed you believed TNR over the Army, and I explained that's why Wikipedia used the language it did. If you took it personally, that likely says more about your discomfort with your own words than with mine. If you just didn't like the point I made, deleting it is a violation of talk page rules. Anyway, I'll rephrase and hopefully the wording will be more to your liking. Calbaer 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Osama quotes and more

I got the idea of the Osama quotes from a highly liked right-wing editor User:TDC who has had them there for longer than I have even been here. You can thank him for the fallacy. By the way, I never said I believed TNR over the Army. Beauchamp may have made a lot of it up. Maybe only a little. It is known one thing happened in Kuwait, not Iraq. We know the USMIL lied about Tillman and Lynch and more. I read the WP rules and know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Wait until all the facts are known. There is no race. The biggest issue not even talked about in the article is the team effort of right wing blogs and RW media to make this a 'big deal' when they have no interest in talking about Pat Tillman or the 14 year old girl who was gang raped and her whole family killed. Nice Artificial controversy to keep the direction off real issues. And to compare it to Winter Soldier where the alleges that there was real killings and massacres? Almost every RW blog is using that term now. Running over a dog and making fun of someone is equal massacres and cut-off ears? The RW had sunken to a new depth of lowness with this Artificial controversy, IMHO. Thanks for reading. Bmedley Sutler 21:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think the Beauchamp situation isn't important, why are you contributing to it? The reason the blogs think it's important is that left wing folks — and, due to the lack of popularity of the war and some POV of certain media sources, several moderates and others — are ready to believe anything bad about soldiers, while people aren't even listening to any positive news, e.g., the real story of what most soldiers do day-to-day. That's one reason the right-wingers love self-professed non-right-winger Michael Totten, because he tells those stories. But it's also why they attack allegations that are clearly or seem likely false. That's where the Winter Soldier comparison comes in. No matter what the seriousness — killing dogs or killing people — it is very harmful to fabricate untrue, negative things about the troops fighting the country's wars. There is an internal right-wing debate about whether or not the Beauchamp situation is a "big deal"; see, for example, Malkin's opinion versus that of her lead Hot Air blogger, who quotes Ace of Spades HQ:

This story is being overplayed on the right because, let’s face it, it’s slightly juicy. It’s got the thrill of a secret revealed to it. Undoubtedly more is being read into it than should be.

That was written on one right blog and quoted with approval on another. Anyway, the fact that the right-wingers don't jump on certain stories just means that they have nothing to say. I wouldn't expect DailyKos to jump on the revisions to NASA global warming data, because giving it wider notice doesn't suit their agenda, and they might not have anything to say anyway. One shouldn't be shocked, shocked that admittedly partisan blogs are, well, partisan.

Anyway, if you disagree with the "point" made by the Osama quotes, why are they on your main page? An attack on User:TDC would best be mounted on his talk page, because your supposed satiristic point would be lost on any reader aside from TDC and yourself (and, if anyone gives a damn about your rivalry, the few who do). As I said, I don't like it when the right does it, and I don't like when the left does it. Calbaer 21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What you don't 'get' is that nothing in the article compares to what we know has happened in this war. We know Abu Gharib happened. We know the Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch lies happened. We know about the 14 year old girl gang raped and her whole family killed. Beauchamp didn't claim that he had gang raped a girl, or tortured prisoners. Nothing in these articles compares to what we know has happened. He made a few claims about bad behavior! And the RW are calling it 'Winter Soldier' like he had claimed he massacred people and cut their ears off. The RW are falling to a new low. Really! Bmedley Sutler 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I "get" it, but what you don't "get" is that bad reporting makes a mockery of public discourse no matter which "side" you're on. Inaccuracy in reporting is not excused by "Fake but accurate," i.e., that bad stuff happened, ergo any bad stuff reported is good, regardless of whether or not it's true. The facts matter. Regardless of whether a lie is about a dead dog or a dead civilian, a falsehood is still a lie and a libel. If you do understand that, then everything else you've said is a red herring and an excuse to rant about the evils of war and Republicans and soldiers and the military, and thus useless as anything but personal therapy. Again, if you think it's unimportant, I'd suggest you not contribute to it and save your energies for "important" articles... or for DailyKos. Calbaer 23:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This back and fro is whats not important. Just like the RW attempts to turn this small pototoes issue into the next Winter Soldier on Wikipedia. (which was a big deal) I will be standing guard so as not to see this article get all blown out in relation to how really important it is. (not very). That's OK. There is another issue that will take its place. No confusion over who said what either. "How many dead Americans is Saddam worth?" Dick Cheney 1994. Sorry but I don't have time to answer your insults more. Bmedley Sutler 23:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how the article can get "blown out in relation to how really important it is," but, aside from wondering this, I'll let the rest of your words speak for themselves. Calbaer 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lower bound on sorting algorithms

As the resident expert on information theory, could you look at my argument in Talk:Sorting algorithm#Comparison sort lower bound. This is a recurring discussion topic there, and any corrections, or even a total refutation would be welcome. Grotendeels Onschadelijk 01:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks completely correct to me (at least the algebraic part — I didn't check exact numerical calculations). Calbaer 06:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll include it in the appropriate page then. Grotendeels Onschadelijk 14:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

...for cleaning up 1948 Arab-Israeli War‎. You are so right when you say "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda and advertising (and this looks like both)". It looks that way to me too. It's filled with barely concealed hostility, and is badly written as well. You may get some venom for removing this material. I wanted you to hear from someone who approves of your efforts. Hertz1888 02:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for deletion review?

I completely agree with your arguments for keeping the linkimage template, but I've never been through a deletion review and am uncertain about initiating the process. Were you planning to? Also, for what it's worth, the third article that was using the template at the time it was nominated was amniotic sac. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just did. See Wikipedia:DRV#Template:Linkimage. I wish I had been able to rehash my arguments the third time around, but, more importantly, this seems like an abuse of process, be it through oversight or bad faith. (Since I'm supposed to assume good faith, I'll say oversight for the sake of argument.) Your contribution to the discussion on process would be most appreciated. Calbaer 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion of posting notices on articles that had previously used this template: I think if editors who work on an article have decided not to use the linkimage, they've taken their dog out of the fight. Posting mass notices is, in my opinion, more likely to stir up old disputes than to be helpful. Similarly for people who commented in prior TfDs - I'm not sure how I would respond to someone notifying me, personally, that an article I had commented on was up for a subsequent XfD. If I were interested in the topic, I would be watching it and aware already. If I'm not interested, it would be awkward and not necessarily appreciated. I also don't believe inviting more opinionated people into a heated discussion is going to have any positive effect on this TfD. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So noted, though I must say I disagree with the assumption that I'd be aware already. I wasn't aware of the TfD until it was over; I doubt most users have templates on their watchlists. I believe the debate would benefit from some of the voices previously heard, but I guess I won't asks anyone else if you think it will do more harm than good. So what's the third article aside from Talk:Pre-ejaculate and Talk:Amniotic sac? With the template deleted, it's a heck of a lot more difficult for me to find out where it was used....

By the way, is it just me, or is there something rather Orwellian about asserting that text must be removed because it could be used for censorship and something rather Kafkaesque about asserting that the consensus is defined as the majority of those who agree with the administrator? And have you also noticed that, while other users, pro and con, give detailed and thoughtful comments, Radiant! restricts his or her comments to the types of short, unformed ideas typical of WP:ATA. That's not against policy, but it's rather annoying that someone who won't even bother explaining his or her own view unilaterally decides to impose it on everyone else. Calbaer 00:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Autofellatio is the third article. All three articles have had notices posted, and we seem to still be the only ones interested in the issue - making me pessimistic about the number of people interested in it who watch articles where the template has not been used for many months. For me, the possibility of a new voice in the debate is not worth the certainty of annoying a certain percentage of people given a mass notice. Also, as annoyed as I may be by certain editors, and as much as I disagree with certain community decisions, it does take all kinds to build an encyclopedia. I believe it will eventually work itself out for the best. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The deletion process doesn't really lend itself to eventualism. For this template, it sort of seems like taking the SATs; after a few tries, you luck out (or cheat) and get a result you can live with. It's difficult for me to respect those who refuse to use the dictionary definitions of the words they are using as the basis for their arguments. I guess, for three articles, this can be worked out one-by-one. It is a bitter irony, though, that this might cause removal of material from the encyclopedia. Once this middle ground is gone (unless people want to use the uglier image template and somehow claim it's less censorship to demand a page change than to demand a click), people will be forced to argue whether the images in question are actually useful or not. One would think that there's a reasonable chance that one might be judged not to be useful. (For example, I think the sac and pre images are quite useless: The sac is just a bloody, well, sack, while the first [original] pre image not only illustrates nothing about the subject that isn't described, but anyone who hasn't seen a penis before will have trouble orienting themselves what with such a close-up view.) That wouldn't be censorship, but I think those arguing for the removal of the template would see it as such. Then again, those who tried to impeach Clinton didn't let their dislike of Gore's politics stop them; when you believe you're in service of a high-minded principle, there's no telling how much against your interests (or how low) you might go. Calbaer 01:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Linkimage

I just wanted to comment that I found it ironic you stated that requiring a click to view an image (which is not "the removal and/or withholding of information") violates WP:CENSOR, and then proceeded to suggest a good alternative to use of this template would be removal of images from articles (which is "the removal and/or withholding of information"). And to express my frustration that again, a discussion split exactly at 50%, which both sides having a viable interpretation of policy (ignoring the sockpuppet that !voted to overturn) was closed in line with the closer's personal beliefs. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to echo this frustration; it is rather dispiriting that what should have been based on judging the multiple violations of policy and guidelines in the TfD process was instead closed by totally ignoring this process by a single administrator who believed that he or she knew better how to interpret policy than everyone else. (A second irony is that logical fallacy is linked as one of Jc37's favorite articles, yet it is a verbal fallacy to confuse the dictionary and/or Wikipedia definition of censorship with one's own personal definition.) I guess this is truly Orwell's world: Consensus is the average opinion of those who agree with the administrators, and censorship can only be avoided by removing information, both templates and photographs. Calbaer 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested in the closure, perhaps you may wish to read over Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, specifically the sections: Why they should not be used and Why people say they should be used. Also, this is just a guess from your (plural) comments above, but I think both of you could benefit from a read of Wikipedia:Assume good faith (and possibly Wikipedia:Consensus). And if you're bored sometime, check out the links I have at the top of my talk page, I've found them to be useful (and enjoyable) general reading. Have a good day. - jc37 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We already discussed Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles in the DRV and prior TfDs; that you would suggest otherwise makes me wonder whether you read and/or recalled the discussion you closed. Also let me clarify: I am assuming good faith, that your motives are good. However, the results of your actions seems both Orwellian and against what I had thought were the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. So please, assume the assumption of good faith; I never questioned your character, only your actions. Calbaer 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think, after you've had some time to calm down a bit, you may wish to re-read the above. Anyway, you both seem to have the idea that voting = consensus, and that I closed the discussion based on some personal belief and/or that I "knew better how to interpret policy than everyone else" (essentially attempting to accuse me of what Radiant! was accused of). Also, discussing something is great, but that doesn't mean that your POV will be the final result. As I said in my closure, this rather clearly goes against existing guidelines/policy, and none of the arguements showed why this should be a valid invocation of WP:IAR. - jc37 16:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the people arguing that this template violates policy have ever argued that requiring a click to access information equates to the the removal and/or withholding of information.  !Votes such as WP:ILIKEIT can be discounted.  !Votes from sockpuppets can be discounted.  !Votes that argue for a certain interpretation of policy in an area where policy is not clear should not be discounted. Linking to WP:NDT is not an "explanation" of why the arguments presented by myself and by Calbaer that NDT is not applicable to this template are wrong.

Some people have the personal belief that some uses of this template violate policy, and therefore no use of this template should be allowed. Other people have the belief that some uses of this template violate policy, but that the template itself should be allowed to exist because it also has legitimate uses. Yet other people have the belief that no uses of this template violate policy. If one of these beliefs predominated in the TfD, that would be the consensus - but there was no consensus in that TfD. If one of these beliefs had a majority in the deletion review (because the standard for consensus is lower in deletion review), that would be consensus - but, discounting the sockpuppet !vote, the deletion review was exactly evenly split. I believe this closure was based on an interpretation of policy for which there is no consensus, rather than relisting the TfD as is standard in cases where deletion review did not reach consensus. Lyrl^Talk _C 17:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:LinkImage did not clearly go against existing guidelines/policy, it went against an interpretation of existing guidelines/policy. Were that not true, the first TfD would have been successful rather than the third. I'm fairly sure that User:Lyrl and I both understand and have explicitly stated that consensus is not voting. But neither is it reached by disqualifying the arguments of those you disagree with. These are different interpretations, although, as User:Lyrl has pointed out, the arguments for why this wasn't censorship were never analytically matched and rarely rebutted by the opposite viewpoint. That's why I still I believe mine to be more valid than yours (User:jc37), and you seem to have reasons to believe yours to be more valid than mine. And when there are multiple valid interpretations of policy, then it is personal opinion to ignore those other than your own. And the fact that DRV is supposed to be about process and the fact that you did not address process is also telling.

Someone else could have looked at the same discussion and said, "There's no consensus on whether or not the TfD process violated policy," and that would have disappointed me, but it would have been consistent with the discussion. What you wrote made it clear that you view your opinion — even if you don't see it as an opinion — as more important than process. I think I have reason — good faith or no — to find that rather disturbing.

By the way, it is rather insulting to say that not only are my opinions invalid, but I need to "calm down" when I am expressing them. I'm not attacking anyone, nor speaking in heated rhetoric. I am simply stating the facts, and, if you have a problem with them, perhaps that says more about you than either of us. (After all, if we were really upset or trying to demean you, we'd insist that this be taken back to your talk page, where the discussion began, rather remaining on mine, where you seem to wish it to be.) Calbaer 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(De-indent) - Taking some of the points above, but in reverse:

• I responded at both of your talk pages, as I typically do, as I typically do not presume that someone will re-check my page for a response. In my opinion it's polite, and it keeps discussions unified. But since you've both decided to only respond here and not at User:Lyrl's talk page (presumably also out of a wish to keep the discussion unified, and possibly because I responded to your - Calbaer - comment only on your talk page), I'll be happy to place a link to this discussion there.
• If you look to the top of this discussion you both made it clear you were "frustrated". As someone who's been claiming that others don't understand dictionary definitions, I presume that you might agree that someone who is frustrated may be seen as quite possibly not "calm".
• You claim to not be attacking my character or me personally, just my actions, but then you follow up with stating that it's supposedly about my personal belief of "something". And you continue to do so, apparently claiming that I'm now ignoring you.
• You're still apparently hung up on "votes". It's not about counting or discounting votes. It's about discussion, and attempting to discern consensus. And that doesn't only include that discussion, but discussions of the greater Wikipedian community. I'm not necessarily saying that this discussion is such an example, but I have seen more than one XfD/DRV discussion which had all the commenters "voting" keep, which was still closed as delete. The Wikipedian community determined these guidelines and policies, and while consensus can change, I note under Wikipedia:Consensus that a single topical discussion shouldn't be used to suggest that the over-all policy is incorrect. Hence my closure. Nowhere in any of the discussions did you show why WP:IAR should be invoked. If anything, the discussions rather clearly showed that such demarcation is subjective, and supported the current policy.
• Finally, to again attempt to clarify: You're missing the forest for the trees. You're so focused on the word censorship, that you're applying that definition and not understanding the problem. Just to illlustrate one of many reasons why this template is a bad idea (which several editors attempted to explain), is because it creates a situation where "something" is hidden from view, and the crteria for such a hiding leads to some rather murky waters, as noted in Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles#Why they should not be used. This is just something we shouldn't be doing. You may also wish to check out the recent discussions involving spoiler notices for some similar situations.

I hope that this helps you better understand my closure at least, if not the policies and guidelines behind it. - jc37 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

First off, jc37, I am grateful that you have taken the time to talk this over with us. Explaining yourself repeatedly is not something you had to do, but I really appreciate that you have tried.

I'm not calm at the moment, no, but I have been involved with this template for over a year. I have certainly previously thought my position through while in a calm state. I don't believe that my current emotional state means my opinions are not reasoned.

If !votes advocated a position that violated policy, then they should be discounted. That's not what we are talking about here. From my perspective, this discussion is not about a violation of policy, but rather an interpretation of policy. Because the debate at TfD was so hung up on censorship, there was no discussion of whether WP:NDT applies to this template. Because deletion review is supposed to focus on process, I did not think discussion of whether NDT applied was relevant. But since the interpretation of that guideline appears to be what the close decision hinged on, I'll go over it here:

• Redundant with the Disclaimer link at the end of every page. This template is not redundant with any of the five disclaimers linked to at the bottom of the page. It does not say WARNING:OBJECTIONABLE CONTENT. Not all uses of the template are even for graphic images: it was at one time used for a highly animated GIF that disrupted viewing for some readers. While that particular image was deleted as a copyright violation, these types of uses for the template still exist.
• Hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer (it is difficult to define an "adult content" article, for instance, given that it varies dramatically by culture). In the case of article-specific disclaimers, it would be important to have a disclaimer on every page that needed one to avoid legal liability for not having one, so defining which pages needed one would be important. In the case of this template, there is no reason it needs to be used or not used uniformly. Its use is strictly a formatting issue, like whether to float the table of contents. It would be equally hard to define which articles should have a floating TOC and which would not. But because there is no reason to have this uniform across articles, it's OK to let that decision be made on a page-by-page basis.

This seems to be the rationale jc37 is relying on most heavily, so I'll emphasize the reasons I do not believe it applies to this template:

• Use of this template does not cause any legal liability for Wikipedia
• Use of this template is an article-specific formatting issue. There is no need for a definition to specify articles that should or should not use the template.
• While the conditions where editors working on an article would agree to use this template are specific enough most adult content will not be (and should not be) linked, potential uses for this template are not restricted to "adult content" - Image:Sonic 2 ss animated.gif is a prime example.

• Wikipedia is not censored. Use of this template is not censorship.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a how-to guide. While I understand this reasoning for not putting medical disclaimers on articles with medical topics, I don't see how it's relevant to this template.
• The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits. Again, there is no such legal reason for the use or non-use of this template to be uniform across articles.
• By the time you see them, it's too late — the article has already been loaded. When a reader sees only the name of the image and the caption for it, it's not too late to choose not to see the image.

Use of the template is consistent with policies and guidelines. There have been multiple discussion on this issue over a period of years and not one single discussion has come to the conclusion that use of this template is not allowed:

• Two previous TfDs have ended with the conclusion that use of this template was allowed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines
• The most recent TfD had no consensus on whether use of this template was allowed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The deletion review also had no consensus on how to interpret Wikipedia's policies and guideline in the case of this template.

Out of multiple discussions, there has never been a consensus that use of this template violates any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Therefore allowing use of this template does not require invoking IAR.

Again, thank you, jc37, for participating and allowing this discussion to take place. I hope this explanation will help explain why I feel the "endorse" closure was not consistent with Wikipedia's process. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, Lyrl. By the way, I think you (Lyrl) misspoke is saying it wasn't discussed in the final TfD; in fact, you yourself addressed it. Also, I brought up the NDT issue on both the DRV and the TfD I took part in, each time explaining, from what WP:NDT was at the time, why it did not apply. It wasn't an issue for either side in the first TfD, so it wasn't mentioned. Since Lyrl gave it a fourth go-'round, even more detailed than the prior three, there's no need for me to add anything, but I suppose if Lyrl missed it in good faith, that might have occurred with jc37 as well. That would be too bad were it the case.

The other point on which I might disagree with Lyrl is whether or not the second TfD had any more consensus than the third. In fact, the ratio of "keep" to "delete" and the reasons for doing so were quite similar to that of the third. True, there were fewer arguments on each side, and the arguments were less detailed, which was a problem. But the only thing that changed in terms of judging "consensus" was that the administrator who closed the second debate seemed to lean one way (away from judging "no consensus" when "keep" would do) while the administrator who closed the third seemed to lean the other (away from judging "no consensus" when he or she disagreed with the "keep" side of the debate). That is one thing that makes this so vexing, that the closure of a debate is at the complete discretion of the closer, and that's the case in the DRV process as well. The closer is free to ignore or latch onto any part of the debate he or she likes.

By the way, for me at least, being vexed ("disturbed and irritated") or frustrated ("induced to feel discouragement") can be done in a calm manner. Unlike Lyrl, I sort of went in and out of this particular debate, so I don't have as much vested in it, though of course I don't like that hours spent successfully explaining and defending a good thing were concluded by a defeat I see as unfair and due to myopia combined with one of the most vacated weeks of the year (which is the second time someone's tried to use a holiday week to push for the deletion of content I had an interest in that had already failed to be deleted twice; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allahpundit). However, like Lyrl, I can maintain logic through my disappointment. Calbaer 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well first, let me say that I appreciate civil discourse. And (with the obvious exception of trolling, among other things) I feel that discussion is typically a "good thing".

My latest comment about being "calm", was an attempt to explain my previous comment about "calm", which you apparently took as an "insult", which it was by no means meant. I hope you now understand the tone and tenor in which it was meant.

Lyrl is correct that point #2 of his list is one of the more important to the closure of the discussion, though I disagree with his analysis of whether some of those apply. Incidentally, I was more taking into account what the commenters said than my own "personal opinion" on this matter. And having a subjective demarcation of when/where this template should apply is a genuine concern. One person's meat is another person's poison. The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is a good example of this. Also, The arguement that this helps with overlarge or cpu intensive images is not a good idea. Images should be kept or removed on their own merit (which includes size and resource draining concerns), and not whether they might have a "get-out-of-jail-free-card" by use of the template. - jc37 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The "calm" comment seemed to assume that we were speaking not what we logically believed but what we emotionally felt at the moment, whereas you were speaking from, by contrast, a viewpoint of rationality. You could understand how such an implication might be insulting. I wrote what I believed and it's the same as what I'll believe in a week or a month. Also, of course it has to be your personal opinion at hand when you subjectively choose to take into account what certain commentators say and not others. I don't mean to say that the result is a precise distillation of your opinion, but it's certainly a result of it. As for the issue of size or CPU, I don't think that was the concern; it was more a matter of aesthetics. I personally, for example, might prefer that Dancing Banana could be hidden and revealed at will, due to the widespread design preference for avoiding flashing effects such as blinking text and rapid animations. If this were the consensus of the people involved with the page, the option to do so should be available, on grounds having nothing to do with size or CPU. Calbaer 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Archiving Beauchamp talk page

As you can see here Thumperward \ Chris Cunningham "archived" the talk page manually. The items he removed were posted 24 October 2007, less than seven days ago, hardly "old" and in need of archiving. I think it is more than fair to assume bad faith, considering Thumperward "archived" the leaked US Army documents and the Kurtz article, the two most damaging items, and nothing else. Talk pages often have items going back months, if not years. Nor was the page excessively long. Added with the editors previous actions, it is more than clear what the intent was. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I assume good faith of Thumperward in this case. Granted, the conversation was recent, but the language you're using justify the reversion is that of "removal," not "archiving." Why don't you just bring up your concerns on the talk page so that those involved can decide whether or not the discussions were closed? You can always add a link to the documents in question in the talk page if you like; if you add the link with the request for de-archiving, you'll kill two birds with one stone. The talk page is a place for discussion, so archiving long pages isn't really removing or hiding information, just reorganizing to make the talk page more readable. (And the talk page is long; when I try to edit it, I get, "This page is 80 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance.") We should assume good faith in general, and comparing Thumperward's history (e.g., [2], in which he violated 3RR once — easy for a user to do once by accident — then acted as a good citizen) to some other users I could mention indicates that the good faith assumption is safe to make here. Calbaer 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I'm happy for this to be de-archived for now; as it was clearly available in the archive, the talk page is moving particularly rapidly right now and most of the edits are by a group of editors who are watching the talk page closely, I'd assumed they were familiar enough with the material that they wouldn't mind it being archived, but it's a fair comment that it probably isn't old enough yet. (oh, and I don't know where this idea that the talk pages are automatically archiving themselves came from; well, unless you and I are bots.) Chris Cunningham 07:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable narrator

Just out of curiosity, why did you removed 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' from the list of works with unreliable narrators? The Chief suffered from schizophrenia and reported his hallucinations as fact. Czolgolz (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page. I remove all unsourced new additions so that the list does not get too long (and so that the ratio of sourced to unsourced only goes up). Everyone has their own favorite unreliable narrator, so the list would grow into uselessness without such a actions, actions which are fully consistent with WP:PROVEIT. Calbaer 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allahpundit

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Allahpundit, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Allahpundit. TheRingess (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this, I just noticed that the article survived an afd, so have removed the prod template.TheRingess (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Elee is somewhat disruptive on the Beauchamp page. Would you support an action to bar her? Matt Sanchez (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's unlikely to succeed. A Wikiquette notice may bring admin attention to the issue, but it's very unlikely that a sanction would be passed for the sake of what is now a low-level content dispute. You're failing to engage people in proper discussion on the talk page, and while this doesn't excuse Eleem's commentary it does not mean that it;s "disruptive"; attempting to confront other editors on their positions is a central part of Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Eleem's style seems more one of harassment, attacking, and name-calling, especially when it comes to Matt. I'm not quite sure how to approach this one, but such behavior shouldn't be totally ignored. Even if Matt can be a bit blunt, he certainly hasn't "gone after" anyone the way Eleem has ruthlessly attacked Matt, employing ad hominem attacks, homophobia, insults, aspiration-casting, putting words in Matt's mouth, etc. It's pretty disgusting, and Matt's been ignoring it for months now, and has to live with the double-insult of seeing Eleem delete any comments regarding her/his behavior as being "personal attacks" and "trolling." It's not content that's the issue here; it's basic civility. Eleem's aim seems to be to turn the talk page into a forum for insulting those she/he disagrees with, especially the one participant who actually made a difference in the story in question. Thankfully, this behavior doesn't wreak much havoc on the article itself, but it does make it difficult to conduct the necessary discussions on the talk page. Calbaer (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not at the level of abuse where I believe processes beyond the Wikiquette board would have a chance of succeeding. The personal commentary stuff is beyond the pale and should be removed on sight, but bluntly refusing to accept edits to the article where Matt has a conflict of interest so clear that he possibly has to include it on his tax returns is primarily a content dispute. I'd support raising it on the Wikiquette board. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By "it," do you mean the content dispute or the beyond-the-pale stuff? Again, it's the latter that most concerns me. Calbaer (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The latter, most certainly. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Calbaer, I implore you to file as many bogus civility reports as you want against me. I look forward to directing the admins to Matt Sanchez's RFC[3], where his history of "ad hominem attacks, homophobia, insults, aspiration-casting," etc. is extraordinarily illuminating. Should be a lot of fun.

Incidentally, your several months of attacks upon me -- including lying about the nature of my Talk page comments -- are nothing more than harrassment. Please stop. --Eleemosynary (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The user that was formerly your only defender now calls your actions "beyond the pale." That should be enough to address the above defense/offense (as well as how other users should evaluate your actions), though, again, let me add that another user's alleged misbehavior is not an excuse for your own. Calbaer (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that something has to be done about Eleemosynary, as he is making my time here so far quite unpleasant. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, since I was the one who brought it up to WP:AN/I last time (and since El will probably falsely claim that I initiated other actions prior to that, since I did comment on others' AN/I's of El), it would be best if someone else did the honors. Since Thumperward, El's only ideological ally, supports limited action (e.g., some form of RfC), that would probably be the best course of action to illustrate that this is not some ideological crusade, but rather an attempt to limit mischievous and hateful disruptions to the project. Calbaer (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and, throughout any actions, keep in mind what it must be like to be a user who can convince himself that he is the only non-banned talk page contributor in the right and the multiple people telling him that he should stop are all wrong, "histrionics," "sophists" (El's favorite word), engaging in "ruses," and exhibiting "projection," "vituperation, sputtering rage, and bile" (just to use today's keywords). And act accordingly. Calbaer (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away here and suggest that I'm Eleem's "only ideological ally" here. Other people are just smarter and less masochistic than I am and thus have managed not to get involved. Let's stick to the issue at hand, which is the OTT responses and aggression directed at users who haven't acted in any way which would ordinarily provoke edit wars. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant only ally of those active on the talk page; clearly there are millions who would side with Eleem on ideology, if not tone or substance. (And I do not mean to tar you with El's tone or substance.) I'm just saying that El's the only one who finds his or her actions acceptable, yet thinks that everyone else is the wrong one. Just compare the restoration of sockpuppet accusations whose deletion El labels "vandalism" with El's copious blanking of discussions of El's behavior that are deemed "personal attacks" (contrary to WP:NPA policy). Also, regarding provoking versus responding, I think we can agree that Matt's style might elicit some frustration from reasonable users, but not the level of harassment El has directed at him. In some sense, OTT reaction to other partisans is even worse than to others, because of just how high one needs to go to be "over the top" in these cases. Calbaer (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable narrator II

Just out of curiousity, have you ever read "Yeval" by C.W. Schultz? It's quite an amazing story. I understand that it was AfD'd and that you don't want the list to get too long, but I was just wondering what your thoughts were on it. YevalPro (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no judgment on the book itself, as I've never read it. I just think arcane examples are poor examples. If you were in a book club reading the book, it might be a lovely example of unreliable narration. On Wikipedia, not really. Calbaer (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind response. A high recommendation if you like horror/satire. YevalPro (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Bell

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Silver Bell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't have significant coverage in independant, reliable sources for this and I can't find any. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How significant or reliable do you want? There are reliable sources, although you deleted more than one. The allmusic review specifically states, in reference to Silver Bell, "[T]he absorption of her former label, A&M, in the Polygram-Universal merger left an album Griffin cut in 2000 in the vault, where it's sadly likely to stay." The Pattygriffin.com link similarly says, [A]n album she recorded in 2000 went unreleased due to corporate shuffles." Silver Bell, I believe, passes the notability threshold. This unreleased album was the planned first appearance for two of the songs that eventually first appeared on the 6x platinum album Home (Dixie Chicks album). It is the reason Griffin changed record labels (according to the one link you didn't delete). I'm not sure what's lacking for you here. Calbaer (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What's lacking is significant coverage (in reliable, third-party sources). Mere mentions, like a sentance or two that seem to refer to the album, are not significant coverage. I removed several sources. I don't recall what they were or why, but the reason to remove a source in this case would generally fall into one of two categories: 1) it isn't a reliable source or 2) it does not discuss the topic of the article. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it being 2008, it would take a bit of work searching through old magazines to find more sources, and I'm not sure why you need more than the three sources, even if two of them only briefly discuss it. True, I can't find a single source that's both an international publication and one that focuses on the album, but I disagree that that means that the topic is non-notable, as you seem to believe. Calbaer (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for all of that information, please cite it. Thanks. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)