User talk:Chovain/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

user talk:artlondon

it's not vandliasm, it's removal of the 6 month old welcome message ( 15:14, 8 August 2006 Crossmr). you should check the page. 195.27.20.35 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

full disucssion is here User_talk:195.27.20.35#195.27.20.35_is_used_by_user:artlondon

Page Deletion

No, Chovain, I DID write a reason for deleting the page Erotic spanking , there was an edit conflict, and I, who has never faced an edit conflict before, did not know what to do, and my reason was deleted. I shall try again. Uioh 23:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You originally listed the page for speedy deletion (with a reason), which is the incorrect thing to do in this case. The page is so well established that only the AfD process is appropriate here. Step 2 of the AfD process involves creating the AfD page - you haven't done that. Chovain 23:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg for your forgiveness, Chovain, if I am endlessly frustrating you, but I am not intentionally doing so. I am still quite a new user. Besides, if you go to Erotic Spanking, you will find the discussion page made and active. Thanks! Uioh 01:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not your fault if I'm getting frustrated :). I'm sorry if I am coming across as abrasive. I want to help you here, but I'm not sure where our communications are failing. I'll try again from the start:
  • This page has instructions for listing a page under the AFD process. The steps are labelled: "I. Put the deletion tag on the article", "II. Create the article's deletion discussion page", and "III. Notify users who monitor AfD discussion". Please make sure you have read those 3 steps all the way through.
  • You have performed "Step I" perfectly (a number of times now). This means that the tag is on the article (you can see it there at the top of Erotic Spanking), but this is just a superficial edit to the page - it can't get the page deleted by itself. The discussion regarding the deleting doesn't happen there (nor does it happen on Erotic Spanking's talk page).
  • The next two steps create the deletion discussion page with the correct format (which doesn't exist yet), and advertises the fact that the article is being considered for deletion. Note, that the page must be created with very specific formatting (as explained in the instructions).
I can't really do these steps for you, because I don't know your specific arguments for deletion. To be perfectly honest, you're going to have a hard time with this one: I can't think of any insurmountable problems with the page in regard to Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. The content could be considered offensive, but that is not a good reason for deletion. Without more details (which should go into the nomination text), I suspect I'll be voting to keep the page.
Chovain 02:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Chovain, I thank you for your responses for my questions on the Erotic Spanking page, but I still persist with my opinion of strong deletion of the page. From a few of the messages I received, I received heavy implications that some of the users that object to my opinion wish to maintain the page in question because of its subject. Some even called be "foolish" or "clueless" because I nominated this article for deletion and some even sent me messages that informed me that they erotically spanked their "partner" just last night. I did not expect so many people to not wish to delete the article mainly because they were so entertained by its subject, as it seems. I at first thought they disagreed with me because of reasons such as it is a legitimate page and it is well supplied with sufficient information of its topic, but now I am troubled. When I joined Wikipedia, I did not expect all Wikipedians to be so interested in sexuality and erotic acts, as some of their messages implies, but now I wish to delete the article more than ever because of their quite unreasonable reasons. Thank you. Uioh 18:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'd never condone people calling you "foolish" or "clueless" for what was obviously a good faith AfD nomination, I suspect at least some were referring to the reasons you gave, or the nomination in general. The only reason a page can be deleted is because it breaks a Wikipedia policy. In short, your nomination did not cite a single policy or guideline by which the page should be deleted. From most editors' perspectives, your reason might just as well have been, "because I personally disagree with the topic area".
It worries me a little that you are so concerned about what other Wikipedians are (or are not) interested in. I personally don't care what other Wikipedians do with their partners in the privacy of their own home, as long as it is consensual. That said, there are many other articles on less tasteful topics (some of which are illegal), for which I would could never support deletion: Take for example zoophilia, and even rape. I do not see these pages as promoting or condoning the topics they discuss, but think they're an excellent source of information if people wish to learn about the topics (assuming it is appropriate for the reader to be learning about that topic - but that is the editor's discretion).
In regard to the Erotic spanking discussion, while a number of voting editors would have stumbled across that discussion by accident (like myself), you need to expect that many will see it because they frequently maintain the article. If you really care about what other editors do in the bedroom, I suggest you move to another part of the encyclopedia where discussion is less likely to reveal things that disgust you about the editors.
If the lack of censorship is really an issue for you here, then sadly, I think you will ultimately need to leave until such a time it stops being an issue for you. You simply won't ever win a fight for censorship here. The lack of censorship directly stems from the ideals on which Wikipedia is built.
I really hope you'll be able to just let this one go, and learn to self-censor (by avoiding the material that offends you). Find something that are interested in, and make it better. Every moment you spend in a section of Wikipedia that angers or moves you in a negative way is a moment Wikipedia is without a useful editor. If you're truly interested in objectively removing articles that don't belong here, then you'll have to spend time learning and understanding Wikipedia's policies.
Chovain 18:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

NPWatcher approval

You've been approved to use NPWatcher. Please give me any feature requests or bugs. I'm also happy to help if you have any problems running the program, or any questions :). Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if I've made a new release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Finally, enjoy! Martinp23 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure adopt me away

Adopt me away :)

ShooterBoy 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Meson Cannon

On the history page it shows you havn't even edited it before so why say you did revert that vandalism because unless you can prove it I will replace your warning with my own.Sam ov the blue sand 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Little Britain

In your recent edit to Little Britain you delinked a number of years. I'm interested in your reasoning here. The Manual of Style indicates that there is no consensus when it comes to the linking of bare years. Is there a reason beyond personal preference that you delinked these? Chovain 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually there is consensus to "make only links useful in context" the spectrum of disagreement is about what constitutes "useful in context", and even here there is general agreement that there are too many linked years. In this article the links to 2001, 2003 and 2006 are of little or no use, even links to 2003 in television would be of limited use, as it does not mention the show, nor really provide a context. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47 7 January 2007 (GMT).

Hello

I'm moslty interested to create articles on criminality, like street gangs but more locally specialized

ShooterBoy 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

rehello!

Why hello there :)

I just noticed the message and currently, i restarted school so i'm gonna sparsely edit, but i'm gonna still be on wikipedia and are you on IRC?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShooterBoy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not on IRC, sorry, but I'm happy to help with any questions you want to ask me. I'll be online a lot for the next few hours. Chovain 18:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT

Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.

Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

penchant for drama

Hi again Chovain. I am sorry that you do not like the tone of my edits and "my perchant for drama". I would state in my defence that these comments were made to a specific user on hist private talk page some time ago, and that user never took offence to my remarks. As you have seen fit to comment on my talk page on this issue I would like to ask whether you think this [[1]] warning is justified? [[[User:culverin]] has so far refused to substantiate his allegations against me. I would also like to ask if you know whether User:Brilliance is a sockpuppet for User:Isarig, User:Amoruso or User:SlimVirgin? Abu ali 15:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I was probably being a little harsh with my comment about you: that view was based on a subset of your edits. I've seen your name pop up a number of times in the past month or so, and in my experience, it seems that conflict is not far behind. I'm not suggesting that you are to blame for the conflicts. You obviously edit in controversial areas, and many of the editors on those topics are quick to criticise and bring offline hatred as baggage. In searching through your edits, I do notice that your messages do only seem to get heated when you're replying to heated messages. I'm sorry that I didn't notice that before making the "drama" comment. I do, however, still stand by my claim that you're too quick to claim the existance of conspiracies. As for not liking the tone of your edits, I was only referring to the tone of that one (out of context) comment.
I felt compelled to comment on your talk page when I saw Brilliance's message, because he was clearly taking your comment out of context and bending your words to generate more conflict. That your comment was placed as a private message is quite a good partial defence. In the end, my problem with your comment is that it treats Wikipedia as an extention of a warzone. A number of your edits make it appear that you view it as a battle that each side is fighting to win. In the end, I only find your comment mildly offputting. I found Brilliance's absolutely disgusting.
As for your question regarding sock-puppets, I'd need to spend a bit more time looking into that. I'll get back to you soon.
To summarise, I completely appologise for (and retract) the "drama" part of my comment. My problem with the comment Brilliance quoted is dwarfed by my problems with Brilliance's alleged interpretation. Chovain(t|c) 21:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not a sock-puppet and have never heard of those names before. I have been using Wikipedia for a long time and have recently decided to create an account and improve some articles. Aslo, talk pages are not private and can be viewed by everyone in the world. Brilliance 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
I most certainly never suggested you were a sock puppet. I just agreed to provide an Abu ali with my opinion when I get the time to form one. Talk pages are public, but context is important. Does the fact his comment's were public make it ok to bend Abu ali's words? He was quite clearly consoling another editor who had just received a very long block. Comments like yours do nothing but create conflict. I personally think an apology is in order. I'd expect one if my words were twisted in an effort to compare me with an Islamic dictator. Chovain(t|c) 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali's racism warning

Hi Chovain, thanks for your thoughts. But I was wondering what you thought about this [[2]] warning I recieved from a third user who was solicited by User:Brilliance. This third individual (User:culverin) has accused me of "pushing racist extreme POV on wikipeida" and threatend to ban me indefinately. He has refused to substantiate or withdraw these attacks. You have rightly advised me not to see WP as a battleground. But my friends at WP:ISRAEL will use Culverin's warning to have me banned next time I make an edit which is not to their liking. What if anything do you think should be done about this warning? Thanks again for any thoughts on the matter Abu ali 10:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually already had this on my todo list, but I have not been sure what the best course of action is. Looking through Culverin's contributions, he is an very responsible editor. I'll raise my concerns on his page too. It's possible he'll pay more attention to me as an independent third party.
For the record, if you were to be blocked for anything minor as a result of this, I would expect the block to be lifted immediately on review. I wouldn't worry about it too much for now. Chovain(t|c) 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question regarding what should be done about the warning: Nothing for now. The warning obviously needs to stay in place. Any change to it (by anyone but Culverin or an admin) would reflect poorly on both you and that editor. Chovain(t|c) 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. Thank you Chovain for your valuable input into this disscussion. I am not an adminstrator so I couldnt ban you. I do accept that I may have been to harsh in this situation but comments like these one really enrage me. Especially at the current time with turmoil in the middle east. These comments were uncivil and inappropriate. I propose: Abu apoligises on his talk page for making those comments and then If he does this Ill remove the warning template, and in future I hope both sides can remain Civil. Hope this sorts it out. Cheers. Culverin? Talk 00:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interject, but Culverin's warning strikes me as an extraordinary violation of WP:Civility. "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another." Also, listed as "more serious examples" is "Calling for bans or blocks." How can this staying on Abu Ali's page be conditioned on anything? Abu Ali can't possibly owe Culverin an apology, after Culverin makes this wildly aggressive attack on Abu Ali. This isn't some kind of witch hunt, where we extract confessions. If Abu Ali violated a policy, it should be dealt with by WP. He should not face wildly aggressive personal attacks on his talk page from another user. I completely respect the effort to deal with this delicately, and I think your attempt is admirable, but whether this is an inappropriate personal attack per WP has nothing to do with whether Abu Ali apologizes for his statement, and it shouldn't be tied together in any way. If an admin thinks Abu Ali needs to remove his own comment, that decision should be made by the admin. At most, Abu Ali should be made to remove his comment. He should not be made to apologize for anything, however, particularly to Culverin, any more than Culverin should be made to apologize for his attack. I think you should see that the idea of either is equally offensive. We shouldn't forget that we're all adults here. With great respect, Mackan79 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mackan79 for your input. I never said I wanted an apology for his comments against me! I said I want an apology for the uncivil POV his been saying about Jewish people. To restate my proposal: I think It would be best for an apology from both sides (me and Abu) I will apologise for my harsh attitude towards Abus comments and Abu will apologise and remove the hurtful comments he has made. Then I will immediately remove my last warning template from his talk page. Cheers. I hope a resolution can be reached soon. Culverin? Talk 09:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I have been falsely accused by user Brilliance of advocating suicide bombings. Brilliance contacted culverin who falsely accuses me of racism and now of antisemitism. If either of these gentlemen would be kind enough to show where in my comments (private comments to another editor) I have advocated sucide bombing, and have been racist and antisemitic, I will apologize unreservedly because I oppose terrorism racism and antisemitsm. But if Brilliance and culverin can not substantiate their allegations, they should have the honesty to admit that they are false and withdraw them. Abu ali 09:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
On the scale of abuses here, it seems to me that Abu Ali made an overtly political comment on WP. This comment may have been seen as offensive by some, but hardly because he went out of his way to attack those people. In that regard, I've also seen material at least as provocative, from many directions on WP. OTOH, Culverin has now left an extraordinarily inciteful and damaging message on Abu Ali's talk page. I really don't think apologies should have anything to do with this. I won't suggest you didn't have a right to be offended, Culverin; one person can't tell another whether they have a right to be offended. But after making this kind of accusation against Abu Ali, I don't think you can possibly expect him to offer an apology, whether specifically to you or otherwise. At the same time, if you now recognize that your statement against Abu Ali is overboard, I don't see why you should have to wait for some atonement from him to retract that statement. Whether or not Abu Ali's statement was inappropriate, you have not been aggrieved here, but Abu Ali very much has, and I'd hope you could respect that. In any case, I have to say I find your willingness to discuss the matter encouraging. Mackan79 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I originally saw Abu ali's original comment as overtly racist. On closer inspection (and admittedly without much knowledge surrounding the offline conflict), at no point does Abu ali refer to Israelis. He refers to Zionists. Zionists are a political movement, not a race. Not all jews are Zionists; not all Zionists are Jews. (Note difference of definition between Land of Israel and State of Israel). Israel's opponents do often use the term synonymously with "Jew" (that's the interpretation I originally took). We can't base our actions on an implicit interpretation of the comments. I'm going to make one last crack at this. There are two separate issues here:

  • Culverin: you have accepted the warning you left was too harsh. You can't base removal of an inappropriate warning on an apology. Abu ali is no asking for an apology; he just wants the warning struck. I have suggested an alternative wording to you, which reflects the fact that Abu ali's comment was potentially offensive, not racist. Please show some good faith and maturity: Is there any reason you can't strike the old (harsh) one and replace it with less accusatory wording?
  • Abu ali: People are clearly being (rightly or wrongly) offended by your original comments. Forget about the racism warning for one moment. Be big. Show some initiative. Is there any reason you can't strike the comment that is offending people?

I personally couldn't care less if you guys apologise or not. I would like to see this issue resolved though, and the only way I see that happening is if you both independently and unconditionally take the actions I've proposed. If neither of you are willing to budge an inch, then I'm all out of ideas. Chovain(t|c) 19:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It is not only Israel's opponents,as Chovain suggests above, who sometimes use the term "Zionist" synonymously with the term "Jew", . Israel's supporters, the Zionist movement, and even the government of Israel do so all the time. The effect -- presumably intentional -- is to delegitimise any criticism of Israel, particularly any anti-Zionist criticism, as an antisemitic attack. It is only by scrupulously using the terms correctly and appropriately that Israel's critics can hope to counter this. I see no evidence that Abu ali has misused the terms, or that he has displayed a racist agenda. He may indeed have been uncivil; that is an occupational hazard of many Wikipedia editors. Deplorable possibly, but certainly not deserving the sort of notice that Culverin placed on his User Talk page. RolandR 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure your interjections are really helping here, Roland. We're trying to resolve a dispute between two editors, not discover the root cause of the problems in the Middle East. I simply don't care who is to blame for the term "Zionism" being overloaded. The simple fact is that people are misinterpreting Abu ali's words. Neither his nor Culverin's comments were constructive with regards to our goal of building an encyclopedia, so have no place here. Let's not get into "What X did was worse than what Y did, so Y shouldn't have to fix their mistake"-type arguments.

Quite frankly, I see no reason why there should be any more discussion here! I've proposed a solution, and I've made it clear that this is going to be my last attempt at finding an amicable solution. Either the two involved parties accept my solution (which ironically involves them retracting something they've said unconditional of what the other editor does), or this will need to be solved in some other way. People can discuss this until the cows come home on someone else's talk page. Chovain(t|c) 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chovain, I apologize for getting you involved in this squable. For my part I am happy to remove my comment on PalestineRemembered's talk page as it was a message to her and presumably has been read by her and served its purpose. Unfortunately users Brilliance and Chovain [Ed: I think you mean Culverin :). Chovain(t|c) 09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)] have refused to retract their personal attacks agains me for allegedly being racist, antisemitic, encouraging suicide bombs and vandalizing wikipedia, so I am compelled to post appropriate warings on their talk pages in the hope that they will be more careful with their accusations against other editors in the future. Thanks for you attempts to resolve this amicably. Regards, Abu ali 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting so sick of this argument. Look here is my final proposition for a resolution:

  • Abu removes his comments (done,I think)
  • Abu declares that he will not use that kind of context or say uncivil things that may be extremely offensive to some wikipedians. This can be done here or any place he really wants.
  • I (Culverin) will remove my last warning template and replace it with the warning message written by Chovain.
  • If Abu continues to be uncivil, action be taken by the community
  • Me learning from this long incident and in future always strive to maintain WP:CIVIL.

I seriously hope an outcome can be reached soon!. Cheers Culverin? Talk 11:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to be bold, and ignore the rules. It seems like we pretty much have in-principle agreement here; there's just few details to be ironed out. There's no reason why the two offending comments should need to remain while "declaraitions" are negotiated. I'm going to remove Abu ali's comment, and change Culverin's warning. This will never get resolved if each of you wait for the other to act first. Chovain(t|c) 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Chovain, I think you've handled this admirably. Best, Mackan79 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and feedback. Unfortunately, It's not over yet: User:Brilliance doesn't seem to want to let it go. :( Chovain(t|c) 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Break

This is getting out of control. Shall we take this to a higher power? Everybody has to back down. Culverin? Talk 09:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid it going to a higher power: Brilliance seems like they could be a great editor. He/she really does seem to mean well - they just need to cool it down a little. If this gets escalated, I suspect Brilliance will be eaten alive, and I'd rather that didn't happen. Perhaps putting the spurious warning on my page was just Brilliance's way of letting off steam. I'm happy to just leave it and see what happens. If I see any other nastiness, I'll make sure I let you know before I escalate so you have the option of trying to iron it out. Chovain(t|c) 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave a note on Abu's page now so he knows my position too. Chovain(t|c) 09:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Be fair to Brilliance. Sure his comments were uncivil but it goes to show what some people will think including myself when Abu does this. I personally agree with Brilliances opinion of Abu's actions. Brilliance is new (He has been here for something like a week) so lets give him some help. He shouldn't have got caught up in this affair anyway. Cheers. Culverin? Talk 10:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I'm being more than fair to Brilliance. Fair would be to let him explain his actions in an RfC and let the community judge his actions. He got a level-2 warning for accusing Abu of condoning suicide bombings, and comparing him to an Islamic dictator. What more can he expect when he will not even retract that? Chovain(t|c) 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If Brilliance retracts his comments, Abu should retract his. That is fair, isn't it?. Cheers. Culverin? Talk 10:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it would necessarily work like that. It made sense in case of Abu's comment and the racism warning because the racism warning was based on an incorrect interpretation of Abu's comment. Basically, the warning was the wrong one, so shouldn't have been there in the first place. Abu was not really all that uncivil, either. Had his comments been directed against a Zionist, it would have been pretty incivil. Try rereading his comment, and replacing every instance of the word Zionist with "liberal", "libertarian", "conservative", "trade unionist" or any other political movement: It's just an aggressively voiced opinion.

The change of the racism warning was not conditional on him retracting his comment (well, it shouldn't have been, anyway). It was two separate issues: Abu's comment was offending people, and you gave him the wrong warning. The corrective actions should have been taken independently.

Warnings are not punishments. They are meant to remind editors of their responsibilities in terms of Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. There's actually no real reason for Abu's warning to stay at all. He has accepted that his comment could be misinterpreted: lesson learnt.

There have been suggestions (mainly from you, I think), that Abu ali apologise. The problem is, Abu ali cannot really apologise for anything more than not thinking about his words better. We all say inappropriate things at different times though. His comment was not directed at the people who were being offended by it.

In Brilliance's case, Brilliance could reasonably remove the warning himself as soon as he accepts that his comments constituted a personal attack on Abu ali. So far, Brilliance has given no indication that he even understands he has done anything wrong. If Brilliance were a reasonable person, he would put himself in Abu's shoes for a moment and realise that his accusations caused hurt. I would think he would then strike the comment (but not remove it in this case), and apologise for the hurt he caused.

Note that removal of the warning is not conditional on retraction of his accusations. It is conditional on him understanding that he made a personal attack against another editor, and understanding that it is not appropriate behaviour here. It just so happens that retraction of the accusation, and apologising for the hurt he caused Abu is what I'd expect to see from an editor who has understood that. Chovain(t|c) 10:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the comments that you dislike. I except the warning to be removed. I shall return on Monday the 22nd. Brilliance 16:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

And I have removed my warning. Sincerest thank you for being bold and doing a lot of work to resolve this little conflict. I hope everyone is happy now. All the best... Abu ali 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Understanding at Afd

AfD is fairly hostile, and asking questions doesn't gain answers, for example, you didn't bother to explain how you got 8 citations, when one article in which he is listed as lead author, from Journal of Cell Science, gives 20. I asked direct questions about your nomination, that you may answer to help me understand why you are nominating this AfD. KP Botany 03:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I & KP are in general agreement about the appropriate standards, I actually don't think you did very wrong. That you did a search and reported the results is more than 90% of the AfD people would have done. That is may not have been a perfect search, and that the search results may need interpretation, is important, but it isn't that easy for people to do this outside of their fields (unless they happen to have been taught by an experienced librarian like myself, of course--hint, only use as few key words as possible, and then narrow down as needed..). The important thing is to not delete without taking a real look, and you did that. It makes it much easier to get the discussion started in proper objective way. And I do think your comments on KP's page fair. Yes, AfD should be less hostile. But scientists at AfD feel persecuted sometimes, and not always without reason. (smile)DGG 06:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"But scientists at AfD feel persecuted sometimes". With editors like KP Bounty on your side, that doesn't suprise me. I'll be sure to go in with all guns blazing next time. Chovain(t|c) 10:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Except the reason they feel that way is that people without experience in the area or knowledge of how to go about verifying whether or not a scientific article should be kept or deleted are very comfortable proposing these articles for deletion without that knowledge. I don't post IT articles for deletion, because it's not my area. I don't post popular music articles for deletion because it's not my area of knowledge. Yet, it's fine for anyone to post a scientific AfD while admitting they have insufficient knowledge of the area. You've already gone with all guns blazing, at least blazing for deletion, because that's where you posted it, Articles for Deletion, not it's talk page for discussion, or one of the life science projects. And you didn't answer any of my questions so I could understand why you are posting it for deletion. KP Botany 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read WP:AFD. Anyone can nominate an article, and anyone can take part in the debate. But in the debate, act like a scientist: Don't attack the person; attack the ideas by providing better evidence. You should be nominating articles in other areas if they are not up to scratch. The AfD process is robust enough to handle mistakes being made. Chovain(t|c) 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I read it, especially this part, right up on top:

"Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

  • For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
  • If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
  • Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the Speedy Deletion criteria and process.
  • For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the Proposed Deletion process."
And I ask questions, since I'm new to the area. But they never get answered, as mine to you weren't and won't, because people are heck-bent on deleting articles, they're not proposing them for discussion, but for deletion, and they're offended when asked questions. A discussion, on the other hand, would included challenges and questions. KP Botany 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
But the relevant article is not WP:AFD but rather a whole lot of other related articles, like Wikipedia:Deletion_policy. And Wikipedia:Notability (people). And Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. All of which I read over and over, each time I participate in a deletion debate to see how it applies to this particular AfD. And I think of which questions are relevant, such as "The work or the original ideas described therein must form the basis[4] of another work which is itself notable for other reasons." And I ask related questions, will this particular article be notable and read 100 years from now for its discovery? In the sciences one must still go to the original references. If I write an article about genetics and use Mendelian genetics theory, I may be expected to reference Mendel's work directly. Because of the nature of the topic of the one article by this scientist, it may be the case that his work is fundamental to a current discovery area in the biological sciences. If this is the case, this scientist's work is notable today and will be notable 100 years from now, and, no matter how small the contribution in the area of mutation genetics of the mitotic spindle, he should have an article. However, it's a complex topic, in a field where new discoveries just started being made some 10 years ago. My college text book on the topic simply said something along the lines of nothing is really known about the genetics of the mitotic spindle. So, it needs some expert evaluation of the scientist's contribution and its notability and its relation to the whole body of research. That's not going to happen on deletion debate, when the debate consists of proposing deletion and people who can't or won't answer questions about the basis for deletion. KP Botany 21:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your reason for quoting that piece of the AfD process was. Since my concern was with notability, the first point is irrelevant. The article wasn't copyvio, so that's point 2 out. The article asserted notability (although I questioned that notability), so speedy was out. Prod would be the perfect option if I was absolutely sure that the article shouldn't be there. AfD nominators aren't hell-bent on deleting articles: You're just rubbing them up the wrong way. Nominators are clearly going in with the opinion that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but if you think the only way to argue against them is to belittle them and insult them, then good luck to you. I answered your question about how I arrived at my results (and admitted fault). I ignored your question about why I chose the search terms I used: If you want to get answers, lose the sarcasm. If you think you have a better search than the nominator, then just link to it and say why you think it's better. Chovain(t|c) 22:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for sounding sarcastic. However, I AM trying to understand this process, and I only get further away with every new post. I will ask nicer in the future, and just assume that you acted in good faith. KP Botany 23:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
My nomination was certainly in good faith, and as it turns out is going to give the article in question both a mandate for existence, and a kick in the pants - we should see some improvements come out of this. For the record, this is only the second bad nomination I've made, where consensus has gone the other way. I'm normally pretty thorough on AfD noms.
If you have any serious questions about this nomination (apart from the "not widely cited" one that I've already answered), feel free to ask them here, and I'll do my best to answer them. Chovain(t|c) 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. Well, why did you search using the organism's common name?
  2. And, yes, I did post that I noticed you actually searched, which was unusual for AfD, so I believe that you are probably responsible with your nominations--in spite of my hostility.
  3. Still, couldn't this have been posted on WP:ToL discussion page? There are more people broadly qualified to research and fix life sciences crap there, as most of us don't participate at all in WP:AfD (probably the why so many science articles get deleted). This one would probably have to go to Wikiproject MCB, or genetics, if there is one, because of the highly technical nature of the subject matter, but someone on WP:ToL could direct it to the proper place.
  4. One of the biggest problems on Wikipedia, imo, is an overabundance of people qualified and knowledgable in certain technical areas, and a limited number in some of the general sciences. The small number of editors can't both monitor the AfDs and copyedit the slew of science articles that desperately need work. By the way, I don't know enough about this guy's topic to tell the importance of his contribution. There was an AfD a while ago for a guy who helped start the first African-American fraternity--turns out he wrote, apparently, one scientific article. However, it's still cited in almost every monograph on maize written.
  5. How do science articles get a fair shake on Wikipedia? I don't know the answer.
  6. In this case it might not have helped to search for the organism by scientific name, because the key to searching for the notability of this scientist is in his area of research, mitotic spindle genetics, and in knowing the importance of this area to research in the Life Sciences, but the articles and area he writes in are a subset of this, and "mitotic spindle" is not a keyword. Still, you would have seen that it's a model genetic organism, possibly giving yourself more information than otherwise, had you searched with the organism's scientific name. Again, though, you did actually bother to search, and I should have given you much more credit for that right from the start, which I usually do. KP Botany 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) [Numerical points added by Chovain to make my answers clearer.]
In response to (1), this was me copying phrases from the article. I probably should have used the scientific name, but expected that papers would not use the scientific name exclusively. I should have spent more time looking for papers here.
Thanks for recognising (2). It really does matter to me.
Your suggestion in (3), that a project would be a good place to address notability concerns is a tricky one. There are a lot of projects on Wikipedia, and knowing which project to direct one's queries is difficult. I think to some extent, projects are responsible for tagging articles for which they want input. As it turns out, had any of the projects you listed tagged the article with {{WikiProjectNotice}}, I probably wouldn't have nominated it. On the other hand, I feel a 5-day, open debate is plenty of time for interested parties to get involved (all projects should have someone scanning AfD). As the article stood, this page has not been discussed, or seen any content changes in the 2 years since it was written - It appeared no-one was interested.
I recognise the problem you refer to in (4), but a counterpoint is that if the number of editors with the qualifications to improve science articles remains constant, and the number of articles accelerates (as it does), then the overall quality articles will drop. Regardless of notability, an article that no-one has touched in 2 years is unlikely to terribly interesting, but it's up to the community to decide if it's worth keeping around.
I disagree with what you're getting at in (5). I believe there are two questions here, both different to what you're asking:
  • How do we get other areas of Wikipedia up to the same standard as say science and geography?
  • How do we get the good areas even better?
The way to improve other areas is to get rid of all the OR fan-cruft for a start. That's not going to happen in a hurry, unfortunately. I don't want to see the sciences go the same way, where every academic and crackpot gets an article, and sifting through the noise becomes too much effort. I genuinely thought Douglas Stirling was noise. Chovain(t|c) 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No one is doubting that you nominated in good faith, & you were not unreasonable, and articles such as this are why we need people in the subject areas. The workgroups are a start, but we all know what happens to projects... The way to improve the science area is to get qualified people in proportion to the articles, and discourage the unqualified. What the present deletion process is doing is discourage those qualified in the science, but who don't know WP. If someone submits a poor article, they can be guided & taught. I took the trouble to learn something at the start & to look at other articles to see the style, but then I knew that I intended to work on the improvement of a particular group of articles where I expected to meet opposition DGG 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of copying phrases from the article, you might try using keywords when dealing with science articles, or copy only phrases from the abstract or the discussion section, seldom the introduction. And, in particular with a model genetic organism, you won't understand the place of the research in relation to the organism and the field today without using the scientific name--also, the common name is general, applied to numerous yeasts, but the organism studied is specific. Again, with this particular author it would have been tricky anyhow, because what really should have been searched for is not mentioned or keyworded in the one article (mitotic spindle, again).
Well, we're going to disagree on the plenty of time to get involved--I just don't have the time, as I work full time and study also. I'm going to drop out of AfD and just let things get deleted or not. It's too much work to follow the debates. I could have researched and written or improved an article instead with the time I spent. And, again, the main issue is that the people who can improve the articles--those in the projects--aren't the ones who are participating in AfD--it's too acrymonious overall, and it's a lot of work. There are some articles that it would be important to bring to the attention, though, of people in the know. For example, last week Thermal optimum was up for deletion. This is a primary concept in climate change, a raging debate these days. It needs a substantial article, and it's also a biological term. If I hadn't seen it, it would have been deleted. However, if it had been posted on the geology board, people would have said, "Oh, wow, we don't have an article on that."
That's my point, that Wikipedia is improved more by bringing an article to the attention of people who can correct it or know that an article needs to be added, rather than deleting a crummy article. The projects do the former, AfD does the latter.
And, in the end, the jury's still out on whether or not Stirling is noise. On the other hand, it turns out our article on Mitotic spindle is sad and needs to be brought into the current century. Again, though, it needs the attention of the MCB people. KP Botany 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
KP, if you had not spotted climate optimum I would have. About half the things i think I am unique in catching i m not unique. This is why we need more people watching these things, and we need to improve the procedures to encourage them. Newbies even.DGG 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you would have. I just don't have the energy and attitude for it. In fact, Chovain did actually do a search, attempting to do a proper search, also, and I shouldn't have lashed out at him/her, but I'm so incredibly irritated at the whole thing. The person who nominated Laura Nader didn't do a search, simply assumed that since she is Ralph Nader's sister, she's only included for that reason. This is a leading, well-publicized American academic with a world wide reputation. I'm too frustrated, and will have to drop out. I'll book mark the test cases, or you can post on my talk page, DGG, when important ones arise. KP Botany 00:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems the problem at the moment is that those with the "scientific literacy" are too busy to keep an eye on AfD. Those keeping an eye on AfD are not necessarily "literate" enough to make good decisions. Perhaps there is an opportunity for a new Wikiproject here: A sort of "Scientific article AfD board", where Science related AfD's are listed for those with the skill and patience to judge such nominations on their merits can do so. Thoughts? Chovain(t|c) 03:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe work on policy guidelines for AfDs for science articles. Fact is, folks who don't bother with searches now, aren't going to do them right in the future, they're going to continue not doing them--folks who are already bothering to do them, bothering to weigh whether it should be speedy delete or AfD are the only ones we'll reach, anyhow, and they'll actually bother to read updated guidelines. In Chovain's case, it's useful to know you plucked strings from the article for search, because it shows useful information to use in the guidelines, search for and use not just use the scientific name of the organism, but get it from the keywords, and search for key phrases from the abstract and discussion sections--however, this is not what is happening, people are searching under the wrong terms, what's happening is editors are not searching. Someone's doing a Science articles test cases board, that will work for some. We still need the projects on board. Speaking of projects, I just won a monster one, and won't be around much. I posted Douglas Stirling's AfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, requesting an evalution of the one paper, and his overall contribution to science. KP Botany 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets

Excuse me, Chovain, I have been reading what you wrote on the user called User: Uioh's talk page, and I must point out similar writing style is no evidence of the user in question of being a sockpuppet. For all you know, he may be telling the truth. I am not saying he is, but you should not have just jumped to conclusions. The other users you spoke of may really be his brothers, or someone he may not even know at all! If the other users were his brothers, then naturally, they may share common interests and writing styles, but I repeat, they may be no one he knows at all. You should not have merely accused other users of being sockpuppets with no good piece of evidence that they are! Thanks very much! 24.193.35.176 16:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I most definitely didn't accuse Uioh of being a sockpuppet. I know he's not a sockpuppet. I am aware that there a number of people in his household that share the same computer (I do have evidence of that), and have similar interests. My message on his talk page was some friendly advice to be careful about treating AfDs as votes, and cautioning that if everyone in his household just "votes" on AfD's (especially without loggin in), then other editors will disregard his views as they will assume they are sockpuppets (as they have been already!). My comment was valuable advice, and most certainly not an accusation. Chovain(t|c) 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"On a note slightly related to the preceding section, a number of other editors have raised concerns that you are using sock puppets in the deletion debates. Now, I know that you are one of a number of people in your household using the same computer, but I've also noticed a pattern whereby both you and your IP address place entries in the debate with very similar wording." -- Chovain(t|c) 22:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[source]

Yes, indeed, Chovain. However, from what you said, your words somehow did not exactly register in my mind as "valuable advice", and instead a strong implication that you agree with the Users in question. Hmmm... also, you seem to have accused other users of being sockpuppets too. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I was rather offended by your words, and did not even dare edit wikipedia for quite a few days by your rather unkind comment, fearing I will no longer bw able to edit it ever again. Uioh 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have offered you valuable advice on many occasions. Just because we disagree on many points does not make us "foes". Please don't be offended by anything I say to you - My intention is only to be helpful. I believe you have a lot to offer Wikipedia, but you are a new user, and do have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. Don't discount advice about "the way things work here" just because we have differing views. Unless you explicitly ask me to leave you alone, I am going to continue to offer you advice. It's up to you which bits you heed, and which bits you ignore.
I don't agree with the other users that you are a sock puppet, but I do feel that you and your family have formed a voting bloc, whether that be intentional or unintentional. Either way, my advice still stands: If you and your family treat AfDs as votes, you will erode your reputation, and ultimately your views will be ignored.
When have I ever accused another user of being a sock puppet? Chovain(t|c) 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand, Chovain, that you are trying to help me, and I thank you for that, but I did not lie in any of my statements. Forgive me if I am wrong, but the first section of this current archive on your talk page indicates that another user has, to, apparently believed you accused him of being a sock puppet. You may have been here longer than I have, but I am now quite familiar with the rules and regulations of wikipedia. Now, whom do you think that is forming a voting bloc with me, please? You are obviously a skilled and intelligent Wikipedian, and of course we are not foes. I was merely pointing out what I beleved was true. Thank you. Uioh 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I never thought you lied. You've misread the "penchant for drama" section. User:Abu ali asked me if I thought User:Brilliance was a sock puppet of a number of users. I deferred my answer until I was able to look further into it. I'm in the middle of writing up my opinion with supporting evidence here, although I haven't had a chance to work on it for a while. To summarise, I do not believe Brilliance is a sock puppet, and I reckon I have pretty convincing evidence that he's not a sock puppet of any of the users Abu suggested.
"Forming a voting bloc" is stronger than what I meant (that's why I suggested "unintentionally"). Off the top of my head, I can only remember you and your anon IP taking part in the same discussion (I assume it was aidoflight that was not logged in?). I remember reading a comment from someone suggesting Librax was pretty similar with the "votes", but I've never seen anything non-circumstantial to back that one up, so very much doubt it. I'll need to spend more time looking through histories to give you a better answer - I'm meant to be working at the moment :).
The main issue though, is not that you guys take part in the same AfD debates, but that you sometimes treat it as a "vote" rather than a debate. (For example: [3] [4] [5], or even [6]). I admit though, I quite often do the "per nom" or "per XXX" comments too. The problem is they don't get looked at by the closing admin. Chovain(t|c) 02:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I think you're the second person to misread that section. User:Brilliance seemed to indicate I was calling him a sockpuppet too, but I think he may have been replying to Abu ali, not me (he just got the indenting wrong). I can't for the life of me see how "As for your question regarding sock-puppets, I'd need to spend a bit more time looking into that." could possibly be interpreted as an accusation. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to that particular discussion getting archived. :) Chovain(t|c) 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I find this page interesting. I find it fascinating how descriptive your observations were. Although I know this means nothing to you coming for me, I can assure you that I am not a sock puppet. Brilliance 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
PS: I'm glad we have resolved the conflict.
Once I'm finished (I've got heaps to go on it), I'll hopefully be able to convince Abu ali beyond any doubt. It's also kind of fun analysing writing styles, etc :). For the record, I'm completely convinced you're not a sock puppet (Also note: I started writing that page very early in "the conflict"). I'm also glad we could resolve that conflict. No hard feelings, I hope (I hold none against you). Regarding my subpage, my intention was to let you know when I was finished. If you're at all weirded out by it, let me know and I'll get rid of it. Mark Chovain 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Yo - if you could adopt me that would be great. I'm not really on as much as i would like but any help you could give would be fantastic.--James Naeger 07:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me

I'm requesting help from any experienced wikipedian who wants to adopt me, I'm a total newb... Would you help me? KatKiller 07:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Felt

Fine. Just be careful how you use the term "vandal". I could just as easily argue that removing it without discussion is "vandalism". Actually, neither one is. It's a content "dispute". But if you insist, I won't add it back. The ones from a few weeks back who kept adding junk about urination... that was vandalism. Wahkeenah 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When did I use the term vandal? Here are the only edits I've made on the topic of Felt: [7] [8] [9] [10].
I'd say I've been extremely civil, and assumed good faith in each and every one of those edits. I have not used the term "vandal", until this edit. Mark Chovain 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You've already won. No need to rub my nose in the dirt. Wahkeenah 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - umm... nice attitude. Mark Chovain 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer watching the page. There is no need to communicate on this topic any more. Wahkeenah 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll miss you. Mark Chovain 23:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Western Ontario

UWO: Two points: 1) It's NOT for Medicine. It's the medical-doctoral ranking, not the medical ranking. In other word, it's not the ranking of medical schools, it's the ranking of (the overall qualities) of universities that have doctoral programs and a medical school, i.e. every big university.

The Harvard's article says Harvard is ranked second in the 2007 US News ranking without making clear which US News ranking they are talking about. The reason is simple: there is no confusion there. For the same reason, there's no confusion as to which Maclean's ranking I was talking about. When you say the Maclean's ranking, people understand it's the medical-doctoral ranking.

2) I did write "medical-doctoral" one time, then the other person deleted it. So if (s)he is saying that's the reason why my sentence was removed, (s)he is lying. Believe it or not, the sentence that is accepted now and that s(he) claimed to write, well, I WROTE THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE. Please choose 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


I agree that it's better to avoid accusing people of lying. But accusing people of vandalism or academic boosterism is not good either. If I remember correctly, the other guy accused me of both within the first couple of messages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Please choose (talk • contribs) 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for doing that.

Thankyou for challenging those who vandalise the UserPages of others. Needless to say, there was nothing offensive there in the first place. PalestineRemembered 19:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but you should keep in mind that things you might not expect to be offensive may be considered offensive by others. It's generally best to avoid using politically loaded terms when describing other users, and avoid assuming other users have an "agenda" just because they have different opinions to you. Likewise, when others use politically loaded terms against you, or accuse you of bias, the best defence is generally cool, calm reason. Discussions about other editors should be like writing articles: Keep to the facts, and be prepared to back up any claims you make. Happy editing, Mark Chovain 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT input

Hello, Chovain. The Adopt-a-User program is looking for new ideas and input on the program. If you are still interested please stop by the talk page and read some of the ideas being floated and give a comment. If you want to update or change your information on the adopter's list page, now would be a great time! Thanks! V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 03:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops!

Hi there Mark. I rather imprudently (retrospectively speaking) went ahead and posted my observations related to PalestineRemebered's arbcomm case directly on the page. I only just now realized that PalestineRemembered had requested on his/her talk that we post issues we wanted to raise there, here, first. I thought I would let you know that I had done so and grant you permission to summarize the points I have raised or remove them and place them here for discussion and revamping before reposting them again, if you feel that this is necessary. I have never posted to an arbcomm before and so am open to/welcoming of advice/critique regarding what is and is not appropriate to discuss there. Thank you. Tiamut 14:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered blocked

PR has been blocked for violations of the terms of his conditional unblocking. Discussion at WP:AN/I is here: [11]. nadav 04:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,
While you were posting at my Talk page, I was proceeding to unblock PR following your statement and the opinions expressed at AN/I. Regardless of my personal opinion or yours on his ArbCom case, I do hold now a reasonable doubt regarding his reasoning when posting outside the imposed limits, and I think that maybe he believed he wasn't acting against the spirit of the terms of his conditional unblock. That's the reason why I have decided to give him a chance. I suggest that further posts from him to pages other than those specified by ArbCom get channeled through you, if at all necessary, in order to avoid possible controversy and troubles. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Regards, Phaedriel - 05:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The proposed motion in the PR ArbCom case is only a proposal at the minute, the arbitrators will now decide if PR can have his block fully lifted. I'm not in a posistion to say he can or he can't. What I do suggest is that you speak to PR and make it clear that until the motion is passed (if indeed it is) that he should stick to editing his arbitration case pages, hope that lears things up! Ryan Postlethwaite 13:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is PalestineRemembered allowed to respond to comments on his own talk page? Thanks. PS. I am sorry for complicating things by prompting PR to respond to the comments I posted here above. My apologies. Tiamut 11:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes - he is able to respond on his talk page. We are currently working on getting him permission to edit freely. Mark Chovain 12:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding of fact

I think you should consider putting in a finding of fact that "since his last [however months it was] block, PR has been contributing productively and in good faith to the encyclopedia," or something like that. Such a finding would unequivocally shake off many of the hazy allegations against him. An alternative wording would be "no evidence has been shown he has not been contributing in good faith etc." You should also consider a finding that some of PR's blocks were unduly harsh, though perhaps this finding is less necessary. nadav (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We will do that if the current motion to close the RfArb fails, otherwise there's no point (there's no point in putting up more proposals if they're never going to be voted for by the arbitrators. Mark Chovain 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

You say your PR's advocate in this matter, could you elaborate what exactly you mean by this? By that, I mean are you working as part of WP:AMA? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So in effect, your acting as his layer? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note on editions of Bitter Harvest

Hi Mark. It may be useful for you to know that the 1999 edition of Bitter Harvest has a different pagination (384 pages [12]) from the 1990 edition (351 pages [13]). This may be relevant because PR was accused of citing his material from a 1995 Holocaust-denial essay, and one of the reasons given for not retracting the accusation was that if PR wasn't lifting material from Holocaust deniers, then Hadawi was (scroll down for second block of text in this diff). PR's page citation (p.59) establishes that his edition was the 1990 one, which without bibliographic time-travel can't have plagiarized a 1995 essay. When this was pointed out to PR's accuser, it was insinuated that a) PR may have gotten his material from the 1999 edition, which b) in turn may have lifted from the toxic 1995 essay. [14] Pagination rules out a, just as the existence of the material in the 1990 edition rules out b. These red herrings were fileted and fried over a week ago.

It may also be useful for you to know that though portions of the 1990 edition are available online (through Amazon and Google Books), page 59 is not. Nor can I find any other online sources, scholarly or popular, that cite the p.59 material from Hadawi. Finally, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, Jay's 1995 Holocaust-denial essay does not cite or mention Hadawi. In short, it is not conceivable that once PR "became aware of the fuax pas, he quickly searched for alternate sources" and found the Hadawi material, as was postulated yesterday in the arbitration workshop. To do this he would have had to physically rush himself to a research library and rifle through books looking for something citing the Evening Star material. As some seem inclined to daydream about such scenarios, it's worth noting that the time elapsed between PR's first being notified of the controversy and the time he produced the full Hadawi citation was 44 minutes.

My apologies if this recaps what you already know. All best, --G-Dett 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, G-Dett. I knew much of that already (but it's going take me a couple of days to get it into text with my current real-life workload). It was very useful to know that there were concerns about which of the 1990s editions it came from. I'll be sure to incorporate that into the evidence. Mark Chovain 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)