Gracenotes (talk | contribs) |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 371: | Line 371: | ||
== Fine with me == |
== Fine with me == |
||
Sure you can quote my stuff, unless you take it out of context. (Of course, it seems to be in context there.) My stuff's all GFDL, after all :) [[User:Gracenotes|<font color="#960">Grace</font><font color="#000">notes</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<font color="#960">T</font>]]</sup> § 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
Sure you can quote my stuff, unless you take it out of context. (Of course, it seems to be in context there.) My stuff's all GFDL, after all :) [[User:Gracenotes|<font color="#960">Grace</font><font color="#000">notes</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Gracenotes|<font color="#960">T</font>]]</sup> § 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
== ATT == |
|||
Coppertwig, please stop changing WP:ATT. Just because people don't respond to you on talk doesn't mean they agree or don't object. If people don't respond, please take it as an objection from now. The policy was extensively discussed, both as NOR and V, and in the early stages of ATT. The current wording has wide consensus, so please don't change anything unless you get clear, strong, and unambiguous consensus from all involved editors on talk. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think you may have misunderstood the situation. The page has been developed already and is now policy. It therefore needs to be stable. It is very much the norm with policies that silence means you have no support, and I'm not asking for you a personal favor. I'm letting you know that your changes are viewed as disruptive by several editors. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:19, 15 March 2007
Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to post a message to me. Coppertwig 19:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hellenistic Art translation
Hello Coppertwig! Thanks for your response. I actually am thinking of doing a translation of the French article on determinants [1] which is FA in the French Wikipedia. So I'm interested to see how you managed the Hellenistic Art translation. Do you still have active collaborators, or are they no longer available? And is it still legal to create a ../Translation_sandbox as you did under an article in the main space? I thought I might have to do it in my User Talk space. EdJohnston 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Re:Adding a redirect to one's watch list?
Hi! I noted you were involved in discussion about whether "Physical punishment" should be a separate article from "Corporal punishment", or a redirect as it is now. A technical question: How can I add "Physical Punishment" to my watchlist, so that if anybody changes the redirect back into a full article again I'll notice it? (And if I want to change it back to a redirect, how do I do that?) Thanks! --Coppertwig 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Note: I have looked at the watchlist instructions and it says you can watch a nonexistent page, but I don't see how to follow those instructions. Searching for the page or using a URL just sends me to the CP page, which is already being watched. --Coppertwig 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Another unrelated question: suppose a "diff" says there was a change on "line 330". Is there any easy way to find this line in the displayed article other than reading the entire article? And another question, is there a better place for questions like this than on the talk page of someone such as yourself? Thanks again! --Coppertwig 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig! These are some of the techniques I use, although somebody else may have better ideas
- In priciple it is pretty easy to add a redirect to your watchlist. If A redirects to B and you want to watchlist A, just go to A (it will redirect to B), and then go back to A via the "(Redirected from A)" link. Then add it to your watchlist in the normal way via the "watch" tab.
- A nonexistent page (i.e. nothing, not even a redirect, links here are red) you proceed as if you were about to create a page there, leaving you with a blank editing field. There should still be a "watch" tab at the top though which will watchlist the nonexistent page.
- For finding a particular line, using your browswer's "search" or "find" function is quite effective. Just type in the first few words of the diff into the search field, and you should quickly find the lines you are looking for. The "find" function is usually in the "edit" menu of your browser (that is not the "edit this page" tab on Wikipedia), although some browswers have the shortcut Ctrl+F.
Hope that helps! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Careful about cut-and-paste moves!
Hi Coppertwig! There is a tradition to avoid 'cut-and-paste moves' because they lose the page history. The history is needed for copyright reasons (who were the contributors). If you approve, I'll re-do the move in the proper way, but I'll need to vary the resulting name slightly. Let me know. EdJohnston 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- The other snag is that your proposed destination page is only the 'Talk' version of the original Translation_sandbox. It is abnormal for a 'Talk' page to exist without its corresponding article, so the original Translation_sandbox could not easily be deleted. How about User_talk:Coppertwig/HA_translation_sandbox? Don't create it, just tell me it's OK, then I'll do the move. (The move does the creation automatically. But if the target already exists the move may fail). Any logged-in user can do a move, if the move satisfies all the constraints. EdJohnston 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sandbox moved OK but redirect should be undone
Hi Coppertwig. It looks like the page move is correct, and all the history was preserved, but you might consider undoing the redirect from Hellenistic Art/Translation sandbox to the new location. The problem is that the page will still look like it's in the main space! EdJohnston 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Great work! I really don't know how to thank you; that translation didn't seemed to be ill-fated, with all the translators leaving wiki for good before ending the translation; but you can say that you've broken the spell
. I see you've only recently taken interest in wikipedia, if you have some doubts or questions I've been around here quite a long time.
- Regarding the question you posed, it's easy: simply cancel the previous content at Hellenistic Art and then copy-and-paste your translation. And don't worry about the history: it'll remain anyway. Ciao, --Aldux 23:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good! Regarding how to do the merge, I agree with Aldux that you should copy and paste the new content over the existing content in Hellenistic Art. An additional suggestion is that you should replace the content of your sandbox page with a redirect to Hellenistic Art. Then the edit history of both the old and the new pages will stay around indefinitely. (You'd just have to avoid deleting the sandbox afterward). I'm not sure this is all 100% necessary but some people (perhaps not everyone) seem to think it's good practice. Those who are less subtle I think just go ahead and do their translations IN PLACE in the currently existing pages. This does leave a slightly confusing article for a period, but it's one way to do it. EdJohnston 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hope you find it ok, at the end I opted for a move instead of a copy-and-paste, and did it myself since only an admin can do these sort of moves. As for Wikipedia:French Collaboration Project, yes, nobody seems to really care much about it, judging from the activity around there, but deleting wikispace is not so simple, it has too pass for a WP:VfD.--Aldux 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your procedure seems fine to me. I didn't realize until now how hard it was to never delete edit history. It may not always be worth the trouble. EdJohnston 01:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks again! :-) I had requested Derveni krater, since I saw the link in the french version of Hellenistic Art. I've never seen a translation request awnsered so fast! Ciao, Aldux 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your procedure seems fine to me. I didn't realize until now how hard it was to never delete edit history. It may not always be worth the trouble. EdJohnston 01:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hope you find it ok, at the end I opted for a move instead of a copy-and-paste, and did it myself since only an admin can do these sort of moves. As for Wikipedia:French Collaboration Project, yes, nobody seems to really care much about it, judging from the activity around there, but deleting wikispace is not so simple, it has too pass for a WP:VfD.--Aldux 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Translation procedures in the French Wikipedia
Hi Coppertwig! You were thinking of creating new instructions for translators. If so it is worth looking at fr:Projet:Traduction. They appear to be super-organized. There are templates you are supposed to add to the article, to track the progress. To see one that's currently going on, look at fr:Histoire de la Grèce antique which is now being translated from English. The talk page at fr:Discuter:Histoire_de_la_Grèce_antique has interesting critique of how the corresponding English article is organized. There is some talk of using sub-pages but I couldn't tell if they're actually being used in this case. EdJohnston 04:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Slightly late welcome
|
Human rights in Iran
Sorry about that, I thought I had put it back up for translation...don't have time to finish the whole thing right now. Cheers Claveau 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Translation
First, remember one thing: we're not really deleting the material in question, but simply storing it in the verions conserved in the history pages. As for your other idea, "shortening the mention of each completed article down from a whole template with Status etc. to just a single line with a link to the article", I fully agree; simply reduce every single completed translation to a single line, like with the section titled "list of other recently completed translations", removing the "other", and leaving French original article link, english link, author of the translation. As for removing some of the older completed articles, personally I'd keep them all, so that we can have a full and immediate view of all the project's translations.--Aldux 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism or not?
Hi Coppertwig, I had been looking into the edits of user:BruceDLimber and it seemed to me like that there was rather large proportion of plain nonsense that had to be reverted, like [2], here and here. But in the last case I obviously did an erronous revert myself, and I completely misunderstood what he wanted to say in "Biohazard". Maybe I misjudged him alltogether. -- 790 10:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The line I deleted was unreferenced and should not have been added in the first place. Please do NOT add that material again, or I will revert it again. My policy is that whenever unreferenced material is questionable, it can and should be deleted regardless of what other's think. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cite for original research. – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
db-owner
Actually, I was referring to tagging User:Coppertwig/Hellenistic Art translation sandbox, the remaining redirect from your userspace to the article. Since the page was moved properly, all history attribution is in the article itself, right? -- nae'blis 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Similar problems
Hi Coppertwig, I've been looking at the t-test page and it seems like we've been having similar problems :) My question would have been "why would a Student's t-test be used when you have unevenly distributed intervals?". Well done on continuing to contribute to the wiki and providing users your valued information. Grant 14:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi again Coppertwig. Yes, it was I who left the above. When I signed-up to Wikipedia I stupidly used my sirname as my logon and have since learned to use a nickname (Grant) instead. Anyway, keep up the good work. Best, Grant 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed those links. Femto 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah. First, you have to split this into proper References and External links sections. Forums, wikis, blogs, and other self-published stuff, aren't references. General sites that didn't provide specific facts in the writing of the article, aren't references. Blogs, forums, and other social sites, or loose collections on the topic, aren't external links. Neither are links which provide no immediate content but only are entry pages to sites on the general topic. It's easy, just don't assume that adding a link could improve an article, or that removing a link would hurt it. Femto 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Fatty acids in food chemistry
Thanks for putting Essential fatty acids in the Branches of Food chemistry template. My only concern is that you can consider fatty acids as part of lipids. Think about that. Chris 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- As a follow-up to your response on my talk page, I reverted the template back to its original form. What I also did was put the Essential fatty acid as part of the lipid section in the food chemistry article. Hopefully this compromise will be suitable to you. I look forward to working with you on any food and nutrition articles in the future. Chris 14:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with what you have proposed. Let's do it! Chris 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- After reviewing what you are going to do, please take a look at what is already out there on the issues we were discussing. You have good ideas, but I don't want you to run the risk of reinventing the wheel. We need to build up and adjust these articles, not reinvent them. Chris 15:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with what you have proposed. Let's do it! Chris 14:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Notation
Why do you find it necessary to write
instead of the following?
I don't see any ambiguity in the latter form, so the parentheses seem like clutter. Michael Hardy 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- It may not look ambiguous to you, but it looks ambiguous to me. The latter one looks to me like a formula that had an extra slash added by accident, or maybe I don't even notice the slash, or the slash looks like one of the rarer mathematical symbols. At best it looks as if somebody hasn't gotten around to putting their formula into standard form. I find the first formula much clearer. The parentheses make it clear that an operation is actually happening, and that it's actually intended to be there, not just an extra symbol that got in there by accident. Since it's a nonstandard form (not simplified as algebraic expressions usually are), without the parentheses the slash looks like part of the square root sign if you don't look closely. I hope this answers your question. --Coppertwig 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Coppertwig, - Thanks for your efforts to protect the Domestic violence entry from vandalization.
With regards to Andrew_c's recent edits to that entry, I would like you to view my response to him on his talk page.
Kind regards,
My Wikidness 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies for writing wrongly the first time!!!'
at best vs at least
My reversion was solely a linguistic one. At best implies that little can be expected, while at least implies that more can be expected. In the case of some purely fraudulent material, nothing (at least) can be expected, though perhaps the placebo effect might contribute to some benefit (at best). Perhaps an entire revision of the relevant sentence could satisfy all?
But on the underlying subject, there are some points I'd make, though I've not included them in any of my edits as explaning them neutrally to WP standards would not be easy. In the case of snake oil with some rationale for a mechanism of action, the situation is more confused. EPA is itself not an established therapeutic agent, and when contined in commercially prepared snake oil (ie, not quantitatively controlled to USP or equivalent standard), may or may not have a beneficial effect as intended (at best again). In particular, the agent will usually be present in varying quantitites, availabilities, purity, and contamination with other materials.
In general, there are many things for which a plausible mechanism of action has been proposed, and for many of them there are papers alleging some evidence of this action. However, a poorly done research project really does little to establish that this or that does anything in particular. Unfortunately, this criterion is all but opaque to the public, a fact which is exploited by snake oil salesmen of all kinds in promoting their wares. Modern science is not easily conveyed to the lay public, greatly assisting quacks of all types. ww 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm. If I understand you right, you're concerned about the connotations (nuances) of the phrases "at best" versus "at least". However, I'm looking at the plain ordinary meaning of these words, and to me, the sentence with "at best" is just plain false. Perhaps the phrase "at best" is interpreted differently by you and me. To me, it is a claim that it is impossible to get anything more than the placebo effect from the substances mentioned. This is a strong claim which would require citations to back it up; it may be unprovable even if it's true. Also, it's not very clear which substances this claim is being made about. Apparently, to you, "at best" has some other meaning which I don't understand, because you say "may or may not have a beneficial effect as intended (at best again)"; to me, "at best" certainly does not mean "may or may not have a beneficial effect as intended"; to me it means "definitely does not have a beneficial effect as intended (except for the placebo effect)".
- I think if you take a large number of substances, even if they were sold with fraudulent intent, it would be surprising if not a single one of them happened to have some beneficial effect. There might be more that cause harm than that cause good, and even mroe that have no effect, but the use of the phrase "at best" in that context is claiming that not a single one of them had any beneficial effect other than the placebo effect, which I believe is not true, and in any case is not supported by research -- it would be extremely difficult to study every single one of those substances enough to show that none had a beneficial effect. I doubt anybody's even managed to list them all.
- In any case, I've changed it again to another different wording using "although". Please have a look and see if you think it's OK. --Coppertwig 12:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems clear we're infering different things from 'at best'. There being such a muddle, we should probably avoid it in the interests of the Average Reader, our audience. I agree with your point about unknowability of result (modulo placebo effect) in mixtures of ingested substances, but that being so, what should a responsible regulator / prescriber do? What should a rational patient do?
- Utter freedom to choose (in a Univ of Chicago sense) might be fine in some Platonic world, but in a world in which those with some toxic oils are looking for a disposal method, and find mixing it with edible oil and selling in S Europe at an attractive price, more must be done. Actually happened, and poisoned/killed a great many. And then there were the Chinese herbal pills in the glassine envelopes which were supposed to support your metabolism with the ancient wisdom of the Chinese sages. Soem of them were found to contain soem non-ancient non-natural non-Chinese compounds, some of the sulfonylureas (used to treat early stage type 2 diabetes). Quite dangerous those, for the non-diabetic.
- It's a quandry. ww 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! re Simple Wiktionary
Hi! :D Thank you for telling me about all your suggestions, but I'm a bit overwhelmed with all of them! I think it's better for you to ask the Simple English Wiktionary community at large; discussion like this usually takes place at simple:wikt:Wiktionary:Simple talk. Hope to see you around! (P.S. I've replied to some of your messages on simple:wikt:Wiktionary talk:Basic English alphabetical wordlist) Cheers, Tangotango 13:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering bugzilla request for "Complete list" feature
Hi. Thanks again for your involvement in putting "Complete list" at the bottom of the interwikis on the English Main Page. I'm considering putting in a bugzilla request for a feature to allow something like that to be easily done on any page. See meta:Meta:Babel "# 19 Suggestion re handling long interwiki (interlanguage) lists". What do you think? --Coppertwig 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- As I commented previously, I believe that the ability to add custom sidebar links (at least on certain pages) should be added to MediaWiki, thereby eliminating the need for an imperfect hack.
- Your idea to create a central database of interwiki links is worth pursuing, but it should be addressed separately. —David Levy 17:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Russian links from Parenting page
Would someone who speaks Russian please check the link to Russian from Parenting. Note that the Parenting page is about the details of how parents raise their children, and that many of the interwiki (interlanguage) links are wrong -- they're linking to pages about ancestry or sociology or something. The Russian link was recently changed by someone to: ru:Родительская любовь Previously, it was: ru:Родственные отношения Please check which of these is a more appropriate link for "Parenting" (or whether neither of them is). You can put a note here on my talk page in reply if you like. Thanks. --Coppertwig 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, someone has checked this. The newer link seems better. Thanks. --Coppertwig 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Pain - what a BIG topic
Hi, Coppertwig (Pain is pain. Not all agree with jazzy definition. If wording needs to be changed, edit the article.) I have no issue with everthing being itself. What is the "jazzy definition" you refer to? The deleted paragraph acknowledges and warns of self contradiction present in the article. Whats your view? SmithBlue 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) OK with you if I change "Re deleted paragraph" to "Definitions, common usage; pain & nociception" ? SmithBlue 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- OK --Coppertwig 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see is a big section on the subjective experience of pain - which would form the core of the article and then sections on how psychological pain occurs and how the sensation of physical pain is caused. But info on the "how" of subjectivity is pretty thin. At present the article is a bit like one on cars that just focuses on metalurgy. SmithBlue 05:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think it would probably be good to have a section like that (if any facts can be found about it!! and if it's not too big -- hard to say how big is too big, maybe you're right that that is the main thing the article should be talking about.) be bold. --Coppertwig 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Health Wiki Research A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics. Please consider taking our survey here. This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used. We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.Thanks,--Sharlene Thompson 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I'm hoping you are coming back to Pain soon. If you are interested we could use your remaining questions about the topic (after reading the intro) to come up with something understandable and clear. I've reordered the introduction and (to me) its a lot clearer. What do you think? (I took the liberty of dedoublespacing Sharlene's request immed above. Hope OK with you) SmithBlue 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Valence and disambiguation
Happy New Year, Coppertwig! I was glad to get your message. After not having done much on Wikipedia for a long time, I started to do a little disambiguation a few days ago. Like you, I enjoy it -- making the links point to the right articles is highly satisfying -- and there is always more work to do. Along the way I often see something that interests me and do a little more editing or add some new material.
While working on Valence, I did notice some of your messages on talk pages. To me it was pretty clear that most of the references were to Valence, Drôme, the largest, best-known, and most historically significant French city of that name. I was very happy to see that you had taken care of the rest!
It was I who moved Valence to the "done" section. For some reason that change shows up only in the history display of the subpage (Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2006-11-30 dump). A number of links to the disambiguation page are left, but almost all are to talk pages, user pages, and "Wikipedia:" administrative pages, so I just left them, according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links: "The most important thing is to fix articles in the main namespace. 'User:' and 'Wikipedia:' administrative pages do not necessarily need to be fixed, and editing other people's comments on 'Talk:' pages without their permission is characterised as unacceptable by the Talk page guidelines." There were a few links in the main namespace that seemed acceptable; for example, at the beginning of Valence (chemistry), there is a general reference to the disambiguation article: "For other uses, see Valence." I left those alone as well.
You mentioned the popups tool. Have you tried it out? I have found it extremely helpful for both editing and browsing. Features and installation instructions (simple enough even for a non-programmer like me) are at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. If you don't like it or find that it causes problems, you can easily remove it. To enable the feature that fixes links to disambiguation pages, add this line to your monobook.js file:
popupFixDabs=true;
When you put the cursor over a link to a disambiguation page, the program presents you with a list of links taken from that page. Clicking on one of them changes the link automatically, though it gives you a chance to examine the article and make other changes or cancel before saving. It also gives you the option of simply removing the link. I sometimes edit the disambiguation page beforehand to get rid of links to terms other than those being disambiguated.
I hope my answer has been helpful to you. Thank you very much for participating in this great project!
Flauto Dolce 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't it great? Like you, I am using Firefox, searching with Ctrl-F in large pages and looking for links of a different color in small ones. Unvisited links are displayed in blue, visited links in purple. Perhaps that is the default setting; I certainly don't remember changing it. At any rate, there is enough of a contrast to be helpful.
- Flauto Dolce 01:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Smile
- No problem. --Sir James Paul, La gloria è a dio 17:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Simple English Wikiquote
Congradulations.
I was thinking the other day about the reasons that SEWQ is needed, and there were two particular examples that I came up with. We need SEWQ for the same reason that I have a dual-language version of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and for the same reason that my "Annotated Shakespeare" is the Shakespeare reference that I usually turn to for information on Shakespeare.
Good luck with SEWQ, and hopefully with your help the project will stick around. BlankVerse 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that having a moving picture on the Main Page isn't a problem in the way you describe. As you can see here, when an animation appears on the Main Page a still version is created and the moving version is linked to, so there won't be any annoying animations. Raven4x4x 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Eicosanoid Peer Review
I've asked for Peer review of Eicosanoid. Since you've made good contributions with some of the associated pages, I'd like your input.David.Throop 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Birthcontrol infobox
Hi, whilst I agree you have discussed various points well, I do not see a clear consensus on Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy_rate" rather than "failure_rate" for the change to proceed. Discussion has been ongoing since 7th January, but absence of further replies does not make the last comments added the "final word". Please do not implement change on the template itself for now - I reverted on Essure, but then saw the more widespread changes you have recently made and I have no great desire to wholesale revert a large number of articles (and risk accidentally escalating an interesting and thoughtful discussion into argument). I feel we need to re-kick start the discussion to clarify how others do/do not wish to proceed. A straw poll is one option, perhaps raising a couple of options for quick & simple responding to, eg (a) keep as "failure rate" in all cases Agree/Disagree (b) preserve this phrase only for methods that are meant to be perminant Agree/Disagree and (c) other case-by-case selection of terms. David Ruben Talk 02:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Politeness
Hi Coppertwig. Thanks for the timely reminder. A cool head goes a long way here. Regards AKAF 09:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Coppertwig, Actually the comment about the bottom of the talk page was initially directed at Genick who was putting some of his comments as a new section at the top of the page, some at the bottom and some in the middle. I actually managed to miss some good suggestions on the Talk:Shock wave page because of interspersing, and I'm always sorry to see good ideas ignored for relatively trivial reasons. That said, my preferred option as a reader is all material in time-order with blockquoted references if necessary, while my preferred option as a writer is interspersion. It seems I can't even please myself, so I'm scarcely in a position to lecture others :-). AKAF 10:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
AIDS article
Coppertwig, thank you for the message on my talk page. While I appreciate the intention behind your message I am in fact an administrator with over 40,000 edits so I have some familiarity with how things work around here. The issue you are referring to between Hne123 and myself has resolved yesterday and does not require further intervention or discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 12:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
About your warning
It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith There's a point when it becomes not a personal attack to call out patterns of policy violation, but simply a matter of calling a spade a spade, so give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Re:Your comment on Talk:Uncommon Dissent
Might I suggest you get a clue before leaving comments that are factually false on my talk page. See the above comments by FM. Also, I do not need your "lecturing", thank you very much (cf. above again). •Jim62sch• 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The above comment is in reply to the following comment by me on user Jim62sch's talk page, which Jim62sch deleted less than 24 hours after I posted it:
- Re the following comment by you:
- "(ri) The assumption of good faith is not a suicide pact, and is an assumption that is only extended so far as the editor in question actually merits the assumption. Tim Smith does not merit the extension of an assumption of good-faith (see his RfC), hence "poisoning the well" was used appropriately in referring to his "contributions". •Jim62sch• 14:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)"
- I have read the RfC and see no basis for the above remark. Please restrict your comments on talk pages of articles to discussion of article comment as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Coppertwig 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Re the following comment by you:
- --Coppertwig 14:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, deleted as inaccurate and unfounded. Deleted twice in fact. If you have a valid point to make, we'll talk, if not... •Jim62sch• 14:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've posted a message on Jim62sch's talk page asking which sentence of my comment the user believes to be false. --Coppertwig 16:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
---
What do you see as factually false in my comment to you? I claimed that you posted a certain comment to Talk:Uncommon Dissent; that I saw no basis for your remark; and I asked you to restrict your comments on article talk pages to article content (which I misspelled "comment"). Was the comment I quoted from Talk:Uncommon Dissent not posted by you? --Coppertwig 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your more recent post on my talk page: Again, what do you see as inaccurate about my comment? Did you not post the comment I quoted and attributed to you? Which sentence in my comment do you believe to be false? --Coppertwig 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- This "I have read the RfC and see no basis for the above remark" calls into question your judgment.
- BTW: as noted, the WP:AGF policy covers my comments, therefore your assertion of WP:NPA is inaccurate. See WP:SPADE. •Jim62sch• 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize if my mention of WP:NPA was misconstrued. I intended to ask you to comply with this policy: "Comment on content, not on the contributor" or similar policy on that page. My mention of the page WP:NPA was not intended to imply that you had carried out a "personal attack". I should have edited my comment so that the link to WP:NPA did not display the words "personal attack". Note that in my comment I nowhere stated that you had made a personal attack, however.
- My comment "I see no basis for the above remark" is intended as a statement of my judgment of the situation. It's not reasonable for you to claim that I see a basis for something when I say that I do not. --Coppertwig 16:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Safavid Art
Dear Coppertwig! I posted a translation request for Safavid art from French to English. The French article is now a featured article. It is very kind of you if you could translate it or forward the request to some one you may know of. Thanks in advance. Sangak 18:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
About your method
About: [3] Since when is an explanation for every edit mandatory? This could be taken as biting newbies. Viewed with your leaving of clueless "warnings" [4], this raises some questions about your method. You are not an admin and clearly not up to speed on policy either. I suggest you stop taking action against other editors and focus on contributing to that article. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- (At least I'm not the only editor to have my user page sullied by Coppertick's useless and evansecent warnings.) Copper, learn some policy before pretending to be an admin, stuff the warnings, and learn to cooperate.•Jim62sch• 22:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
When moving a page you're supposed to check for double redirects. You didn't. Are you planning on fixing this or do you expect someone else to clean up your mess? Special:Whatlinkshere/Canada's_Food_Guide_to_Healthy_Eating --Walter Görlitz 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed. --Walter Görlitz 22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- The way you look for double redirects is that you go back to the page you just moved then click on the "What Links Here". Some links may be listed as redirects. They must be changed. The others should be changed. --Walter Görlitz 08:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
They're Creepy and they're Kooky, we all read Dan Brown's booky, now Dave Cameron's gone loopy, the Jesus Family!
(The above unsigned heading was added to this page by User:61.8.104.113).
Comment at WT:ATT
I see your point there, but the thing there is, it would be hard to determine. With an accredited university, they've undergone (and periodically undergo again) a rigorous certification by an accreditation body which decides if their degree-granting procedures are sufficiently rigorous. Perhaps better to say that an accredited university's procedure should be presumed reliable, and that an unaccredited university's procedures should be presumed unreliable, unless the contrary can clearly be shown? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
Hello, Coppertwig: thank you for your careful proof-reading of my Userpage. Some people don't think it's amusing at all! --Wetman 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Attribution
The article was about an Indian writer for whom no reliable sources could be found. The editors of the page said that the writer existed, and I told them that for him to have a Wikipedia article, the information about him must be verifiable. This got me nowhere because the editors were saying that they could personally verify that he existed and that it was well-known that he worked at Pune university, etc. I realised then that the word "verifiable" was not helping me, because the editors took it to mean that they could vouch for the information rather than that sources were required. "Verifiability, not truth" therefore came across as a contradiction in that situation, because these people were sure that the man existed, and, what's more, I believed them. This difficulty was what gave me the idea of quoting the new Attribution page, even though it was still only a proposed policy at the time. By saying now that I wasn't questioning the truth of the man's existence but that a Wikipedia article must have information attributable to reliable sources, the impression was then avoided that I was challenging the verifiability of the man's existence, ie. the truth. All I was questioning was the attributability of the man's existence. So the following wording proved much more useful to my needs than my previous use of the difficult and semantically complex word "verifiable":
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
qp10qp 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source.
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not merely whether it is true.
- Would these have been equally helpful? --Coppertwig 00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, with the first one, I would have to discuss the issue of truth using my own vocabulary, rather than being able to quote the policy which says "not whether it is true". You have to have that second phrase available because people will say "but it's true".
- The second one is a weaker form of the present wording. But I'd find it awkward to tell someone that what they were saying was merely true.
- qp10qp 01:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Response.
I responded on my talk page with: Well...um...you're welcome! I decided to write the policy the way I did because I thought it would cover the problems. Everyone is welcome to suggest additions to the proposal. Acalamari 00:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Please do not add this again. You have only made a few hundreds edits to articles, and yet suddenly have become obsessed with changing a core content policy. Please gain more editing experience first. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- There is no dispute. Several experienced editors have told you there isn't, and if you continue, you may face administrative action, so I urge caution. Please consider taking my advice and gaining more editing experience before you jump into protracted policy discussion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me
Sure you can quote my stuff, unless you take it out of context. (Of course, it seems to be in context there.) My stuff's all GFDL, after all :) GracenotesT § 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
ATT
Coppertwig, please stop changing WP:ATT. Just because people don't respond to you on talk doesn't mean they agree or don't object. If people don't respond, please take it as an objection from now. The policy was extensively discussed, both as NOR and V, and in the early stages of ATT. The current wording has wide consensus, so please don't change anything unless you get clear, strong, and unambiguous consensus from all involved editors on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think you may have misunderstood the situation. The page has been developed already and is now policy. It therefore needs to be stable. It is very much the norm with policies that silence means you have no support, and I'm not asking for you a personal favor. I'm letting you know that your changes are viewed as disruptive by several editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)