User talk:Acadēmica Orientālis

Welcome!

Hello, Acadēmica Orientālis, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! aprock (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Productive discussion versus advocacy
With respect to collapsing the discussion:, I appreciate that you feel I'm trying to "win an argument". As it stands, all you've done is advocate for including content that you personally would like to promote despite being given clear rationales as to why it's not appropriate. None of your responses have been in any way productive or given any clear and sensible rationale for inclusion. Spamming talk pages with noisesome walls of text when editors disagree with your suggested edits does not promote constructive and collaborative editing. Please do consider revising your approach to disputes, as your current tack seems unlikely to lead to anything constructive. aprock (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes two to have a discussion. Moreover, you seem to be the minority view in the page in question to I suggest that you yourself consider you own advice. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do read WP:CONSENSUS: "This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." When faced with two editors that cannot form a coherent rationale, it's very easy for a single editor to hold the consensus view.  You'd do yourself a great favor if you made some greater efforts in understanding and sticking to policy. aprock (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. If you have any concrete point regarding policy you want to take up, then please do so on the talk page of the article. It seems hard to argue that one editor opposed by two others represent the consensus. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am certainly assuming good faith. That is why I'm pointing you to the appropriate policies, and asking that you consider taking a more productive approach to talk page discussion.  Your understanding of policy is quite muddled and does not match actual policy.  Your comments on consensus here clearly illustrate this problem.  Updating your understanding to match actual policy would go a long way in improving your productivity.  Most curiously, this edit  seems to indicate that you are the one who is in the "minority" here.  As noted several times in the collapsed section, you would be well served to actually review the talk page discussion. aprock (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The mentioned editor has repeatedly argued against your exclusion of links in the template. Maybe we should ask him again in light of this new discussion? If you have any concrete policy related issues, then please discuss them on the article talk page. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to ignore his closing comments on the subject, that's up to you. That sort of disruptive editing won't get you very far. aprock (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he simply gave up due to your repeated arguing. His final comment also seems to be about only one of the disputed links. I will ask the editor again about his opinion.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect to canvasing an editor who may share your point of view, if he's interested in the template, he'll have the page on his watch list. If you'd like to invite more editors to the discussion, and RfC is probably the more appropriate procedure. aprock (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Asking him for a clarification seems hardly to be canvasing? Obviously many people do not have all articles the edit on their watchlist.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that in addition to reviewing WP:CONSENSUS you might also do well to review WP:CANVASSING. aprock (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Which applies here in order to clarify what the consensus is. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Inbreeding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Potential Superpowers
There is a self-imposed policy not to include sources that doesn't mention a nation's potential for superpowerdom, in order to avoid original research. I'll provide this quote from the user User:Saruman20 from the third archive discussion page.

"In order to avoid the type of synthesis and OR that now plagues this article and has resulted in edit wars and near deletion in the past, we need to reconsider how we are going to edit and word this article. We could continue to use OR and say things like "Country A has a high B, 7th in the world", to back up our own ideas about who are "potential superpowers" and who arn't. Supporting facts are all good fun, but this isn't a article for reporting facts and statistics about a certain country, it is an article for reporting on expert opinions on the matter at hand. What we should be doing is wording it something like this:

"Expert A believes Country B will be a superpower because of factors C and D." Not: "Country A is a potential superpower because of it's high factor B."

What you believe makes a country a potential superpower is irrelevant. It is the beliefs of the experts that matter. If you believe an expert is wrong, that's your opinion, but it's their opinion that matters, not yours. We should use scholorary, academic sources, not blogs, statistics, or new articles to back up our reports. News articles are not normally reliable sources! Reliable sources are scholors, authors, diplomats, etc... People who actually know something about the subject, not a journalist assigned to report on it. Please, consider this before you edit the article." Swedish pirate (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is just the personal opinion of one particular user made 3 years ago and who has not made any recent edits to the article. There is no policy requirement that a source must contain a word from the title of the article. It essentially reduces the article to collection of quotes containing the word "superpower". For example, there is no requirement that a source for the article Economy of the People's Republic of China must contain the exact word "economy". Words like GDP, exports, trade, manufacturing, patents, natural resources, and so on are fine. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy is self-imposed to avoid OR, and it wasn't the opinion of one editor, but of the vast majority of editors keeping a watch on this article. I have seen quite a bit of nationalistic pride that has gotten in the way of objective and creative editing and therefore, with the threat of page deletion, it was decided that the article is to only mirror the position of various experts, and we have therefore managed to uplift the article to a relatively good level of quality. If you are serious in your wish to change this policy, then I suggest taking it to the discussion page. Swedish pirate (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

IP Edits?
Is this you? Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Racism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segregation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

spelling in editor
Hey, just dropping by to mention that I appreciated your work on the suicide article; I found it via the recent changes plugin; when you are editing, misspelled words appear in the edit box with a red outline. Check your work (and that of others !) Keep up the good work. --Fraulein451 (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Killer ape theory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Outgroup


 * Moralistic fallacy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to A priori


 * Problem of evil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Incommensurable


 * Seville Statement on Violence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Outgroup

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Child development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Murray, Herrnstein, and the Pioneer Fund
While those two were not funded by the Pioneer Fund, their book The Bell Curve was mostly based on research from Pioneer Fund researchers. The parties are by no means independent. aprock (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They have not received any money from the Pioneer Fund. Citing older studies does not make them funded by the PF. They also did new research not in any previous study.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say they received any money from them. aprock (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your original text seemed to indicated that you doubted my statement that they were not funded: Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Typo is as typo does. aprock (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:PISA 2009 Mathematics.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PISA 2009 Mathematics.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Review
Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:


 * 1) Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
 * 2) Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
 * 3) Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
 * 4) Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
 * 5) Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc ( powwow ) 16:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. When you recently edited Science and technology in the People's Republic of China, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keith Alexander and Hacker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Cinderella effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stepchildren (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding your edits on the PISA article
See discussion here.

Thanks.

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Sex-selective abortion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Romani


 * Trivers–Willard hypothesis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Romani

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

April 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I noticed that your username (Acadēmica Orientālis) may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because This user name is nearly identical to that of a San Francisco based company. Additionally, claiming to be another user and having lost the password is not allowed, you can retrieve it using Special:PasswordReset. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account to use for editing. Thank you. WGFinley (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My former username had no email attached to it so I cannot use Special:PasswordReset (Furthermore, even if there was an email, I also lost some of my email passwords). I did create a new account. I cannot find a similarly named company. Which one are you thinking about? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the name of a charter school in San Francisco. You should remove the reference to the other account, there's no way to confirm that is your account or not. --WGFinley (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I have removed the reference both here and at user:Miradre. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good but I still find your user name to be problematic. It can create confusion and indicate an affiliation that doesn't exist. Your account is pretty new still it would be pretty easy to change it to something less confusing. --WGFinley (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any organization with the same name with or without special Latin characters. There are a number of different organisations all calling themselves the rather general Latin phrase "Academia Orientalis", without a "c", but it seems to me that there is little chance of confusion with "Acadēmica Orientālis" which in addition uses special Latin characters. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The matter of context
The problem with the article is that it doesn't actually give much of an input on to what the film format is, and really only refers to IMAX. The references say it is opening in 60 places and that is about it, nothing about the medium, is it digital or is it film? Under WP:CRYSTALBALL it is not good to say 'will be' or 'later this year', we want something to happen before we write an article on it. The article right now has the wording of 'Its like IMAX, but better because its cheaper!' which treads close to the 'Chinese knockoff of questionable legality'. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess we have to wait a little. If things goes as planned I expect we will hear more about it soon.Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 2016 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Economy of China


 * Science and technology in the People's Republic of China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to DMAX

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Use preview button
Can you make use of the preview button to avoid piling large numbers of unnecessary edits to a page? Thanks -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will try. English is not my native language and spotting mistakes can take some time and occur after a while when I reread after doing something else. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well at least your grammar is good... Quite an important requirement when writing an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Much appreciated! Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. When you recently edited Climate change in China, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carbon trading (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Acadēmica Orientālis/China–Latin America relations has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/China–Latin America relations, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 China–Latin America relations, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

China-Africa
Hello, please read this : 1. It may be convenient to transform the article Sino-African relations into an historic-diplomatic overview as People's_Republic_of_China–United_States_relations by merging diplomatic-historic sections/contents.
 * Talk:Sino-African_relations.

The Involvement article can then focus on the post-80 revival and its problematics. Sound good ! Yug (talk)  20:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only reason this area may be problematic is because of the issue with Taiwan and how the deal with the common history before the creation of the PRC. However, since the China article now handles also the history before the PRC this seems to be a minor problem. I think it would be best to have a single article called Africa-China relations or African-Sino relations. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What source?
I have searched through that book and nothing is shown about castration, so I removed that. Also, the part on animals. Please don't cite like you did there. You must cite after every 'fact'. It doesn't matter if it came from the same book. The most import part is to source the page number of the book. I have done it for you and cited the ones that were in the book but next time it's your job. It's important to be clear.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, as is usual in academic literature there is no need to cite after every sentence. After every paragraph is fine. Castration and animal sex differences regarding aggression are mentioned on page 208. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, but I cannot claim credit for the article contents. I have merely been involved in changing the two Africa–China relations articles to better names. Academica Orientalis (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Acadēmica Orientālis
I did notice a ANI that there were a bunch of people who were annoyed that you responded to every comment, it's not anything that gets you into trouble mind you, and it's not wrong, but there are a few people who might judge you by that. Not that they'd be correct, and thank goodness most of them have no power to do anything more than put in a 'vote'. The people who do judge the situation generally will read what you are saying and won't need to read it several times to get the idea. I'm not saying mention things just once, because there are some pretty obtuse people out there, but generally just take a look if you have said something in the last few sentences and ask yourself if you really need to repeat it.

I think if you let your single remarks stand with less repetition, the people's arguments against you would deflate a lot faster. Don't worry about ANI, I calculate there is less than a 5% chance of any action against you, the 5% is just because there are some very strange loose cannons out there which are unpredictable.

Keep going the way you do though, staying well clear of any 'bright lines', it keeps you out of trouble. Your overwhelmingly civilized behaviour is actually better than mine, although I have been pretty good for ages with no decent edit war, I really have to look into that :) But that is what totally saves you, your good clean reputation on warring, there is a lot to be said for that.

As for the pov or one-sided editing, I have no idea if you are right or wrong because I don't ask that question, that is because the outcome in your case is the same for both conditions. If you are right you are right, if you were wrong, then please come and take the place of the nasties I have to put up with, you'd be a refreshing change !!! Respecting the process, respecting consensus, my god, you'd be the sweetest 'devil I knew'. You should advertise if you want to get into the arch-nemesis game, because there are hundreds of frustrated editors who wake up in the morning to find some sock has undone all their work and made a mess. An 'enemy' you can turn your back on and trust is just a friend who you don't agree with at all. I think some people don't know what they have got until it's gone. Anyhow, keep up the good work, and learn how to take the wind out of your opponents sails, there is something called 'writing for the enemy' mentioned in the docs somewhere I think, you might like to read up on that if some talkpage stalker can link to it, or if you can find it. Penyulap  ☏  23:52, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes, you are right about how I presented my case. But I think that the probability that I will get banned approaches 100%. No administrator is going to dare to go against a strong opinion against a user who has expressed an unpopular views on this topic. They would risk censure themselves. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * the fact that you haven't crossed any bright lines, and that you've avoided them consistently by such a wide margin makes it incredibly unlikely. Think of 'votes' as the wood that gets piled up underneath the poor person who is tied to a stake for witch burning. everyone turns up at ANI with wood to throw on the fire hoping to see a good show, but not everyone has matches, and the people who do just aren't getting the matches out of their pockets, they're not even reaching for them. I won't give clues to your critics, so I won't go into detail on what those in the know are thinking, because I would rather things just settle right down, I would close the thread myself, however I have been too outspoken to do so. Don't worry about the wood piling up, I've seen it before, like for Jaguar, have a look there and you'll see what I mean. Everything will be fine, make a snack to eat, or take a walk, or watch a movie and don't worry. Penyulap  ☏  01:14, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I can only hope you are right. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think you're pretty much screwed. There is at present a strong, concerted effort to eliminate editors who - either currently or at some time in the past - have expressed or have been accused of expressing views which are, at first glance and with all the brains of a wildly jerking knee, "politically incorrect" or even "unpopular" regarding race, biology, intelligence, crime and/or any combination of those topics. Despite all the flag waving regarding NPOV, etc., the Wikipedia contrôleurs have a particular ideology regarding these issues, and there is nothing anyone is going to do to change their minds. You have solid secondary sources supporting your edits? Who cares? Any science supporting a politically uncomfortable view is - obviously - pseudo-science. Get it? The only way to win this game is to stop playing. By that, I mean people with views which differ from the accepted Wikipedia view (and don't let them bullshit you about it being based on "NPOV", "RS" or what-not; that's a smokescreen designed to make their ideology seem like its not an ideology, but "the truth") need to get off Wikipedia. This has two advantages: 1) it frees up your time to do something constructive instead of bickering with ideologues; 2) it will eventually make the fact that Wikipedia is heavily biased regarding these topics all the more apparent to uninvolved observers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.64.213 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that wikipedia is screwed, alternatives to wikipedia spring up all the time, and like everything on the Internet, every site and dot com, wikipedia will change or be marginalised slowly and 'disappear from the radar' Penyulap  ☏  14:30, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I should like to point out, just to be 100% certain, that you're not insulted with me saying you talk too much at ANI (read my comment there) because it is the pot calling the kettle black, we are the same, I talk far too much, I was just saying how my talkpage archive has killed miszabot twice because I yap and yap and yap so much.
 * Anyhow, I am probably going to present you with Donut of doom soon, as a complaint that you talk a lot. well, a lot of cats died as a result of eating the donut of doom as you will see on the doc page, and this is your own fault really, all that answering every comment. Ah, who am I kidding, ANI does that to everyone, makes them nervous because everyone is piling up wood at you feet to burn you alive and all, but you get used to it after a while, or at least, you learn how to avoid it I guess. I do know for sure though, that you'll be ok, and on wikipedia for a long time to come, so don't worry too much ok ? Penyulap  ☏  02:53, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Whatever happens so has your support been warming. Academica Orientalis (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Something for that big mouth of yours !
The Donut of DOOM You have been presented with The Donut of DOOM  Please take a nibble and tell us what you think

I must say I am glad you do have a sense of humour, and are a good sport, because then as a friend I can say...

"Shut up once in a while for crying out loud you talk too much !!!"

It's probably your biggest flaw, and maybe that is why your critics are so very vocal, to the point of sock puppeting in such an obvious fashion as far as I can tell, or at least getting incredibly upset. It's like a perfect match, you keep them going by answering them, and they keep you stirred up with malformed complaints that can't go anywhere. I think you'd do a lot better to silence them if you silenced yourself now and then.

Anyhow, you know I know you are a brilliant editor, and everyone says so as well even at ANI, like for China related articles and so on, so it would be so cool if you realise that great editors have an entourage of critics that follow them all around wikipedia criticising their every move, you have to realise that you should control them, not the other way around, learn to control their volume and you'll last longer.

That said I realise the irony of me telling anyone else they talk too much, I crashed Miszabot twice with my talkpage archive, so yes, I am as guilty as anyone in the talks too much department. Penyulap  ☏  12:49, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I probably repeat myself too much. But I still feel I must answer if they make new and I think incorrect arguments or if there are in my opinion misunderstandings. Thanks for you encouragement.Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, and you do have my support. People have their different points of view, and when they are civil and abide by all the rules, anything beyond that is just thought police. Excluding people because they are disruptive, yes, excluding people who have a different opinion, no.
 * I feel the same need to discuss, more as a need to clarify and understand the other persons point of view, and less so to change it. People are entitled to their opinions, so maybe we can both try to recognize that we shouldn't try to change other peoples minds by answering every remark, just let them 'wallow in their ignorance' :) as it were. Penyulap  ☏  18:15, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * you should also be really careful and aware that there are people who will take advantage of you, victimizing you because they know you will respond when they ask you questions, and so they keep the conversation going on and on and on, by baiting you, as well as pretending not to understand or pretending not to agree. You'll have to keep an eye out for that, I have come across people who pretend to be ignorant when it suits their cause, and you need to be careful there. Penyulap  ☏  18:37, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that may very well be the case. Also, FYI, someone has made weird accusations against you: . Typical of the evidence presented in this case. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A million thanks for that ! I never would have seen him/her if you hadn't mentioned it, at first I wanted to sincerely embrace that editor for their help illustrating the quality of my critics, but I'm afraid that I'll have to hand that one over to you, I think they were more to do you with whatever it is you're doing which has them upset. I always fall off my chair laughing at things like that, although not everyone is as good at spotting the better hidden ones, and seeing through their amusing antics as I am, or so my friends keep saying. Penyulap  ☏  16:23, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

ARrrrghh, help!! I ...must...fight... the urge.... to respond ...at ....ANI, I don't know if I can be strong enough....to re...sist. Help me Acadēmica Orientālis, you're my only hope. Penyulap  ☏  06:51, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a hard temptation, isn't it? I also feel the temptation to respond to the latest absurd accusation against you but I do not know if you want me to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No no, not at all, that's the lesson to be learned, that if an accusation is absurd, it's better to let it stand, as absurd accusations are their own best critique. Penyulap  ☏  15:02, 1 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * right now, this moment, strategically, would be the best moment to not say a word, the silence would be deafening and speak louder in your favor than your last 50 comments. Penyulap  ☏  01:44, 3 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Hi Academica Orientalis, I stopped by to see how you were going, and I see you have been quiet, which is like totally understandable I mean, on any given day at least 6 parts of me want to give up on this nonsense. I see ANI is still constipated, it's still there, 20 pages or something with people scratching themselves at both ends wondering why. It's an interesting thing that simplicity itself can pack it up there into a solid mass. I've been trying to do the job that people don't want the documentation to do, that is, explain policy to a bunch of people on User talk:Jssteil‎ kind of weird thing that, they don't want it in docs, they want people to argue about it. They want people to argue about it so they can join in the argument and argue some more. I mean, if people know I'm explaining policy then they want to follow me around and argue about it, which is in itself hilarious because just writing it down solves everything. People seem obsessed with this whole arguing into oblivion thing. They'd die, go to heaven, and then argue with anyone who wanted to let them in. Weird. Fascinating. I think the Americans are to blame for it really. I think it's cultural or something. They have some very strange ways to settle disputes, but then again, what culture doesn't have strange ways to settle disputes ? Trying to argue them all together into one big pot is weird. Thinking it will work is absurd. I always feel it's better to design fundamentally to make it practically impossible to have an argument. Like writing books. Never yet seen a book with 1 page intro, 2 page contents, 300 pages of book followed by 3 pages of index and then 1200 pages of argument. Yes, I think this titanic unsinkable idea of embodying higher thought processes into a mob mentality has some shortcomings. I hope you are having fun whatever you are up to. Penyulap  ☏  12:21, 17 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes you eat the bear...
Apparently no admin is going to close the thread, which is a rather unsatisfactory outcome, although probably more so for me than for you. I guess that means that we're stuck with each other for the time being. That leaves me two choices: either I make it my new wiki hobby to patrol your contributions for neutrality, or I shrug and unwatch the pages where you are likely to contribute and focus on writing my own content. The latter option is basically what I had done untill IRWolfie's post at RSN draw my attention to Biology and political orientation. Perhaps I'll try that strategy again. Wikipedia is big enough that we maybe not cross paths in a while.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm rather glad there are other options to this, so that the two of you will have an easier time of it. I see a lot of scope and promise for you two working together when the skies clear. Penyulap  ☏  06:09, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't count on it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello there, as you may see I have closed the discussion. I took the view that the consensus there was that you should not edit any articles, talk pages or other pages on topics related broadly to nature/nurture. My own view was that there was insufficient reason for a topic ban but my job as closing admin was to weigh the consensus, not to pursue my own views. I have no doubt that you will think this is unfair and unjustified. There are two ways round this. One is to ignore the feedback at AN/I but keep your nose clean, serve your time and return to the fray in 6 months. Another is to try and take on board some of the criticism by decoding it into concepts you can accept. Is there anything in what people have written that you could turn into good advice and positive feedback for the future? Can you turn the criticism into a tool to improve your editing here? Even if you think it's unjustified, there must be some reason why so many folks have taken a view against you... Perhaps you can take something positive from this situation? Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Grats
Congratulations. I thought you were a deader for sure. Of course, it is still ANI, so, six months, eh? Sigh. I did not pay close attention to the details, but I would bet good money you were a good deal more hounded than guilty. Good to see someone not only stick to their guns but come out unbanned afterwards. You are an inspiration; I had come to the conclusion that defending oneself at ANI was suicide. There is still some truth to that; it is still a war of attrition. But you have shown that insightful and polite defense can actually leave the hounds looking bloodthirsty, even if it also an unceasing defense. Anarchangel (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom discussion
I discussed you here. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

3rd party opinion request
Hey Orientalis, there's a debate here on the Talk:Chengdu J-20 page as to whether or not it is a 'purported' or actual 5th-generation stealth fighter. The citation numerous authors have used seems to be unclear on this and I'm concerned 'purported' is a weasel word. I don't want to run afoul of 3RR, so please check in, thanks. If you find purported to be a weasel word, feel free to edit it out of the first sentence on the Chengdu J-20 page.

Lostromantic (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC DMAX (film format) was accepted
 DMAX (film format), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Spinning Spark  18:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File:PISA 2009 Reading StatWorld.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PISA 2009 Reading StatWorld.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Matr1x-101 (Ping me when replying) { user page (@ commons) - talk }  17:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)