User talk:CWenger/Archives/2011/January

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * Try our tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * Keep the Five Pillars of Wikipedia in mind, and remember to write from a neutral point of view.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126;, or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!

Kirill Lokshin 01:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics
CMBJ, why did you remove the 'Events controversy' section of this article? It is very important. A subsection over judging controversies (in gymnastics at least) should be added also. Cwenger (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not removed any sections from Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics. I'm actually the one that restructured the article and escalated the events controversy section to the top, because it is most relevant to the games. Have you mistakenly identified me? —  C M B J   02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Project 119
Hi Cwenger, thanks for your note - until (and unless) a page is created, a redirect is more useful to readers than a blank page - if the redirect does not exist, then anyone typing "Project 119" into Wikipedia won't know what it relates to. Neıl   ☄   13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation
Out of curiosity, what exactly is a hyphenation expert? I'm trying to figure out if I'm one :) - Mgcsinc (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically just someone who recognizes the many needs for hyphens. They are chronically underused. Compound modifiers are most often lacking, e.g. a web-based application, a hard-won fight, high-resolution video. Cwenger (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Players
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 23:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Oscar987, as I recall I only made minor changes to one or two volleyball player articles. I don't have much knowledge or interest in the subject, so I am probably not a very good choice. Sorry. -Cwenger (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Adoption Offer
I'd be happy to adopt you!~ Qwerp Qwertus  ·  _Contact Me_ · _Talkback_ ·   01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi QwerpQwertus, sounds great! How do I accept? -Cwenger (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, let me just add a userbox to each of our userpages... ~ Qwerp Qwertus  ·  _Contact Me_ · _Talkback_ ·   04:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

 * Ok, you're adopted - to be honest, I've never really adopted anyone before, I just joined the program, so I guess I'll start with a few tips and tricks...
 * -On Talk Pages...
 * Be kind and curteous - especially when involved in a dispute or when collaborating
 * Sign all your posts by typing "~".
 * Indent once more for each added response with :
 * -When Editing...
 * Always use the edit summary to describe what changes and why you made those changes
 * Decide wether it is a minor or major edit with the box
 * Try to be neutral and use references\sources readily
 * -When starting articles
 * Make sure it is notable enough
 * Make sure to be neutral
 * Make sure to source and reference heavily
 * -Uploading Images
 * Once you are auto-confirmed or confirmed, you can upload images
 * You should carefully read policy for the type of picture are using before doing anything
 * -Types of Users
 * Anonymous\IP Address - only editing
 * New User - editing, userpage
 * Confirmed or Autofirmed User - moving, editing, images, semi-protected editing
 * Administrator - deleting, blocking, mediating also
 * Beaucrat - create accounts change Wikipedia make admins - almost anything
 * -Areas
 * Article Space
 * User talk Space
 * Userspace
 * Wikiepdia Space
 * Wikipedia talk space
 * Category
 * Category talk
 * talk
 * and many others
 * -For help
 * Wikiettiquite alerts - if some has been mean or threatening
 * Help desk - help with anything Wikipedia
 * Reference Desk - if you need to know something
 * My Talk Page - I can help you with most things, or at least point you to somewhere where they can.
 * -Things To Do
 * Create Articles near you or that you like
 * Edit Articles near you or that you like
 * Help others
 * Gramatical\other minor edits


 * Anyways, I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay! I'm glad to have been able to adopt you! ~ Qwerp Qwertus  ·  _Contact Me_ · _Talkback_ ·   20:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How do I adopt you...I dont get it??????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.183.81 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

A nice cup of...
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000066; background-color:#DDEEFF; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Caffieinebooost (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Suggested merge: History of Hydro-Québec and Hydro-Québec
I've seen your merge proposal of the two above-mentioned articles. However History of Hydro-Québec is itself a longer version of Hydro-Québec's history section. At 148K, Hydro-Québec is way too long and should be shortened. Bouchecl (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like both articles are too long. I think they should both be shortened and History of Hydro-Québec should be merged into Hydro-Québec's history section given the high degree of overlap. -Cwenger (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

AWB
Hello! Just so you know, if you haven't already, you have enough edits to request the abiltiy to use AutoWikiBrowser (563 mainspace). You can do so by adding " " to the bottom of the users list on this page.:) ~ <i style="font-size:small; font-family:Arial; color:#666990;">Qwerp</i> Qwertus ·  Contact Me  · 04:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I applied and was approved shortly after cracking 500 mainspace edits. Thanks for keeping track for me though! -Cwenger (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
FYI - You might be interested in applying for the reviewer userright. I'm not sure if you've heard much about it, but you can read a quick summary about it below (taken from the pending changes page)

Becoming a reviewer
If you meet the criteria below, then ask! Add your name to the list of requests at Requests for permissions/Reviewer.


 * 1) You have an account, and routinely edit.
 * 2) You have a reasonable editing history – as a guide, enough edits that a track record can be established.
 * 3) You have read our policy on vandalism and understand what is and what is not vandalism.
 * 4) You are familiar with the basic content policies: Biographies of living persons, Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability and What Wikipedia is not.
 * 5) You have read the guideline on reviewing.

If you have rollback or autopatrolled rights, you are a good candidate for reviewer rights as well – the level of trust is similar. Administrators automatically have reviewer rights.

Purpose of reviewing
The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection, a special kind of protection that permits anonymous and newly registered editors to submit edits to articles that would otherwise be semi- or fully protected under one or more of the criteria listed in the protection policy.

Reviewing process
Articles with pending changes are marked as such in watchlists and recent changes. In addition, there is a special page, Special:OldReviewedPages, which lists all articles with pending changes. Clicking on [Pending changes] will return the diff between the latest accepted revision and the last revision to the page. If you find an article with pending changes in another way, you can access the history and select the diff between the latest accepted revision (accepted revisions are marked) and the last revision. Most of the time, you should be able to complete the process from the diff alone, while in more complex cases you may have to check the recent history.

You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find that:
 * 1) it conflicts with the Biographies of Living People policy
 * 2) it contains vandalism or patent nonsense
 * 3) it contains obvious copyright violations
 * 4) it contains legal threats, personal attacks or libel.

Removal of content ('blanking') should also be examined. If this is vandalism the new revision should not be accepted, but blanking can be perfectly legitimate.

If you find no reason not to accept the new revision, then accept it from the reviewing screen; accepting doesn't prevent you from later editing the article to address concerns you may still have. Otherwise, if you think there are reasons not to accept the new revision, then you should edit the article to address the concerns:
 * 1) in case of obvious vandalism by one user, use native rollback or undo to revert the edit(s) (the new revision is automatically accepted)
 * 2) revert to a prior revision (justifying your revert if this is not clear vandalism), then accept the new revision
 * 3) See below for reviewing multiple edits.

Step-by-step "how-to" for reviewing multiple edits
Note: When reviewing multiple edits, bear in mind there may have been a good edit that has been removed by subsequent vandalism. Do not rely solely on what you see in the "pending review" page.
 * 1) Check the page history regardless of whether the version you see contains vandalism.
 * 2) If all the edits were made by one editor, and the most recent edit is vandalism, it is reasonable to assume they are all vandalism. Return to the review page, undo the series, and you are finished with your review. Go to 7.
 * 3) If the most recent version is good, you can review the previous edit in the series from the page history, and accept all edits that way.
 * 4) If the pending edits were made by multiple editors, review each edit individually from the page history. Undo any edit that is vandalism, a BLP violation, or clearly unacceptable according to review criteria. Each undo will create a new edit under your username, but will not be automatically accepted. Leave good edits in place, unreviewed.
 * 5) Once you are satisfied that all inappropriate edits have been undone, you will be left with good edits. Check the most recent pending edit to be certain you've removed all vandalism. Review that edit.
 * 6) This will clear the backlog of pending changes.
 * 7) Don't forget to breathe!

Editing pages with pending edits
If you edit a page with pending edits, there will be a note mentioning this between the page title and edit window, you can click to show the diff between the latest accepted revision and the last revision, and review pending edits. There is an option to accept the new revision you will save below the edit summary at the right of "watch this page". Be sure to have reviewed pending changes before clicking it. If you don't click it, after saving the software will ask if you want to accept the new revision.

Unaccepting (reversing an action to accept)
Unaccepting is reversing an action to accept, manual or automatic (hence you cannot unaccept a revision which has not been previously accepted). You should generally not unaccept revisions, except to undo yourself if you realize you have made a mistake. If you have concerns with an accepted revision, then edit the article to address the concerns. If you think a revision should not have been accepted, you may discuss the issue with the reviewer if you feel this is needed. Automatically accepted revisions should generally not be unaccepted, even if they were vandalism, because there is no benefit in doing so (it only removes the [automatically accepted] tag appended to it in the history).

You would almost certainly be approved and you can find pages that need reviewing at Special:OldReviewedPages. Also - congrats on getting rollback permissions! ~ <i style="font-size:small; font-family:Arial; color:#666990;">Qwerp</i> Qwertus  Talk  ツ   03:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.  Jujutacular  talk 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Toast
So should this be ok

"Popular culture

Toast can also be used as a reference to the heightened sexual appeal of a person. A clear example of this would be as follows:

The expression, "I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating toast" is used to indicate a person one would like to sleep with, even if that person left crumbs in the sheets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You need reliable sources to add that, and even then, it must be notable enough for inclusion. –CWenger (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So if i add urban dictionary as i previously had done for the source then this would be ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That would certainly help. But I would still be inclined to say that it does not meet the notability guidelines. There are over 5 million entries in Urban Dictionary (including 81 for toast!); if we put every one of those in Wikipedia it would really dilute the content. I recommend you post on the talk page for toast and get some feedback there. –CWenger (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict):Urban Dictionary alone is generally not a sufficent source for information, as their control mechanisms are questionable. You need to provide other -- at least one other -- source showing the existence of the terminology. Then, you need to consider: is this notable? Is this the sort of thing that one hears commonly (at least in a particular location or subculture or venue), or that appears in (at least some) published works, that sort of thing. If you cannot find any written materials that demonstrate or talk about this usage, that is probably a pretty good indication that the usage is not notable. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Act of Leon Trotsky"??? Vandalism!?!?
"Act of Leon Trotsky" is nonsensical. This is clearly a mistranslation of "akt" the Polish word for nude. Even if I'm wrong about this, I don't see how it could possibly constitute vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.24.175 (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are correct. I (and others) should not have reverted your edits. It is just something that appears to be vandalism at first glance but upon closer inspection is most certainly not. –CWenger (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Producer Info
I received a warning for correcting erroneous information on two album pages. This name was attached to it. Is this the place to discuss the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.53.86 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Urine, since the two together probably should not have an article, just individually. Sorry again! –CWenger (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, my apologies, your edits looked like vandalism but were correct. You have already been unblocked. The one thing I would recommend is making the producers on those albums James Galus

Thank you
Thank you for the barnstar. I felt partially responsible since it was my ARV that initially got them the block (I tried to rollback the edit you did). After investigating a bit though it seemed legitimate. Trying to make up for it I guess. Thanks again. Shadowjams (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Radiology
It's funny, you say on your userpage that you don't put two spaces after a full stop and yet you reverted my edit where I cleaned out double spaces while reverting a vandalism. Slightsmile (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I remember this rollback, I was intending to revert this edit but somehow got yours as well. Usually Huggle warns me about that but for some reason this time it didn't. –CWenger (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw after I posted this that it was an accident. I've havn't started using these tools yet but I hear they're really handy. Slightsmile (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Josue ponce
Note about that page, I undid your edit and tagged it for speedy deletion as a G7 (author blanked). Be sure to double check the page history on newer articles like that. <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"> <B>Allmightyduck</B>  <B>&#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> What did I do wrong?  02:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just reverted the revision to put the speedy deletion tag back, I wasn't that focused on the rest of the content. –CWenger (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Im very sory for making vandalism, and i will now stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow336 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical case edit
Hello, Cwenger. I was the one who made the edit to the Grammatical case article that you just reverted. My reason for that edit was that the translation given in the article looked like a machine translation. My edit was an attempt to correct that. PRH (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, looked like vandalism. –CWenger (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. My very first vandal visitor! 28bytes (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Consider it an honor! –CWenger (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figure I must be doing something right! 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Many Many Thanks!
Thank U for saving Wikipage “western Orissa” from vandalism by IP 115.113.112.98 on dated 25.09.2010. In the past also, there had been attempts by some over jealous persons, presumably from Eastern (Coastal) Orissa, to distort / erase, few sentences/ some chaps/ entire article pertaining to Western Orissa, Sambalpur, Sambalpur district, Sambalpuri language, Sundergarh, Sundergarh district and other districts of Western Orissa, some of which were reverted. After all Wikipedia is a store house of knowledge and information, from which the entire human race can benefit. I feel that, filling up of edit summary should be made mandatory for saving page after editing otherwise saving page should be made impossible. This step will control vandalism to some extent. Thank you again.K arundhati (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! –CWenger (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Devin Hester
Dude, I am not sure why my edit on my home-boy Devin Hester was "unconstructive." It is true information about Devin and I even put in a citation to support the edit. Let's bring it back, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ron Furmanek
Hello Cwenger. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ron Furmanek, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Grammy nominated is an assertion of importance. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Proof of ownership
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Cwenger. –CWenger (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NFLactive
Please leave a comment here. —bender235 (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sharron Angle
I don't agree with your edit, but I can understand it and I can live with it. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your civility. But what's not to agree with? Wikipedia's own page on Daily Kos calls them a progressive blog with no pretenses of neutrality. –CWenger (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I get that, Kos has a definite POV. But when I found and added a NPOV cite, you removed that, too, as NN and NPOV.  I can't seem to win. LOL. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Truthout is described as a progressive news organization on Wikipedia also. Plus William Rivers Pitt is not a well-known political commentator, as far as I know. I am tempted to argue that this whole paragraph is unnecessary and too slanted toward recent events, but Jim Clyburn is a prominent congressman and E.J. Dionne is a popular columnist, so I am fine with keeping their quotes. –CWenger (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just reporting the facts. Well, in any case, I added a CBS News "nationwide telephone poll" to give a third view. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Sharron Angle appears to have brought up Second Amendment remedies on three occasions. One of them was quoted in the article. I stuck the other two in. This makes the section unwieldy, but I feel that the newfound prominence and morbid context caused by this whole mess make it important that we give a fair and accurate account. Was that a run-on? Anyway, the three are different enough that removing any one of them would give readers a wrong idea of what Angle has been saying.

I am not fond of the woman at all, so in the interests of fairness, could you take a look? --Kiz o r  11:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a bit of undue weight, considering how the Second Amendment section is now at least twice as long as the next longest Positions section, health care, which certainly was as or more important in her recent campaign. Perhaps one or two of the quotes can be removed or shortened? Otherwise I think it is fine, and I appreciate you checking with me. –CWenger (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The suggestion about removing some of the quotes is a poser. The first of the three is the only one that explicitly links Second Amendment action to gun violence. Removing it would make the section inaccurate by making Angle's other statements falsely ambivalent. The second one makes clear that she's floating the idea of "Second Amendment remedies" instead of encouraging them outright (the third one also touches on this issue, but the spectacularly unfortunate statement on Reid makes that quote anything but clear). Removing it would be unfair to her. The third is the one where she most clearly floats the idea of an armed revolt, the one that either calls for one if the vote doesn't work out or can reasonably be taken that way (Newsweek demonstrates), and the one where she tells people "take Harry Reid out" in this context. Removing it would also be unfair to her, this time from the other direction. Shortening is more feasible. Do you see any places where we should cut? I think the first sentence of the section should go.  I generally prefer to give topics as much space as they need to be covered properly. This addition doesn't seem like it does any significant harm to our coverage of Angle, and balancing section lengths with the precision of a few lines seems like an exercise in frustration - especially since due weight is rather arbitrary. Are Angle's comments on Second Amendment remedies the most important thing about her positions for people outside Nevada? Do they count for less than people in Nevada? Would they have counted for less when Angle was a representative? Ugh.  One way to please everyone would be to add material on her other positions. Do you think that's feasible? I've never looked for references on the positions of a U.S. senator or a senator nominee. --Kiz o  r  14:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Pineapple
CWenger; Clearly Wikipedia editors should not be involved in the business of determining which scientific articles are valid and which are not, should they? If a paper in a peer-reviewed journal says bromelain in pineapple induces labor then certainly it meets the threshold for saying it "has been reported". –CWenger (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors should be evaluators of content. A title is not content. That paper was published in 1969, and has not been repeated or validated in any published way. If it had validitiy or scientific interest, it would have been pursued over the past 40 years.


 * You seem unusually devoted to retaining the original misleading version. There are myths about pineapple components having specific health benefits. I'm simply pointing this out and requesting published verification, which is the business of a good scientist and editor. --Zefr (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If you look around there are a lot of sources that say bromelain induces pregnancy. I have no idea if it is true but given the handful of peer-reviewed papers it appears to be more than just an old wives' tale. Hence I think this meets the threshold to claim it "has been reported".
 * As for the "myth" of pineapple reducing inflammation, would this reference suffice for you? –CWenger (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Objectively, there are no good sources that say bromelain induces pregnancy, i.e., sources from reputable universities or published in respected journals. For the possible anti-inflammatory effect, all the references are from in vitro or early-stage animal work. If sufficiently supported with qualified references, the language could be developed to make the case for preliminary evidence of an anti-inflammatory effect.

See for example and  --Zefr (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would bet those references provide evidence that bromelain induces pregnancy, but they are too old and aren't available online. My guess is better drugs have been found for that purpose in the past 40 years, so it hasn't been pursued much. Anyway, I'll let that one go. As for the anti-inflammatory effects, certainly the references you and I found are enough to describe these effects as more than a "myth" in a section called "folk medicine", are they not? –CWenger (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Source
International Court of Justice Opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territory#The_West_Bank

In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an Advisory Opinion on the 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. The Court observed that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land Annexed in the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

The State of Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections,[24] but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli Defense Forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories had done nothing to alter the situation. 'All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.'

Here's your source, would you revert your revert please.Keith-264 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Today would be nice.Keith-264 (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow?Keith-264 (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anarchy, State, and Utopia
I apologize for taking your time with two previous intemperate edits. I applaud your contribution to this community. Here is why I think it is balanced to include the rent control anecdote. It is a fact that I often find libertarians do not know. ASU gives a vision of morality rooted in voluntary, non-compulsory cooperation that many find compelling, so it is relevant to point out that in his own life he used the power of the state to override his own contract. This is particularly so given the morally-inflected uses to which this book is put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maresuke369 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not necessarily opposed to the information you added, just the articles you chose to add it to and the initial tone. Certainly the article on libertarianism which lists Robert Nozick as a leading theorist should not discuss this incident with equal weight to his contributions to the field. I am not sure it belongs in the Anarchy, State, and Utopia article either (another editor apparently agrees, as he/she has reverted your edits already). This is probably a little off topic, but certainly we would not add to every pro-choice politician's article that they support abortion rights despite the fact that they themselves are alive due to not being aborted, would we? Nevertheless, I see some value in the story, if the sources are reliable, which appears somewhat questionable, but only in the Robert Nozick article. –CWenger (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template:Quantities of bytes
The column deals with the fact that the SI prefix terms (kilobyte etc.) are sometimes used for multiples of 1024 rather than the SI-standard 1000. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that what's "really accurate" with respect to the SI prefixes in computing is ambiguous, unless one wants to weight de jure over de facto (which WP doesn't at present, hence e.g. why the IEC prefixes are seldom used). If there was a less redundant way to convey the varying usages, I'd be all for it. I agree regarding the rowspan. I remember when that change was made; I didn't particularly agree with it. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Scott Walker disambiguation
Hi- You may want to take a look at the Scott Walker disambigution page. You have several people with that name including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Would Gov Walker be the primary topic? Thank you-RFD (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Based on traffic statistics, it doesn't look that way. Scott Walker (singer) was actually quite a bit more popular in 2009. I'm sure that will change now that the politician is actually governor, but for now it seems like there is no primary topic and we should keep Scott Walker a disambiguation page. –CWenger (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into this. Things could change especially if Gov. Walker decides to run for the Presidency. He just took office. RFD (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Battledress requested move
Consensus is not counting !votes. It is based on the strength of the arguments presented. In this case, the support case was weak and did not show that this usage was the common world wide view. I suspect that the suggestion in the discussion that several articles might be needed could be the better choice. Add to that the fact that fatigues is now a dab page and this was not getting moved at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly
Your continuous drone on the subject of Google hits applicable to some American TV personality who is here today, gone tomorrow, is really wearing thin. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS for a start and then get into your head that quantity of Google hits means absolutely nothing in encyclopaedic terms. They might mean something to teenage pop fans who are arguing about the popularity of this current track over that one but do you really want to pursue the juvenile route to argue your case? The only way to disambiguate between two famous people of the same name is to have a disambiguation page with links to both articles, as per WP:CONSENSUS. Dearie me. --86.146.96.56 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't Google hits, it was Wikipedia page views. Big difference. –CWenger (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Same principle. Get over it.  --86.146.96.56 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's not the same principle. You should note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states that Wikipedia article traffic statistics may be a useful tool to help determine the primary topic. –CWenger (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Scott Walker (politician)
I am confused why you removed a sourced section from Scott Walker (politician) as "removing biased sentences". I am not sure what section of WP:BLP you feel it violated. Please let me know. Midlakewinter (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is pretty clearly suggesting there is some favoritism going on, which is contentious and is not appropriate for a BLP. Particularly in this case, the "as governor" section of the article currently only consists of a single paragraph, it is undue weight to mention a relatively minor point like this. –CWenger (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we agree to keep the fact as reported of the exemptions? Regarding the "as gov" section please feel free to add noteworthy content as appropriate. The issue itself & the exemption were covered nationally in the WSJ  Midlakewinter (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Yes, I am fine with the sentence you added back. Without the second sentence it is just adding information instead of insinuating favoritism. –CWenger (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Walker
Please restore the information, per the cite I provided on my talk page. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) (on his break)
 * ✅ –CWenger (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)