User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 1

Hellenistic Art translation
Hello Coppertwig! Thanks for your response. I actually am thinking of doing a translation of the French article on determinants 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 Hope that helps! Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

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 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)

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 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

 * No problem! &mdash;The Gr e at Llama talk 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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, 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)

NO - Student's t-distribution
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)

Re: Domestic discipline
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)

Notation
Why do you find it necessary to write


 * $$T=�rac{\overline{X}_n-\mu}{\left(S_n/\sqrt{n}

ight)}$$

instead of the following?


 * $$T=�rac{\overline{X}_n-\mu}{S_n/\sqrt{n}}$$

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)

Domestic violence
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, Tangot a ngo 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. &mdash;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 (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 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 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


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * 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)

Featured picture candidates/Tesseract
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 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: 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). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 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 No personal attacks. --Coppertwig 00:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * --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...  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  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.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  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: Since when is an explanation for every edit mandatory? This could be taken as biting newbies. Viewed with your leaving of clueless "warnings", 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. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 22:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating
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%27s_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)
 * Since you and I are currently involved in a content dispute with each other, I don't think either of us is in a good position to judge impartially whether the other's editing is disruptive.
 * If there is really no dispute, then please restore the original wording, i.e. "verifiability, not truth". I will be happy to see the original wording restored.  --Coppertwig 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Rather than trying to change a core content policy, I'm trying to keep the longstanding "verifiability, not truth" unchanged, or allow it to change but not to something that begins welcoming the posting of false statements to Wikipedia articles.  --Coppertwig 21:45, 24 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 :) Grace notes T  § 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)


 * I understand that you consider my edits to be disruptive. As I said above, since we're currently involved in a content dispute with each other, I don't think either of us is in a good position to judge impartially whether the other's edits are disruptive.  I'll let other editors speak for themselves as to whether they consider my edits disruptive;  I have no evidence that anyone besides yourself does.


 * When someone changes policy, they should not be surprised if their changes get reverted. I have been reverting the change to an unqualified "not whether it is true," for which consensus had never been developed.


 * I think you're mistaking disagreement for misunderstanding. --Coppertwig 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A random bystander comment: I have to radically disagree with SV's take on this matter. Silence emphatically does not equate to opposition.  Editors who fail to make use of talk pages have little to complain about.  They exist for a reason.  Use them.  (Note: I do agree with Crum375 below, however, that silence doesn't necessarily equate to assent either, and esp. for policy pages active consensus is good goal).  I also concur with CT that there does not in fact appear to be a plurality of editors who consider CT's edits to be "disruptive"; even I disagreed with, and reverted, some of them, but I absolutely do not think that is a justification for such an inflammatory and bad faith assumptive label.  A counterclaim could be said of SV's edits at this point, given that even His Majesty Jimbo came out of the woodwork to object, but belaboring such a point seems counterproductive.  Why don't we all just agree that we are all here for the same reason (i.e., to help create the world's best encyclopedia), can rationally disagee on some points, and all gnash our teeth a little less? &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CT: Just a courtesy note to let you know I've responded to your topically-related post on my talk page, at said page. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Coppertwig, I believe that in the case of a core policy, that essentially controls all content on Wikipedia, it makes sense to tread lightly. If you have a suggestion, it is OK in principle to implement it, but be ready to be reverted. The fact that you mention a topic in the Talk page and it remains there with mimimal comments for a while, does not mean it's been 'accepted by consensus'. It may simply mean that it's been ignored, or people just overlooked it. I suggest that from now on, prior to making substantive changes to the core policies, you try to achieve 'active' consensus on the Talk page first - i.e. actual uniformly positive response from the main contributors to the policy page prior to making the change. This would save all of us a lot of stress and effort. Thanks for your understanding, Crum375 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another random bystander comment, for SlimVirgin's edification primarily: Please compare this actually rather helpful note to the cranky one above on the same topic. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 22:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, regarding the latest note you just left me on my Talk page, I understand you have an objection regarding the issue of 'verifiability, not truth' (or the new 'attributability, not truth'). I think it makes sense for you to keep pursuing it if you see it as a major issue, but at the moment the ATT policy is tied up in preparing for a straw poll per Jimbo's request related to the relocation/incorporation of V and NOR into ATT. Therefore, I think it would be wise to wait until that process is over and the dust is settled before raising any substantive issue with the core policies themselves. Thanks for your understanding, Crum375 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again responding to your latest note, I would again say that if you feel there is a substantive problem with the policy you should probably wait until the dust settles on the straw poll and Jimbo's comments. I don't think that raising the issue now is a good time for it, because it may just be dismissed out of hand as people are concerned with other priorities. But of course this is your call. When things do settle down, all you need do is open a thread under a section in Talk:ATT, and hope to entice editors to engage. Crum375 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to start a thread on the Talk page and hope to entice editors to engage. You then strive for consensus, as wide as possible if this is a core content policy change. Once you have reached that wide consensus, then and only then you can change the policy. If you try to bypass this process, you'll simply get reverted. If I reverted you, it was simply on process - not on the merits. I am sure you understand that making substantive changes to important policy pages, that influence potentially every article on Wikipedia, should not be done without a very wide consensus. Crum375 00:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, you say you 'followed this exact process'. Are you saying you were able to achieve a wide consensus on the ATT Talk page prior to making your edits? If so, can you point me to it? Crum375 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a message on the talk page, making a proposal. I waited a few days for responses.  I repeated my proposal again on the same talk page.  Two editors posted agreement;  no one posted disagreement.  I then considered that there was consensus and boldly made an edit.  It was reverted with an edit summary telling me to get consensus first.  Would you please give me examples of edits of small numbers of words that were made on WP:ATT or other policy pages with consensus and explain how that consensus can be recognized, i.e. what is the difference between that consensus and what happened before my edit?  I would appreciate it if you would supply me with that information because I need to know how to proceed and how to expect other editors to proceed when the page is unprotected.  --Coppertwig 23:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sentence
The discussion to which you refer has now been archived. I said there, as clearly as I can:


 * I do not think "Not everything attributable is worthy of inclusion" means what Coppertwig wants it to, or will accomplish the job he sets for it.
 * Since Coppertwig and I disagree on what it means, it must be ambiguous.
 * For both these reasons, I oppose its inclusion.

I may be wrong. This is in any case a proposed change to WP:ATT. It should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion so we don't have to revive the discussion every time WT:ATT is archived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * May I make a suggestion: instead of apologizing for wasting my time, why not curtail your questions so you do not waste my time? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your sentence, except that it cannot be what I mean by it. I see it as asserting that attributability is not enough (and agree); since, however, this does not deal with your examples, you must mean something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In my intention, no live thread on the Community discussion page will be archived at least until the poll has finished. It may become a separate subpage. By contrast, your efforts to discuss this on WT:ATT have already been archived twice, and will be again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Yes, you are right, I didn't feel it was proper for me to make a judgment and quietly recused myself. Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated. ;^) Crum375 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Coppertwig, a change to an important policy page must have wide and clear consensus. A couple of people agreeing with you on a thread does not constitute a 'wide and clear consensus'. You would need to have a very large number of editors agreeing, with nearly no disagreement, and in general you would need the support of the main contributors to and maintainers of the given policy page. No response or limited response to your ideas, generally indicates 'no consensus'. I hope this helps. Crum375 23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The actual number is a matter of common sense, and would depend on the actual change and the specific editors involved. This also relates to your issue with 'all editors being equal' - yes, anyone may edit on WP, but it generally helps to have the support of the regular contributors and maintainers, who know the page's history, the various compromises reached over specific words and phrases, the various intricacies and inter-relationships with other policies, and the compatibility with WP's requirements. While you can try to edit without these important inputs, your changes will not 'stick' - you'll be quickly reverted. To summarize, the only way to make a change stick in a policy page is to obtain a wide and clear consensus, as well as support by the main contributors and maintainers, who have the perspective and knowledge. Crum375 00:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not move material from a community discussion page
As you did at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked user Jossi to demonstrate impartiality by making this same request of the other user who moved material from the same page, and whose example I was following by moving some related material so it would be with the other material. As far as I know, user Jossi has not complied with this request.  --Coppertwig 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

---

My warmest greetings and my best wishes to you, my friend. You and I both have to remember with compassion that it is natural for people, including you and me, to react only in terms of turf war when anyone gets them to deal with their real problems that they refuse to face. It is our nature and it is our inheritance. And in their hysteria, they do move things around, do they not? Let us be compassionate and recognize that in their temporary state of hysteria, all they see is turf war, so they have to move things around even if it makes no rational sense at all and is temporarily detrimental to the community work here of constructing a Wikipedia that accurately represents what reliable sources have said about our best descriptions of reality. --Rednblu 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribution statement
Hi, did anyone bring this Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll to your attention? The space on the poll page is there. Johnbod 17:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I guess I should have given you a notice... As I'm one of the people who actually believes it is extremely useful to include falsehoods, I'm very interested in seeing why you object to this activity. Also, to understand the value of including false statements, please see Talk:Ontological argument and search for "cited untruths". --Merzul 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, unfortunately I'm in a bad time-zone to discuss it fully, but it would be extremely useful if you did summarize your case, with the help from other people who object in a subpage on your user-space. Essentially the way SlimVirgin has done. I would like to read your case not scattered all over the talk pages and archives, but expressed succinctly in one page. I would suggest similarly: User:Coppertwig/Attribution. --Merzul 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Thanks for the concern, though I don't see a violation. Latest editing with Denny appears to have worked out amicably, given his agreement with my change. Marskell 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, I do know it's any 24 hour period. I had a group of edits last night (1); some twiddles through the day, none of which were reverts; a straight revert of Denny (2); a second revert, in order to edit and move (not undo) his suggestion, and upon which he agreed (arguably 3). What would be the use of reverting to a version of his that he's agreed is not needed? Marskell 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Status report, sir!
.


 * (Let me note, sir, if I may, that sir, mister, and chairman are used here as non-sexist terms to address both women and men administrators, in the best Starfleet tradition as was popularly portrayed by Kathryn Janeway of Starfleet).

Chairman Coppertwig, sir! (salute)


 * Rednblu here reporting, sir, as to the progress on the Statement from all sides. I make this report just to enable you as Chairman of all these task forces to combine and coordinate all the related works of these task forces.


 * I started to draft an initial framework for our work page, and I encountered the following difficulties, which have given me pause.


 * First, what should we name our work page? I started to create a User:Coppertwig/Attribution page as was moved and seconded by the worthy and honorable User:Merzul, but I thought it might be better if we think of a name that would represent "Statement from all sides" in contrast to the Attribution page by the worthy and honorable User:SlimVirgin.  Our work page is not OppositionToAttribution.  So what is the name of our work page?  Do you see my quandary, Mr. Chairman?  Sir?
 * I have consulted the historical proceedings of the 1787 Philadelphia convention for neutral terms of address, such as "worthy and honorable." We may find others.


 * Since our work page will ultimately be copied to a page of the same name in the Wikipedia space for the full community to work, we might pick an appropriate name at this stage that would appropriately represent our "Statement from all sides". The constrasting Attribution page by the worthy and honorable User:SlimVirgin has already been copied to the Wikipedia space.  But we should let someone not involved with our "Statement from all sides" task forces make that copy to Wikipedia space, should we not?  But we should at least do the considerably sensitive work of selecting our recommended name for this "Statement from all sides" page.  At least that is one recommendation from this particular task force, sir!


 * Second, I thought it would be good to report to you, Chairman of chairmen, on the status at this time, even though there has been much thought and not many words put onto our actual work page, which as yet has no name. :))

Over and out, sir! (salute) --Rednblu 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Y'all had better hurry up. SV's essay has been available in some form for two days now and is linked directly from the poll already.  One side of the debate now has all of the eyeballs. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Being silly about this is likely to lead to negative view of the results. Just a word to the wise. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted. I think there is no hurry.  The objections to the so called "merger" have had the eyeballs if not the understandings for four months now.  The Wikipedia learning process is just slow.  But in the last four months there has been tremendous, even if painful, learning.  It looks like there are three key RfCs brewing over these issues that will probably be the next hump in this Wikipedia learning process.  Meanwhile, we need a good name for this "Statements from all sides" page.  Any ideas?  --Rednblu 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Read over your page, and I think diff #1 in this section doesn't quite mean what you imply it means. The non-problematic "status quo" in the diff is to leave WP:ATT as policy, and the "unnecessary change" is to remove ATT's policy status immediately. Gimmetrow 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Name for "statements from all sides" page
My understanding is that the page will not be statements from all sides, but only anti-merge positions. So "Statements from all sides" would not be an appropriate name. I suggested "Stability" because it means not changing the original policies. I'm open to suggestions for other names (until I create the page, which may be soon). --Coppertwig 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Stability of policy    for a page name?      This so-called "merger" is a huge inversion of each of Verifiability, Reliable source, and No original research policies.  This work document will demonstrate each of those inversions of current policy.  --Rednblu 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion might help here
You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? --Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I replied as requested. - Denny 22:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your sandbox page
Please do not add your personal sandbox page to the Attribution/Poll or the Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion pages. What makes your opinions more important than those of hundreds of other editors? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Welcome to the first user editing the new page
lol...thanks for the message! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed (talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

ANI courtesy notification
Some of your userspace pages are being discussed on the incident noticeboard. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

THEY WOULD LIKE A WORD WITH YOU AT AN/I
Please read this. But dont worry, we usually ASFWe Need You 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean WP:AGF. I've replied at WP:AN/I and I've apologized to Blueboar for not giving a proper reply to the user's message earlier. --Coppertwig 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No restrictions on this talk page
On the slight chance anything I said could be misinterpreted, I would like to make it clear that this talk page is open for comments by all users, just as usual for these sorts of pages. I haven't restricted any individual from editing this page. --Coppertwig 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting bits of policy
"In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks." Arbitration policy/Past decisions

''"Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users." Arbitration policy/Past decisions"''  (Written mainly by one user, usually?  Not exactly same situation, but suggests Wikipedia space may be a more appropriate place.)

''"Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." '' User page

"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." User page --Coppertwig 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

''"# If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...


 * do set up a discussion page and try to establish consensus
 * don't push the existing rule to its limits in an attempt to prove it wrong, or nominate the existing rule for deletion"'' WP:POINT  (Probably not the section other users are directing me to;  don't know yet what section that would be) --Coppertwig 18:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"" WP:POINT (Not what I'm doing, but might seem like it if not thought through) --Coppertwig 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not the issue. You can create sandboxes as a many as you need to develop articles, ideas, or proposals. But inviting only some users when rejecting others, and announcing special rules for editing these pages in public fora, is not acceptable. Read Blueboar's comment at WP:ANI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'm thinking and reading policy to try to sort this out.  Pointers to particular relevant bits of policy would be helpful -- which part of WP:POINT are people trying to get me to see, for example? --Coppertwig 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Essays are a part of that last part. They are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces, created either by individual users or the community." Essay (Hmm.  Does "individual users" mean one user writes one essay?  Seems to maybe say subgroups of users don't write them -- not completely clear.) --Coppertwig 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you may mean well, but the issue at hand is not just about "policy". You are welcome to develop an essay, and ask a few users in their talk pages to take a look and offer suggestions. Canvassing and creating special rules about who can edit your essays, and worst of all, advertising that fact in a public forum such as a discussion page and on the poll page of a community discussion, is disruptive, and unacceptable. How WP:POINT applies to your behavior over the last five days? Read the nutshell: If you think you have a valid point, causing disruption is probably the least effective way of presenting that point – and it may get you blocked.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your assumption of good faith. I understand that it's not just about policy, but getting along with other users, avoiding wasting peoples' time, and trying to do what will be effective in writing the encyclopedia.  I'm not only reading policy, and I'm not only reading it at the literal level.  I'm also thinking and experiencing shifts in perspective about things.  Some of my thinking isn't even based on policy as such but on intuition, experience etc. as well as the input from various users including yourself.
 * Hmm, you seem to be saying it would have been acceptable to invite a small number of users via user talk pages. I thought that could be seen as "canvassing" if the number might be seen as too large, since it could be seen as attracting people from one "side" to vote in the poll.  I used the project talk space because it's totally neutral in that sense.  Besides, if the number was small, the document might not be a valid representation of the positions of those against the merge.  Maybe it brings in another problem that you're trying to tell me that I haven't quite understood yet -- maybe when I review more of the policies I'll get it.  Is it because it's frustrating for someone to see an advertisement for a page they're not allowed to edit -- like handing out a birthday invitation right in front of another person who isn't invited?
 * I've never had the intention of causing disruption. Sometimes actions have unintended or surprising effects. --Coppertwig 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Beware of unintended consequences..., also called "you are accountable for your own actions". You can invite some users that you know, or that you would like to hear their opinion. That is not canvassing. As for this idea of "representating of the positions of those against the merge", there is no need to that... nobody asked you to lead such a representation: People that are for the merge, against the merge, and anything in between, are making their positions known in Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. In Wikipedia we look for ways to understand what is best for the project, and we do that by seeking consensus and by building bridges between diverse opinions, not by burning them with unnecessary confrontation and polarization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary he was precisely asked, or nominated, to produce such a statement Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll. I find your campaign of intimidation and harassment against getting such a statement made available to editors on the poll page deeply depressing.  Johnbod 19:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you feel that way, but your assessment of my behavior is not grounded in facts, but in a probable misinterpretation of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's grounded in your edits, on that page, the AN, and here. Johnbod 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflist) Johnbod, please assume good faith. Jossi is working to further the interests of Wikipedia.  A set of individual actions, each of which seem reasonable to the person at the time and may actually be reasonable at least in some peoples' opinions, does not necessarily consitute a "campaign".  I see no evidence that Jossi is against the development and presentation of a document expressing the anti-merge views -- just some particular ways that it is/was being done.  Words such as "harassment" and "intimidation" are polarizing and unwarranted in this situation in my opinion. --Coppertwig 19:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On reviewing various policies I've gained the impression that essays are written by a single user or by all users, not by limited groups of users. I'm therefore asking that the user pages be edited by myself only.  Suggested changes/additions are welcome from all users on the talk pages of the user pages. --Coppertwig 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The honorable User:Johnbod seems to be right in noticing the pattern here, I must say, though from my perspective, I would not assign to the pattern any element of intent. It seems to me the pattern is entirely reflexive and without thought.  In any rational organization, it is normal that committees of ten or twenty with like views and concerns meet wherever they think that they can do their work.  The requirement that essays presented to a community are drafted by a 1) single user or by all users and never by a 2) subset of twenty writers limited to one point of view is a completely dysfunctional notion in any modern organization.  I state that as a hypothesis.  Perhaps someone can think of a counterexample to that hypothesis.  How about the initial drafts of essays like Magna Carta, or the Federalist Papers, or the United Nations Charter?  The rule that all essays are either drafted by a 1) single user or by all users and never by a 2) subset of twenty writers limited to one point of view functions only to ensure that the most important essays in the community are never written.  --Rednblu 03:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the blank "slot" for other statements has now been removed, with no edit summary, . Had there been any discussion of this? Johnbod 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's back again, for the moment. Johnbod 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to Rednblu: Please don't post assessments of other users such as "reflexive and without thought".  --Coppertwig 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Please be careful when editing high-traffic pages.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for letting me know about this. I've reviewed Edit conflict and learned a couple of things I didn't know.  I still don't understand how the above happened.  I think one thing I'll do is, whenever I get an edit conflict I'll just copy-and-paste my own comments and start again in a new edit window.  Anyway, I think you added your own comments back in, but user Avrahim's comments that I accidentally deleted at the same time didn't get added back in.  I've asked for help fixing that.  I don't even know where that page is archived now.
 * Things I've learned about edit conflicts: If you're editing a section, apparently there's a bug that if you click "save", a copy of the whole page will go in as if it's supposed to be just that section.  At least, that's what is says at Edit conflict.  Also, that it's better to do one long edit than a number of short ones.  One long edit is more likely to get you an edit conflict, but a number of short ones are more likely to cause edit conflicts for others.  I think the chance of getting an edit conflict yourself depends on the amount of time you spend editing, while the chance of causing an edit conflict depends only on the number of edits you do, not how long they take.
 * How I could accidentally delete stuff as a result of an edit conflict is a mystery to me.
 * I'm sorry to have made a mess with the edit conflict. --Coppertwig 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you for that apology. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Help fixing up edit conflict?
I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section  "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. --Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, that section/date would be twice over archived by now, dunno how to get it back cleanly. Post on the Poll talk page. A veteran can probably get it easily. - Denny 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Poll
Over at the ATT poll, I've just flipped the order of the Oppose/Support sections, on the theory that it is heavily biasing the voting. I expect to be reverted within minutes. I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR over this, so additional eyes on the matter would be helpful. My theory is that if the vote is being biased by Support being at the top, it is only fair that they be inverted for the rest of the poll, and if this effect is not happening, the change will have no effect at all, ergo the only reason to revert it is to support bias in favor of Support votes. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 07:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there Coppertwig, I don't think we've met before, so... ah, Hi. ^_^. I like meeting new people. ^_^ * Sam ov the blue sand, My Talk ,  And if you feel like spying on me  00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese American Food Society
Would you be interested in reviewing this article? It is right now up for AfD consideration and I would like your thoughts on this. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Update. - Just wanted to let you know that the article was determined to be kept. Thank you for your assistance on this. I greatly appreciated it. Chris 18:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

template trivia
This was protected on May 16. Since then there has been discussions that have lead to consensus on a change. I proposed in the discussion that an early proposal be moved to the template in use. There were objections, so a change was not made at that time. Since that time, the consensus for some changes apparently became stronger after some wording changes. I again announced that the template would be updated and I don't recall any objections being voiced. There are some voices that the wording could be improved but not objections to the suggested replacement. So with an apparent consensus the change was made. The fact that there was an objection from one person, the last time I looked, does not mean there is not a consensus for this change. Vegaswikian 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I replied here on the article talk page. There are now at least two people objecting to the editing of the protected template:  myself and the person I mentioned above on your talk page.  --Coppertwig 18:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At the time the change was made, there was a clear consensus supporting the change. After the change, some additional objections were raised.  If those had been raised before the change, in my opinion, we still would have had a clear consensus to make the change.  Consensus can and does change.  If there is a consensus for something different, the template can again be changed.  I'm sure that if a different consensus develops, the template will reflect that consensus.  Right now I don't see that in the discussions.  Since the current discussion section is rather long, it might be better to start another section to discuss improvements to the current template.  Those improvements can include a return to the old template.  Vegaswikian 23:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AVTRIV
Hi, User:Coppertwig. As per our previous discussion (17 June 07), I am glad to see the consensus holding up. I support the current version of the page. The phrase which was fought out for so long sits well on the page there, and I am hoping it will lead to progress in cleaning up poor sections (trivia) in WP. I have no problems with any changes users make, if done with reasonable courtesy, then hopefully edit-wars are avoided and all or any users may appropriately express their appropriate suggestions for improvement(s), appropriately, on the appropriate page. (Which page, sometimes, is an appropriate question, maybe.) Thanks for posting me then, (and I will try to state myself clearer in discussions in future, that I will bear in mind) :) Regards, user:Newbyguesses - Talk 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Come back
Hey, Coppertwig, Simple English Wiktionary is about 300 entries from 2,000. I'm trying to organise a drive to the 2,000 mark. Would you consider helping out?--BrettR 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision topic
Please visit the circumcision discussion.TipPt 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your work on the circumcision article. I hope that you continue to work to get the facts out there. The issue is so very important and the tendency has been for anything that isn't anti-circumcision to be removed, even when it is a quote from a major medical association sourced back to their site. Please keep it up!

Edwardsville 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! To make the article neutral we need to keep a cool head, try to really understand other peoples'  point of view, summarize previous arguments, etc. and of course really try hard not to say things that make other people angry (except things that need to be said about article content that are said in the most polite way possible). --Coppertwig 13:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig.

It is funny that you should send me that note because I just left a comment on the talk page for the article. My previous experience with this article has involved only certain posters, including Jakew, removing anything they didn't like regardless of what was being said on the talk page. This made me think that simply making changes by force was the only way that positive changes were going to be made. The fact that some real positive changes have been made to the article has heartened me greatly regarding the possiblity of using consensus to build the article.

Edwardsville 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, that last reversion to the text wasn't me. The text was mine, but I didn't post the reversion.

Edwardsville 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I find that hard to believe. Sorry. --Coppertwig 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Second draft of Wikipedia:Relevance
I'm guessing from your contributions that you're either on vacation or a wikibreak. At any rate, I hope you have the opportunity to take a look at the second draft of WP:Relevance, written in response to the feedback you and others gave on the first draft.--Father Goose 04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Third draft of Wikipedia:Relevance
I've posted a third draft of WP:Relevance. I suspect this is the last wholesale revision. I contains your idea that material is relevant if it serves the interest of users. It may not have the weight you feel the concept deserves... looking for any changes or comments you deem appropriate. thanks —WikiLen 11:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Call for editor participation at Relevance
Hi Coppertwig,

Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. —WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance!
Yes, this bothersome thing again. The "Establishing relevance" section, which I believe was the source of your greatest opposition, has been extensively tamed, and the rest of it has been slimmed down in a number of ways as well. I'd be happy to hear your views, and criticism, of the latest version, which is posted at Relevance, or at User:Father Goose/Relevance if someone has removed it from the project page. As always, much obliged.--Father Goose 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spanking article
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you! I've been away for a few weeks. Thanks for your note regarding the spanking article. I haven't checked to see who contributed what, so I'm not sure what you have done on it, but I'm guessing you have been one of the main authors. If so, nice work!

Edwardsville 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edwardsville 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I had to move this comment here. Please do not put comments on pages with names like User:JohnSmith .  Instead, put messages on pages with names like User talk:JohnSmith .  When you're looking at someone's user page, you can click "discussion" at the top to get to their user talk page.
 * I haven't done much on the spanking article. Maybe I put in a few references. I might do more sometime.  There's also a corporal punishment article.  And parenting. --Coppertwig 17:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit
Hi Coppertwig,

Your most recent edit to circumcision does not conform to the Manual of Style. To quote:


 * "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links." WP:LAYOUT, emphasis in original.

Both foreskin and bioethics of... are already linked in the text (the latter as a main under 'ethical issues'), and therefore should not be in 'see also'. Please would you self-revert? Jakew 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. Over-use of "see also" sections has been one of my vices.  After this, I'll search the article for links before adding to "see also".  I self-reverted.  Thank you for trusting me to do so.  :-) --Coppertwig 22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, I just assumed that you hadn't read that particular part of that policy yet. Jakew 22:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I hereby admit to not being perfect. :-) --Coppertwig 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re 'vandalism'
You may be right as a general rule, but not, I think, in this particular case. Please check out Special:Contributions/75.15.185.118, in particular this. Also see WP:VAND. Regards, Jakew 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The section to which I referred was this:
 * Blanking
 * Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, or , as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
 * WP:VAND, emph added
 * Jakew 22:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, re your earlier request that I "provide a (very brief perhaps) explanation to the user, perhaps on the user's talk page or at Talk:Circumcision", please note that I already left this. Jakew 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I must apologise for not nowiki-ing the templates. Jakew 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem -- that's very minor in comparison!! --Coppertwig 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance/Relevance of content
I have to apologize for not keeping you up to date; I moved Relevance to Relevance of content about a week ago to stop the proposal from being reverted so discussion could continue.

I moved the comment you just posted at Wikipedia talk:Relevance to Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content; I hope you don't mind. I'll add a note to Wikipedia talk:Relevance directing further comments to the new page.--Father Goose 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Phimosis definition
Can I again ask you to self-revert, this time not because of policy but for discussion? I'm going to explain on Talk:Circumcision now. Jakew 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted pending discussion. --Coppertwig 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Explanation posted at talk: Jakew 22:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)