User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 8

RFA
Good luck on your RfA -- ₮inucherian  (Talk) - 06:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Back
Not that you don't know that, but it occurs to me that I haven't officially said hello since my return. :) While I'm very busy unpacking and getting affairs in order (oi! the state of my lawn!), my body clock is so out of whack that time seems to just melt away and nothing really gets accomplished. Is it really the 8th already? It doesn't help that I can't seem to stay coherent past 9:00 p.m. or asleep past about 4:00 a.m. (my time). I'm a morning person by nature, but I can't really regard 4:00 a.m. as morning. It seems much more fitting a time for the fellow to the right.

Thanks for helping out at the drawing board in my absence! While I've gradually come to understand that Wikipedia can survive just fine without me, I do always feel a bit regretful about not helping out there. Elipongo is excellent at it (and often comes up with things that don't occur to me!), but he has indicated that time constraints sometimes delay his response and so often the people there are new and a bit anxious. :)

I'm eager to get back into routine. I'm glad that I don't have to travel often. I'm absolutely not cut out for it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back!! I'm sorry I forgot to check the drawing board very often, and didn't even think of watching over your talk page until a couple of days ago; looks like you have other helpers, though.
 * I have trouble with time zones, too. What I usually do is I either continue sleeping on my home time zone schedule while I travel, (which is feasible if going a few hours west and expected to be up during working hours), or else I start months ahead of time gradually shifting to the time zone of the place I'll be travelling to.  Shifting to a later time is much easier than shifting to an earlier time.  (This may apply more to me than to you but is a general trait of diurnal (daytime) animals such as humans. (as I remember from reading this book years ago.))  Last time after coming home after travelling east, I easily shifted back to my home time zone but forgot to re-institute discipline after a few days of letting myself sleep in later and later, and overshot and had trouble re-shifting back again.  I also stayed up too late at a party shortly after coming home, not fully realizing how very late my body would consider it to be, and practically got sick.
 * Anyway, it's great to have you back. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Request that you intercede to stop harassment of me by your supporter
User:Redthoreau continues to place threatening and harassing messages on my user page because I have publically expressed my view regarding your nomination for admin as well as your desire to mentor User:Iantresman. He has added more to my user page within the last hour. I request that you intercede to plead that he stop. I am merely presenting my views in public forums. Sincerely, – Mattisse  (Talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting interpretation on reality ... both of the only messages I have left for you on your talk page have been in relation to your attacks on me, and practice of following me around (which you were already warned about) and attempting to "game the system". The one who needs to stop here is you Mattisse ... something you have shown you can't do after returning from your vacation.  [[Image:Smile icon.png|14px]]  Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

from your own archives
Incivility by Redthoreau An/I acknowledgment that I am being put to the test on Che Guevara, from your own archives. It makes your onesided behavior all the more inexplicable. I don't expect an answer from you as there have been answer galore since. – Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My peace offer to Mattisse
Just so you know Coppertwig, I have offered peace to Mattisse and will no longer be discussing any issues regarding me and him/her. I hope you can respect this. Thanks. ---> My peace offering.    Red thoreau  (talk Redthoreau 16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, it's fun! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Interesting and challenging questions! I had intended to do this early in my RfA, but as it turned out I didn't have time.  In effect, the time I could have used for this I used instead to write this essay on NPOV, which attempts to address concerns raised in my RfA.  I'll likely do the AGF Challenge, essay-question style, some time in the next few weeks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your help
Thanks for your explanation about the deletion. It's just a little strange that the deleted article was recreated. There was a tag on it saying please move it or something (can't quite remember) so as this person didn't seem notable i moved it to a place name.

But I'll ask the person who deleted it - thanks Fynci Mynci (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Signature! Psst!
After your last comment at your RfA. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ☺ 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rfb participation thanks
Hello, Coppertwig.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. While it appears that you too may soon share that astringent taste of a failed RfX, please take heart and don't let it dissuade you from another attempt down the line! Also, I owe you special thanks for your detailed and thoughtful support rationales, together with your mathematical defense of me :) If you have any further suggestions or comments as to how you think I could help the project, please let me know. Once again, thank you for your support. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Water supply and sanitation in the Philippines
Hi Coppertwig, Thanks a lot for taking a look at the article. Your comments help me to improve this one as well as the other articles. I just changed some things and posted answers to your suggestions. Greetings! --Kerres (Talk) 13:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I translated some articles from Spanish to English, but now I write my own articles. The articles which I translated are all about water supply and sanitation in Latin American countries. So far I have written four articles on my own, which you can see on my user page. I am now beginning to write the fifth one about water supply and sanitation in Benin. Your reviews are always welcome! You can choose from the articles on Ghana, Bangladesh and the one which I just concluded, Water supply and sanitation in Uganda. Thanks a lot for your help! Kerres (Talk) 08:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Deserved

 * Thank you very much! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for adminship
I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Raul654 (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit sad to see that your RFA this time was unsuccessful. But dont worry. Take a break and come again. Wish you all the best --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 05:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider it Wikipedia's loss. Also I am perplexed why 68/44 is not concensus ?  ♣  Red thoreau  (talk) RT 15:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I like Coppertwig's mannerisms and I supported his RfA as part of the silent majority. However, consensus is not majority rules. If the vote had been 9999/44 it still would not have been consensus. 44 Wikipedians expressed some concerns and if that many people have or agree about concerns that stand up to analysis then consensus has clearly not been established.
 * "Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision." (emphasis added)
 * Wikipedia needs more people like Coppertwig, but when 40+ people express real issues then it becomes his job to carefully analyze those issues and see what options exist for changing their concerns -- ie: "to resolve or mitigate" them. Certainly he will not win over everyone, but he needs to seriously reduce the number of folks who are able to express valid concerns. Had he been able to do so in the RfA he would have eliminated those views and consensus would have occured. If people say he should not be an admin because he has been doing "XX" then he has three choices: (1) stop doing XX, (2) keep doing XX but give up the idea of being an admin, or (3) convince objectors that XX is really a good thing. Whatever XX is for Coppertwig there is one more thing he should keep in mind: Sometimes it is not one's actions that are the issue, sometimes it is the perception of those actions that is the real issue. There is one editor here who I often disagree with and when I first encountered him I was angry at his rudeness. Eventually I learned that he wasn't so much rude but rather was a stickler for the rules. I think if he could have been more tactful I probably would never have been angry at all. Coppertwig is the soul of tact but obviously something about his actions is causing concerns among his peers. Is it the actions or the perception of the actions? Because of this he needs to look at his own actions and decide if he made an error in his actions/judgements or if he just needs to change the manner he takes his actions (or both).  Looking at the RfA the major issue seem to be questions of judgement. He vigorously defended one editor and some folks think that was a bad decision. Was it? He supported certain subject matters and some folks think that was a bad decision. Was it? Were these items of defense/support a case of standing by his convictions or a case of not willing to retreat from a battle? And were these items truely worth his support by the standards of Wikipedia? If he can honestly look at himself and find meaningful answers then he may become an admin yet. I would be glad to support him again. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for closing my RfA and for letting me know, Raul654.
 * I plan to post individual thank-you messages to all participants here on my talk page, probably later today. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redthoreau, in order to ensure that admins are people who are generally trusted by the community, conventionally RfA's do not succeed when the level of support is less than something like 80%. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)



Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! . I hope this will bring a smile back on your face - --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Why, thank you, TinuCherian. How thoughtful. Don't worry:  I'm doing fine. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 08:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Coppertwig, I'd like to offer my condolences on your RfA, and also commend you for remaining very civil throughout, even in the face of (in my opinion) some very weak arguments against you. It's unfortunate we had a negative interaction; after looking through your edit history and seeing what others had to say about you, I can only assume that it was a blip, a fluke. If anything, you seem to be a little too civil at times. From what I've seen, you're definitely a future admin. Again, I'm a bit surprised you didn't succeed this time, as I didn't see many very good oppose rationales (no offense to anyone). Keep your head up, and I look forward to supporting next time around. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. On your RfA, I think it was a combination of some sort of misunderstanding or difficulty in communicating, plus my occasionally forgetting not to try to hold others to the same standards of civility that I try to maintain myself, plus a strong tendency to vote "oppose" which I had especially in the first few RfA's I participated in.  It's always easier to find one thing to criticize than to find reasons to support someone. I'm glad it didn't prevent you from receiving your adminship. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Low Sea, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Ah, perceptions.
 * One of the things I love about Wikipedia is that you can go to an article you've never edited before and just start editing it, and nobody will complain. They won't say "Hey, who are you?  Why are you editing this article?"
 * However, I've learned that there are occasional situations where it is a good idea to introduce oneself, to give people some idea of why you're there, what you expect to do, whether you're there briefly or in the long-term, etc. In recent months I've done this occasionally where it seems appropriate, for example here.
 * Perhaps one of my problems is that too often I assume that others will assume good faith, so I see no need to explain why I'm doing something. One example is with questions.  I tend to assume that if I ask a question, it will be obvious that the reason I'm asking is that I would like to receive information.  However, sometimes that doesn't work.
 * Because you brought up the topic of perceptions, I posted an explanation at the top of my RfA thanks section, which I probably would not otherwise have included. It may seem obvious to me why I'm doing something, but that kind of explanation given ahead of time can prevent problems before they happen.
 * Perhaps some of the problems that arose on this RfA were due to my not explaining at the time my reasons for doing things. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I do sincerely hope that this little blip hasn't fazed you unduly. Your RfA failed for the very best of reasons in my view; you were perceived to be too trusting, and too likely to assume AGF. Neither of those are shooting offences, and I'd be very surprised if those same issues were to re-surface at your next RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Malleus. I'm feeling fine.  I'm heartened by the many people who took time to participate.  It was quite an experience. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Low Sea, I appreciate your support very much. I do try to stand by my convictions, but I think you're right that there may also have been some misperceptions about what I was doing.  If I had explained the reasons for my actions at the time, then I might have been correctly seen as trying to collect information in order to develop my opinion so that I could contribute a more informed opinion to a discussion.  I'm not sure which article you're thinking of in terms of defending subject matter, but there's often confusion between arguments about article content and arguments about a subject matter. I'm usually focussed on article content as well as preventing personal attacks and edit wars and usually say nothing about my views on the subject matter.  Perhaps if I'd explained my reasons at the time I wouldn't have been seen as trying to make an argument in the domain of the subject matter.  There's no point arguing about subject matter on Wikipedia since all significant points of view have to be represented anyway. Again, I really appreciate your message and will try to keep the idea of perceptions in mind: I think it will be very helpful for me. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"Beret"Star

 * Thank you! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA.
I appreciate the time and effort that each of you has taken to participate in my RfA, which was closed as "unsuccessful. No consensus to promote" with 68 Support votes, 44 Oppose and 18 Neutral. I realize that what is usually done is to post messages to the talk pages of participants. However, that practice has also received some criticism, and even if most people prefer it, posting a large number of messages would almost certainly include a few to people who would rather not receive them, so I thought I would try something different this time and list the messages here. I believe I've included everyone who participated; please tell me if I you notice I forgot anyone. (List is in alphabetical order. If your signature has a surname separated with a space from the first name, it's probably under the surname. Otherwise probably under the first letter of the username.) ☺ Coppertwig


 * Merci beaucoup to Achromatic for contributing your skeptical opinion. Danke schön.
 * Thanks to Ali'i for your supportive comments in the Discussion section.
 * Thanks to Antelan for pointing out the distinction between short-term and long-term abuse, giving me something to think about.
 * Thanks to Apis for a detailed oppose rationale covering several topics. I plan to study and carefully reflect on the feedback I've received.
 * Thanks to Arkyan for your brief but agreeable contribution.
 * Thanks to Asenine for letting me know which areas to focus more attention on.
 * Thanks to Ashton1983 for contributing your voice to the discussion.
 * Thanks to Avi, for being the first to award me a barnstar and the first to offer to nominate me for RfA. Your faith in me has been a great source of encouragement. Thanks for the time you were able to find for me even when you were going through RfB.
 * Thanks to Avruch for not spelling your username quite exactly the same as Avi, ☺ and for your astronomical support.
 * Thanks to B for participating. Thanks for your work at WP:3RRN, too, where I look forward to continuing to work with you.
 * Thanks to Badger Drink for seeing two sides to the issue and for clearly having thought things over carefully.
 * Thanks to Baegis for participating in my RfA and for expanding on your rationale. The Che Guevara page has been a learning experience for me, both in terms of compliance with the MOS and in terms of responding to disruptive user behaviour.  It's clear that I still have a lot to learn in both those areas.  Thank you for reminding me to focus on continuing to learn, and for helping me learn to be more diplomatic by pointing out that a statement I made about evidence was overly demanding.
 * Thanks to Barkjon. Welcome.
 * Thanks to Bedford for offering your opinion and reminding me to be careful.
 * Thanks to Bearian for contributing a unique perspective.
 * Thanks to Bfigura for calling my contributions impressive.
 * Thanks to Blackworm for your wonderful compliments. It's a pleasure working with you.
 * Thanks to BozMo for contributing reflective thoughts to the RfA process.
 * Gratias tibi ago, Anthony.bradbury, for your sense of perspective.
 * Thanks to Brewcrewer for taking time out of your graduate school work to participate in my RfA
 * Thanks to Cailil for explaining your perspective. I would be interested in further discussion and elaboration to try to figure out why we see the situation so differently.
 * Thanks to Cameron for thinking things over. I'm sorry if you wanted me to elaborate something which I did not; feel free to ask me questions even now.
 * Thanks to Canyouhearmenow for visiting my RfA and commenting. I like your AGF userbox.
 * Thanks to User:Cardamon for providing a specific oppose rationale, and for including a compliment in it.
 * Thanks to User:Casliber for your balanced contribution.
 * Thanks to CharlotteWebb for your brief but much appreciated contribution to my RfA and for your incisive thoughts on your userpage: quite true! LOL! ☺
 * Thanks to Cla68 for agreeing to disagree. ☺
 * Thanks to Cyclonenim for a contribution from Nottinghamshire.
 * Oberon, Oberon, rake away the gold,
 * Rake away the red leaves, roll away the mould,
 * Rake away the gold leaves, roll away the red,
 * And wake Will Scarlett from his leafy forest bed.
 * Alfred Noyes
 * Thanks to Dan Beale-Cocks for taking the time to think things over and to look at diffs. I very much appreciate all the time everyone has put into this.
 * Thanks to Dank55 for finding something different to respect me for, and for helping straighten out the issue of the use of the word "claim" in fringe articles.
 * Thanks to DarkFalls for considering the evidence. I like your John Steinbeck quote.
 * Thanks to Davewild for having faith in me.
 * Thanks to Dihydrogen Monoxide for supporting me and for having a refreshingly scientific username.
 * Thanks to Dlohcierekim for weighing the pros and cons.
 * Thanks to Dorftrottel for your moral support. I will be thinking over the various points raised in this RfA.
 * Thanks to Dragon695 for supporting me in spite of my faults. I don't quite get how your shortcut page works, but I do something similar:  For my own navigational convenience I have User:Coppertwig/links, which I sometimes transclude at the top of my user or user talk page, and sometimes set my browser home page to get to it.  In Mozilla you can have a bookmark bar which is like having more than one home page. Thanks again for visiting my RfA; I found it very encouraging to get those last few support votes right near the end.
 * Thanks to east718 for giving me a specific homework assignment for my next RfA.
 * Thanks to Editorofthewiki for asking a good question. I very much appreciate your support rationale submitted in the final hours.
 * Thanks to EJF for taking time to participate in my RfA in spite of being busy studying for exams.
 * Thanks to Epbr123 for your enigmatic support and for your Style and prosechecklist, which looks as if it may come in handy.
 * Thanks to faithless for being more levelheaded on my RfA than I was on yours.
 * Thanks to FeloniousMonk for contributing your perspective to the discussion, always with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
 * Thanks to Filll for the AGF Challenge: very interesting and challenging questions. I regret not having had the time to do it during the RfA, and hope to do it some time within the next few weeks.
 * Thanks to Firsfron of Ronchester for providing your valuable opinion, and for giving me a laugh by calling your own username "absolutely ridiculous". Now, that's a Firs. ☺
 * Thanks to Folantin for valuing neutrality highly.
 * Thanks to GlassCobra for offering to nominate me. I'm sorry I couldn't include all the people who offered. Thanks for saying I remain civil in any situation. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it is not.  I do lose my temper at times, even if it might not necessarily be evident on-wiki.
 * Thanks to Guettarda for making observations, thinking things over and contributing to the discussion with the interests of Wikipedia at heart.
 * Thanks to Heimstern; I'm delighted to have your trust in me.
 * Thanks to Hiberniantears for giving your perspective on the Iantresman case. Perhaps with further discussion at User talk:Raul654/Civil POV pushing the different perspectives can be reconciled.  It gives me food for thought, in any case.
 * Thanks to Icewedge for calling my talk page "dotted with Thank You's": I think the number of them will go up a bit when I post this! ☺
 * Thanks to InDeBiz1 for your brief but sincere contribution.
 * Thanks to iridescent for contributing your perspective from your own unique set of experiences.
 * Thanks to Jacina for taking the time and trouble to participate.
 * Thanks to Jakew, one of the editors I most highly respect even while we frequently disagree, for an extraordinarily positive support statement. I look forward to continuing collaboration and intellectually challenging discussion with you.
 * Thanks to Jayjg. Your support means a lot to me. Thank you again for helping me raise my standards of civility by setting a good example for me.
 * Thanks to jbmurray for observing and assessing.
 * Thanks to jc37 for some excellent questions.  Consensus is a complex, sensitive and fundamental process; I found that question quite challenging and enjoyed reflecting while answering it.  I appreciate the reminder not to become over-confident.
 * Thanks to J.delanoy. This is my message of thanks to you for participating in my RfA. (Feel free to make fun of me for stating what is as obvious as what you state on your userpage.) I certainly hope that promotion of myself to adminship would not result in a sudden increase of vandalism or trollism in the project and see no reason why it would, but thank you for contributing one of many opinions to the important process of RfA.
 * Thanks to Jehochman for providing information leading to me being given the Iantresman sockpuppet evidence which I was then able to post on Iantresman's user page, and thanks for participating in my RfA.
 * Thanks to Jim62sch for your contribution to the discussion, and for a very interesting userpage. I enjoyed trying to understand the quote about the Sibyl; my Greek and Latin isn't as advanced as yours. LOL re Flying spaghetti monster.
 * Thanks to JodyB for taking the time to contribute your thoughts in detail.
 * Thanks to EdJohnston for helping me from the beginning. It's been a pleasure to work with you on 3RR.
 * Thanks to jonny-mt for contributing your insight.
 * Thanks to JoshuaZ for underscoring NPOV. It's been good to focus attention on one policy for a while, reflecting on and clarifying some of the distinctions it involves; I'll continue to pay particular attention to this policy.
 * Thanks to Jossi for valuing good judgement, the core policies and careful selection of admin candidates.
 * Thanks to Jpmonroe for your willingness to trust me with the tools.
 * Thanks to Keeper now. / You told what you think's best for / Wikipedia.
 * Thanks to KillerChihuahua for bringing up the interesting topic of the NPOV policy. Because of thoughts that occurred to me in response to comments on this topic by you and others and because I know that I've misunderstood parts of this policy at times in the past, I've written an essay on NPOV, in the process of which my understanding has deepened; I will continue to think about it.
 * Thanks to KojiDude for your temporary, underworldly, heterodox contribution.
 * Thanks to Kralizec! !. Thanks for noticing some of my AN/I work.  Re a message on your user page, on the contrary: I assure you, I am neither bored nor lost.  Some of your userboxes are quite interesting. I'm not sure that I've personally run into a conflict between immediatism and eventualism on Wikipedia often enough to get a feel for which I support: some linear combination, probably. May His Hoodly Appendage touch you daily.
 * Thanks to Krimpet for a more than usually unusual userpage – and for your support.
 * Thanks to Lankiveil for trusting me.
 * Thanks to Lar for reading and considering various comments and for providing your own contribution.
 * Thanks to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles for noting my contributions to various Wikipedian discussions. Evidently I oppose exclusionist anti-pumpkin wording as much as you. ☺
 * Thanks to LessHeard vanU. I appreciated very much your support rationale about the scientific method, the fundamental idea of which you seem to understand very well.
 * Thanks to Low Sea for supporting my RfA as part of the silent majority and for your very helpful, and very perceptive, comment about perceptions.
 * Thanks to Lradrama for taking the time from a busy life full of many interests such as drama to share your insights on my RfA.
 * Thanks to Majoreditor for looking in. Gratias tibi ago.
 * Thanks to Malinaccier for having seen me around. (waves hello) ☺
 * Thanks to Malleus Fatuorum for your contribution. I agree that there need to be limits to what behaviour is tolerated from users.
 * Thanks to MastCell for your kind words. I was particularly curious as to what position you would take in this discussion, and I was very pleased to receive your Weak Oppose parts of which sound almost like a Support. Thank you also for replying to Realist2 about my unblock request essay.  I have great respect for you and look forward to continuing to work with you even if we often have to "agree to disagree". ☺
 * Thanks to a certain user I've been asked not to name, for participating in my RfA. I still leave open my offer to provide help if you ask for it, for those types of help I'm reasonably able to provide, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia and that your Wikipedian experience from now on will be relatively problem-free.
 * Thanks to Adam McCormick for appreciating the work I put into Che Guevara.
 * Thanks to Merkin's mum for noticing my efforts at calming disputes, and for helping at AN/I.
 * Thanks to Merzul for your comments, and especially for giving me your perspective from the opposite side of the WP:ATT debate.
 * Thanks to J Milburn for again re-emphasizing an area a number of editors feel I have room for improvement in.
 * Thanks to Mojska for emphasizing the importance to the community of the various issues raised in the RfA.
 * Thanks to Moonriddengirl for your advice; but more especially thanks for your support; but even more than that thanks for being a friend.
 * "I've tried the new moon tilted in the air
 * Above a hazy tree and farmhouse cluster
 * As you might try a jewel in your hair.
 * Robert Frost.

☺


 * Thanks to MrPrada for taking the time and effort to review 1000 of my contributions as well as the whole RfA.
 * Thanks to MSJapan for giving me feedback on my handling of an issue that arose on the WP:3RRN noticeboard.
 * Thanks to Naerii for your ebullient preemptive support. ☺
 * Thanks to TheNautilus for trusting me to stop and think before taking action. I try to be careful.
 * Thanks to Jitse Niesen for coming to my RfA and supporting me and for reminding me that there are all those math articles out there waiting for me to work on one of these days.
 * Thanks to Natalya who apparently likes dancing as much as I do and who has refreshingly cool userpage images, for contributing your thoughts.
 * Thanks to NiciVampireHeart for adding your voice to those concerned about my understanding of NPOV. I will continue to reflect on my understanding of this core policy.
 * Thanks to Orangemarlin for contributing your opinion to the discussion and for your willingness to elaborate on that opinion and provide a diff.
 * Thanks to Pete.Hurd for contributing your opinion. I see you've worked on Evolutionarily stable strategy; an interesting topic: maybe I'll edit that page one of these days.
 * Thanks to Philosopher for your contribution and for an interesting quote about time travel on your userpage.
 * Thanks to Phoenix-wiki for contributing a comment about the difference between sense and nonsense, and getting me thinking about clarifying more often whether we're talking about a debate between Wikipedians or a debate among the reliable sources.
 * Thanks to Pigman for carefully weighing the pros and cons.
 * Thanks to Prashanthns for recognizing that, as WP:NPOV says, "All editors and all sources have biases"
 * Thanks to QuackGuru for bringing the chiropractic article to my attention again. I look forward to participating there and hope that we will reach common understandings about both content and behavioural issues.
 * Thanks to Queerbubbles for visiting my RfA, and for seeing two sides like some of the other Neutral participants. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  I like the name "Queerbubbles": it reminds me of blowing bubbles with soapy solution and a wand.  Once I made a soap bubble with the topology of a Möbius strip.  I hadn't been sure it would be possible. Now, that would be a queer bubble, wouldn't it?
 * Thanks to Raul654 for closing my RfA. I appreciate your time and effort and the opportunity to receive a definitive result in a timely manner.
 * Thanks to Raymond arritt for contributing your insight to my RfA and giving me a perspective which I will be thinking over carefully.
 * O wad some power the giftie gie us
 * To see oursel's as others see us (Robert Burns)

Sincerely, Coppertwig (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Razorflame for making clear which policies I still need to demonstrate an understanding of.
 * Thanks to Realist2 for reconsidering in response to feedback.
 * Thanks to Redthoreau for your kind words. I look forward to continuing to edit alongside you.
 * Thanks to Relata refero for your careful review.
 * Thanks to Rudget for being your unique self, for being here and for writing such a tremendously positive nomination that I felt that after reading that, I could survive any number of oppose votes without feeling discouraged. Thanks for looking after me by replying to selected comments, and especially for thinking of my feelings.
 * Thanks to RyRy5 for having a cut-and-pastable signature, for liking my answers, for trusting me and especially for wishing me well.
 * Thanks to Pat (Scarian, my friend) for encouraging me to "RfA soon". It's been an exhilarating experience.
 * Thanks to Siva1979 for support from a fellow inclusionist. ☺
 * Thanks to Skinwalker for clarifying two distinct areas in which I still need to demonstrate to the community a sufficiently developed level of understanding.
 * Thanks to SmithBlue for a long though infrequent association and for remembering and summarizing your impressions of me.
 * Thanks to Spencer for using your intuition.
 * Thanks to Squeakbox for contributing your perspective and for defending my display of an unblocking advice essay.
 * Thanks to Stifle for thinking I was already an admin.
 * Thanks to Stormtracker94 for expressing the regretfulness of your oppose. Don't worry:  I feel fine, but I appreciate your consideration for my feelings.
 * Thanks to Swatjester for your good wishes.
 * Thanks to SWik78 for your praise. (It's easy to talk about SWik78 because he considerately tells people on his userpage which pronoun to use.) ☺
 * Thanks to Al Tally. I am "majorly" pleased to have you participate in my RfA.
 * Thanks to Tiggerjay for envisioning the future and contributing your thoughts to this discussion.
 * Thanks to Tim Smith. Good to see you again.
 * Thanks to Tinkleheimer for having the faith to assume that Assuming Good Faith is good. ☺
 * Thanks to Tiptoety for trusting me with the tools; for giving me a laugh again with the "What Wikipedia has become" image on your userpage, and for having a link to global account creation – I didn't know that had been implemented yet!
 * Thanks to Tool2Die4 for clearly expressing what's problematic for you on this wiki.
 * Thanks to Trusilver for impressive contributions to Wikipedia including starting the League of Copyeditors project and making an effort to participate regularly in RfA's, including mine.
 * Thanks to KleenupKrew for admitting that not quite everything deserves to be deleted.
 * Thanks to SheffieldSteel for thinking things over carefully, for looking at my contribs, for finding some nice things to say about me – and for adding to my collection of nicknames.
 * Thanks to Vassyana. Remembering you from the WP:NOR policy debates, I was extremely pleased to receive your Strong Support.
 * Thanks to Walton One for your perceptive comments in the discussion section. I agree that the interaction of editors of differing viewpoints can be an important ingredient in the crafting of a NPOV article, and I share your puzzlement as to where the idea of me being "anti-science" came from.
 * Thanks to weburiedoursecretsinthegarden for your thoughtful support.
 * Thanks to Wisdom89 for contributing your opinion. Maybe I'll edit vasodilator one of these days and run into you there.
 * Thanks to Wizardman for including a contribution to my RfA among your 40,000+ edits.
 * Thanks to Yaf for calling me "quiet and reflective". I like that.
 * Thanks to Yilloslime for a contribution to my RfA from a fellow scientist.
 * Thanks to Zginder for bringing up an interesting point re non-self-noms and cabalism. I think your point has considerable validity;  nevertheless, there are probably also advantages on the other side; it would be interesting to participate in a community discussion on the issue. I'm sorry I didn't have time to participate in your RfA.  I was incredibly busy all week, with matters arising from the RfA added to the usual responsibilities on- and off-wiki, in spite of giving RL short shrift this week.

Quick favor
Hey Copper, I had a favor to ask. I recently added a few citations and references to the CG page, and was wondering if you could go through the references and combine them how you did the others in the past (I haven't quite mastered that yet) ? I would greatly appreciate it. :o) Thanks old friend and I hope life is well.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 09:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm definitely planning to do that. I'll probably get to it sometime this weekend.  After I do that, I'm planning to format references on a bunch of other pages (see User talk:Coppertwig). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you know, I just reverted a comment on your talk page from an IP editor. The IP is an incarnation of User:Nangparbat, a banned user who keeps hopping IPs to make biased edits to articles and harass users who disagree with him. I've been trying to get Abuse Reports to talk to his ISP to get this to stop, but it's not getting anywhere so far. There's more information in several sections of my talk page and User:Hersfold/Vandal watch if you're interested. Cheers. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Congregation Baith Israel Anshei Emes
Thanks! It was a complete (but pleasant) surprise that it was on the front page. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

breast feeding
I welcome your edits on the breastfeeding article, I don't know if my methods are in line with wikipedia rules or not, but I tend to remove items that are unsuitable, hoping that they will be added in a more suitable way, rather than leaving them intact and waiting for them to be modified.

Of course the "how to" issue is relevant on the article, but also even if it is not a guide, are the items in the how to section actually notable? I am sure that it could be re-written in a manner that does not make it look like a guide, that part is easy, but make sure the items are actually notable. I personally don't think that having every single feeding position is notable - perhaps a link to a site that lists them would be better.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * When a section is unsuitable but can be improved to be suitable, I would suggest rather than just deleting it, moving it to the talk page so the information isn't forgotten. I'm pretty sure that's suggested in some policy or guideline somewhere but I forget where.
 * I was thinking of perhaps shortening the material about positions, possibly as short as a single sentence.
 * I think most of the material in that section is notable, basically summarizing information that's provided in numerous books.
 * I'm a bit busy so it may take me a few days to get around to it, but I'm definitely planning to continue to edit the section. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Efficient milk removal depends on correct maternal positioning and latching and normal infant suckling dynamics...
 * Breastfeeding and human lactation Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility RFC question
I have a question about your support comment at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Civility restrictions. You said you disagreed with my comment, then explained "It's a mistake to ignore incivility until the victim complains." I argued that ignored incivility should still be dealt with, even if there is little apparent effect, which would seem to agree with your statement. I was wondering if you had misread my comment, or if I just don't understand the disagreement.  Pagra shtak  16:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I see what's going on. You had said, "If someone engages in a pattern of low-level incivility, but the target of that incivility simply ignores it and continues with whatever he is doing, I would say that the incivility had little effect, but should still be dealt with." Perhaps I agree with the "but should still be dealt with" part of this sentence, though I'd have to know more about how it would be dealt with.  However, I disagree with the first part of the sentence.  You would say that the incivility had little effect; I disagree with that, and would say that it may or may not have had a tremendous effect on the victim, an effect which is however not visible on-wiki because of the advice in WP:NPA to ignore attacks against oneself in many situations.  In my comment supporting A2, I stated that I disagreed with Jim Miller and with you.  The first sentence following that explains my disagreement with Jim Miller's comment and makes no sense in response to your comments. The next two sentences after that explain my disagreement with your comment. The order of the sentences is the same as the order in which I mentioned you and the other user. I hope that clears things up. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. We don't disagree, although it's not clear from my comment. I was pointing out a counter-example, not making a blanket statement—saying it is possible for someone to ignore incivility, (meaning truly ignore, not building internal anger) thus giving it little effect. You are correct that it is also possible (and more probable) for incivility to have little observed effect, but great actual effect.  Pagra shtak  18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see: you meant the person really ignores it. OK.  It was just a matter of how I interpreted your comment. We don't actually disagree.  If you like, I can post an explanation/clarification on the discussion page, but I think it's likely simplest to just leave things as they are. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I can see how it would be interpreted that way. I clarified my own comment in case that's how others were reading it. Feel free to leave yours as is if you want. Thanks,  Pagra shtak  18:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the barnstar! It is much appreciated. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Request
Thanks for adding the signature. I've never done a request for arbitration before (probably evident by the history log of the page). I didn't think I needed to sign the section for Cmmmmm's statement, as I thought that as the filer of the request, and the text used, that it would be evident that I put it there.
 * I'm not an expert either! However, I think normally a section titled "statement by Cmmmm" would be added by Cmmmm, and I thought it would be useful to clarify and to provide the time so people could find the diff if they wanted. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, and if Cmmmm would actually make any statement relating to the specific issues raised, I would have included it. Or rather, I would have gone for a mediation request instead. However, the user simply won't discuss the specifics. (Also, the user in question has specific statements on their user page explicitly indicating bias against JWs.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR
Thanks Coppertwig, the heads-up is much appreciated. I suspected I might be, but the reverts are simply me undoing removal of proper sources, so if it does result in admin intervention I'd frankly welcome it. Prophaniti (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the removal of my block warning: That genuinely wasn't an attempt to hide/shift it, simply because I'd over-looked the part saying it shouldn't be removed until the block expires. Cheers. Prophaniti (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! I think that's just so that if you do a second unblock request, the admins can easily notice the first one. That didn't really come up this time, as such, anyway. Welcome back. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning
I very much appreciate it.GreekParadise (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thanks for taking it in a positive spirit! Although it seems my warning may have been somewhat redundant!! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic 2
You have not explained your revert. Improvements were made to the vaccination section. You did not explain it. Improvements were made to the Gallup poll text. You did not explain your removal of reliable references. You added Simon-says text that went against WP:ASF policy. We can assert it when no serious dispute exists. Please provided evidence of a dispute. Q ua ck Gu ru  18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I'll try to find time for a proper reply later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the interim, your edit may be reverted due to the unexplained revert per Coppertwig's edit summary (unexplained revert). You reverted an editor because you felt it was unexplained. However, you did the same thing. You have not explained your revert.  Q ua ck Gu ru   21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Explanation of my partial revert of 23:09 17 September 2008 at Chiropractic with edit summary "Partially reverting unexplained revert; possibly user mistook it for vandalism?":
 * Capital V on "vertebral": unimportant (part of piped link; invisible)
 * restoring the word "considered" in "sustained by ideas such as subluxation that are considered significant barriers to scientific progress within chiropractic": see diff of 21:36 17 September Note that Levine2112 and Fyslee replied to this with "Agreed"; and see diff of 22:42 20 September 2008.
 * Re the Gallup poll: see diff of 19:03 17 September and diff of 22:50 20 September.  I suggest that we wait until we've agreed on the wording before inserting this.
 * Restoring the words "what are characterized as" in "and was hampered by what are characterized as antiscientific and pseudoscientific ideas that sustained the profession in its long battle with organized medicine": See diff of 21:36 17 September 2008 and diff of 22:42 20 September 2008.
 * Restoring the words "what is considered by many chiropractic researchers to be" in "among chiropractors; the other end employs what is considered by many chiropractic researchers to be antiscientific reasoning and unsubstantiated claims,"; this has been much discussed, and as I said in the diff of 21:36 17 September 2008 I oppose deleting those words for similar reasons as the others; feel free to ask about this specifically if you'd like an answer for this specific edit.
 * Re my opposition to changing "have been called" to "are" in "that have been called ethically suspect when they let practitioners maintain their beliefs to patients' detriment." Again, this has been much discussed. See diff of 21:36 17 September 2008.
 * Re nbsp: I don't know what the correct or best format is; I reverted this by accident along with the substantive changes.
 * Vaccination section: Oops! I think I thought my revert wasn't changing anything in this section, but perhaps I did revert stuff there. I'd have to catch up with the talk page discussion to figure out which version I think is better. I apologize for the confusion caused by my reverting the addition of a blank line at the top of the section, making it harder to compare diffs. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ASF, we can assert it as fact when no serious dispute exists. Please provide evidence of a serious dispute such as references.  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Serious dispute of what? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provied evidence of a serious dispute of the text that you added atrribution to. Per WP:ASF, when no serious dispute exists, we can assert it.  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you provide evidence that these are "facts" about which there is "no serious dispute". I dispute that claim. Some of these are clearly opinions, not facts, as is obvious just from reading them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC) Oops! I'm sorry about the tone of this comment.  I'll review Techniques for handling emotions when editing. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The text is referenced and not disputed among the sources provided in the article. The article provides evidence there is "no serious dispute" from the references in the article. It is irrelevant you dispute the claim. We should stick to the sources and not let personal opinion go against WP:ASF policy. You have admitted you personally dispute the claim among reliable sources. You disagree with the text. We don't add attribution because you disagree with the experts or reliable sources. See WP:ASF, we can assert it as fact when no evidence of a serious disputed is presented. Now, please provided evidence of a serious dispute.  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Absence
Hi Coppertwig! Sorry, I've been offline for some months. I just moved to Amman in order to do my MSc. Unfortunately, I won't have much time for Wikipedia for the next months, but I wanted to thank you for all the help and support you gave to me and the WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country. If you find the time, I suggest that you adopt Anunezsanchez instead of me. She did a number of excellent articles mainly on irrigation and water resources management. Thanks again for all your help and greetings from Jordan! --Kerres (Talk) 15:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi! Nice to hear from you! I hope you enjoy your time in Jordan and learn lots of interesting things! You've made valuable contributions to Wikipedia and I hope you'll be back at some later stage. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD G8 help
Hello! As you have worked on db-g8, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind working on it a little more? Specifically, there was discussion at WT:CSD about broadening G8 to cover subpages and such. This is not a problem, but then I wanted to preserve the history of the templates as they were, so I moved the original db-g8 to db-talk and db-t4 to db-subpage as specific instances of G8, with a new template at db-g8 (a modified copy of the original). I hope this is not making you cringe. Everything works fine, but obviously the way that these specific instance templates are handled is more delicate than that, as I realized when I saw db-disambig. I would greatly appreciate your help in adjusting the template code wherever necessary so that these worked as elegantly as they did before I got involved. Note that I have not touched the R1 templates, even though this CSD was merged with G8, as two editors objected after the merger. Even though it was discussed before and R1 is now clearly redundant, I don't wish to irritate anyone any further at this point, so I am awaiting a reply before proceeding with that. Thanks for any help you can give. ~  JohnnyMrNinja  08:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion
Thanks for your kind suggestion on the article Gaogouli County! I have been expanding the article. And I found that the Gaogouli County was not always part of Xuantu Commandery. It's in some era not part of Xuantu Commandery, but part of Liaodong Commandery, ect. So I think the redirection is not right. Thanks again and best wishes! -Dicting (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

On personal attack, the boundaries.
I just noticed this:. In the light of our discussions, what do you think? I agree that there was a level of incivility involved in the situation diff'd. However, it didn't rise, apparently, in the judgment of the community participating, to personal attack as in WP:NPA. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Shortly after you posted this message, I posted a message to one of the users involved. I'm sorry I didn't get around to answering your question. I was going to look further into the situation.  I'll just answer now based on what I know.
 * I think this is what happens: someone complains about a personal attack against themself. One tends to exaggerate how bad an attack against oneself is, so the person figures that it's a very bad attack and expects others to "do something" about it: after all, there's a policy, so there must be some sort of enforcement.  Well, the others see someone complaining about an attack against themself, and figure that the person is trying to get ahead in a content dispute by getting the other person in trouble.  They figure their only options are (1) block the attacker, or (2) argue that the attack is mild.  In order to block the attacker a bunch of conditions would have to be met, and having the situation presented to them by the attackee doesn't tend to be a factor in favour of that decision.  So they argue that the attack is mild and that the person should ignore it.  This is very unfortunate, because the attacked person feels abandoned, unfaired-against etc. and might leave Wikipedia as a result. The people at the noticeboard completely forget that there are other options beside blocking the attacker or supporting the attacker: they can gently suggest to the attacker not to do that;  and/or they can offer sympathy to the attacked and apologize that they can't do any more than that. I find that on Wikipedia, complaining about an attack against oneself doesn't tend to get a beneficial response.  It doesn't have to be that way.  However, since it is:  well, at least instead of telling someone the attack is mild and they should ignore it, it might be better to explain nicely that on Wikipedia, we don't usually get anywhere by complaining about attacks against ourself and we do well when we DefendEachOther.  If we don't explain this, people might get the impression that they're supposed to not only ignore attacks against themself, but also ignore attacks against others; and then what happens to enforcing the civility policies? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This analysis is pretty accurate, however, there is an additional factor that I've seen in operation ever since I was a conference moderator on the WELL (virtual community)in the 1980s. The person who has been abused and attacked, if they make a fuss, will be presumed to be the problem. After all, the other editors didn't have a problem until this person started complaining. A number of things were new about computer conferencing. One was that there was a complete record. "He said, she said," wasn't legitimately a matter of controversy. Except it still was! People wouldn't look back, they relied on their impressions, often formed after the fact based on loyalties, general affiliations, etc. It still happens here. It still happens even if a writer lays out diffs with complete evidence for what they are claiming. It takes a very tight environment to overcome this, or luck, i.e., that admins or editors do take the trouble to investigate. The theory is that a closing admin, for any process that results in a significant decision (delete, block, restrict), the admin is supposed to independently review the evidence, the community has merely blazed a path. However, too often, the admin just relies on whatever arguments they like, or on the preponderance of !votes. It usually works. Unfortunately, when it fails, it can make quite a mess. AN/I is particularly hopeless. It works for certain things. But it's no place to take any true controversy. It should be like 911. You don't call (or at least shouldn't call) 911 for anything that requires complex legal judgment, a decision of guilt, etc. Rather, you call 911 to stop immediate harm or likelihood of harm. The police do not decide guilt, they only go so far as to decide probable cause for action, and their primary function is protection, not judgment. Without a court order, the police won't repossess a car, as to matters of disorder, they may order someone to stop something, they might even arrest a person, but they make no decision about final disposition on all these things.


 * We have generally, in modern societies, rigorously separated the executive power (which includes the police) from the judicial power (which decides fact). The executive only decides fact where necessary for immediate action. I.e., if they see a robbery in progress, they don't have to get a court order to stop it. So, here, administrators can and should use their tools to stop abuse. If it appears to an administrator that someone is causing disruption, they should, in my opinion, immediately warn and block quickly, maybe even skipping the warning (with a short block). Yes, that includes me. But such blocks should create no presumption of guilt or wrong-doing on the part of the editor who is blocked. Rather, that should require some judgment, and admins should have no specially privileged position in respect to that. (Unless we really do decide that those buttons are special, a "big deal.")


 * Wikipedia grew like Topsy. Some really excellent thinking and experience went into it. But parts of it became rather crystallized and rigid and highly resistant to change, I'd say, prematurely. The structure wasn't scalable without damage. There are ways to fix this, but they will unfortunately challenge certain constituencies which like things the way they are. They don't mind that Wikipedia is fouling its nest, building up reservoirs of ill-will out there, needlessly. They think of those offended people as vandals, POV pushers, fanatics, fringe theorists, promoters of fancruft, etc. There is such, and there will always be such, but we create much more than would happen naturally. Random vandalism from adolescents who think it's wonderful to replace pages with "PENIS" will always happen. But that's not controversial, even these vandals understand that their stuff is going to be removed. My suspicion is that if we look back at long-term vandals, we'll find an editor who was abused in some way, and who decided he wasn't going to take it and go away quietly. Not always, I'm sure, the world is vast and there will be all kinds of people attracted here. But commonly. And what I've found, talking with experts in various fields, is that they have a very low opinion of Wikipedia. It does not need to be that way. And the problem isn't fancruft, that doesn't create any problem with experts. It creates a problem with fans! We don't have mechanisms for soberly looking at the real problems, coming to some very well-considered and well-informed judgment, and then maintaining that judgment, with narrow exceptions. ArbComm isn't designed for this. We need deliberative mechanisms that are scalable. ArbComm members do realize the problem, a number of them were working on proposals for a Wikipedia Assembly, to take on this kind of task. However, they are likely to recreate political systems that will weaken or destroy the wiki model; it's classic when direct democracies face the problems of scale. There is an alternative, it's been proposed, and I was astonished to see the violence with which it was rejected.... That it would be rejected, the first time it was proposed, did not surprise me, that's normal. It's a new idea. That efforts were made to eradicate the proposal is what surprised me. See WP:PRX which did not deal with actual proposals for structural change, it would merely have started up an experiment to see what editors would do with the ability to easily assign a proxy. WP:PRX didn't change any policies, proxies would have had no special powers, they wouldn't be allowed to !vote for others.... but it would start to become possible to analyze vote counts to see how representative they were of the general editorial community. And just the possibility of that, one might suspect, was seen as quite a threat by some. --Abd (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for supporting another editor
Replied on my talk page. Bstone (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI
I'm planning on stalking your edits for the next few days.--Tznkai (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome to do so. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Jewish dates
Hi, C-Twig. This may help: http://www.hebcal.com/converter/ -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Extra eyes
You seem levelheaded and intelligent. I'd like your input on WP:AE.--Tznkai (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment! I'll try, but I'm rather busy. I may have more time on the weekend. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I read over the discussion but didn't have anything to add. The people involved seemed to be coming to a consensus on how to handle the situation.  Arguments about flags should refer to reliable sources, though: I might comment about that later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru 2
Thanks for your comment at Talk:Chiropractic, could you comment there on exactly what you'd like to change? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that question. I might reply another day. Sorry, I'm rather busy and that would take time to think through. ☺  Coppertwig (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem, I'm not going to make any decision this weekend. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. I just noticed your message at QG's talk page. I basically agree with it all. It's a common tactic he uses. The first part applies even more to Levine2112, so it might be a good idea to also give him the same warning, just with an added "not": "Repetition of the argument that spinal manipulation is NOT related to chiropractic." He is the one who is pushing his OR twisting of Ernst's statement to make that point, and QG is responding to him. (This is no defense of QG.) You need to read this. It will give you some background to understand what Levine2112's up to. -- Fyslee / talk 07:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was clarifying a warning made by Lifebaka, not making a warning on my own initiative. I haven't had time to follow the discussions at Chiropractic much recently. If you think a warning to Levine2112 is warranted, I encourage you to be bold. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Jenin copyvio
Hi, Coppertwig. I've done some editing to this section, including copyediting and using other sources. I have said so on the talk page, but you did not respond, so I thought I'd notify you here. In the meantime, another user has reverted, which I don't like and have said so on the talk page, but I don't want to edit war without clear consensus. Anyway, here is the new version on the temp page. If you approve, can you retract the request for arbitration? Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your message but haven't had time to look at it yet. Hopefully within a couple of days.  I'm not sure what the procedure is: not sure if I can retract it once it's listed at WP:CP. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Well, I suppose it was all done in good faith. I guess the thing I'm upset about is the waiting period. Nobody really knows how long it's going to be before an admin actually looks at it. I'm not sure I understand this policy. You never really asked me, and instead simply blanked most of the section, which made it pretty much a one line section. -- Nudve (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I followed Wikipedia policy in a reasonable way. (See copyright policy and instructions at the copyright noticeboard.) I spent some effort paraphrasing, shortening and reworking the section so that it would no longer be a copyright violation; I figured that this was a first step and hoped that others, or possibly I myself, would add information from other sources to round out the section.  Display will vary from one computer to another, but as it displays with the current settings on the computer I'm using, the Report section I wrote is about 7 lines.
 * Wikipedia policy is clear that copyrighted material is not supposed to be displayed in our articles without permission from the copyright holder or a fair use rationale. Displaying copyrighted information could leave Wikimedia open to lawsuits which could potentially bankrupt the Foundation, compromising the ability to display millions of pages of information, so I see following the copyright policy as being much more urgent than providing the ideal information to the reader for a period of time in any one article.
 * In future, if someone identifies something as a copyright violation or potential copyright violation, please don't restore the disputed text to the article before it has been established by rough consensus or by an uninvolved admin that it is not a copyright violation. What you could have done instead in this case is replace my shortened version by a writing longer version which was clearly not a copyright violation. Regards, ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further explanation of policy: Usually the template is used to blank an entire article. It's done that way so that the potentially copyrighted text is not displayed during discussion: this is a priority.  There's a 7-day wait period after listing an article at WP:CP, which is to allow time for editors to rewrite a non-copyright-violation version (as we've been doing), or to obtain permission from the copyright holder to display the text.  Normally, I would also have notified the editor who contributed the material, so that they would have had a chance to do one of those things; however, I believe you were the one who introduced the disputed text and you were clearly soon aware of the situation, so I figured I could skip that step.  After 7 days, an admin will look at it (when some admin has time to do so), and figure out how to handle the situation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, but there's another (and better, IMHO) version waiting to be inserted instead. There's no objection to it so far, so what's the point in waiting? -- Nudve (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think the idea is that the admin who handles the listing will judge whether the new version is also a copyright violation or not. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Busier than usual
Approximately Oct. 8-10 I expect to be busier than usual in real life. I won't be able to keep up with most of the things I'd like to do on-wiki, and might actually have to resort to setting priorities. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision comments
In this case Blackworm explicitly asked why I would be more qualified to judge these matters than him (though he stated it in a more insulting way). As such, I'd pretty much have to discuss him and me, wouldn't I? Jayjg (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily; perhaps only if you wanted to argue that you're more qualified; and your answer wouldn't necessarily have had to be given on an article talk page, and in the middle of a thread whose purpose was discussion of some specific article content. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Interpretation of "be bold"
Here is my reply. A few editors disagreed with improving the article but the goal was to improve the article. It was better to improve the article than to wait six months to improve the article. Levine2112 is still discussing OR issues when there never was any OR. Levine2112's improvements are indirect. For example, he proposed a hypothetical question. The result was a real proposal to improve the article. Levine2112 improves the article indirectly. The more Levine2112 resists the more the article improves. How ironic. BTY, I could not find any specific Wikipedia policy that reflects the template at the top of the chiro talk page. Sometimes it is best to ignore all rules to improve the article. See WP:IAR. Q ua ck Gu ru  04:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't use the phrase "improve the article" when talking to someone who doesn't consider those edits to be improvements. It's more polite to use a phrase such as "what I consider to be improvements to the article" or "improve the article, in my opinion".  I don't agree that the edits you're referring to were improvements.  I think maybe some were improvements and some weren't. I think that a collection of edits which include some improvements and some things which are not improvements are (usually) collectively not an improvement.  I think it's better to wait until there's a rough consensus on the talk page before making substantial changes.  I don't think anyone "disagreed with improving the article". What they disagreed with was changes which you consider to be improvements to the article, but which they don't consider to be improvements.  I think it's misleading to say that people "disagreed with improving the article" unless they actually said those words; please don't say that about people.  Instead, you can say "disagreed with changes which, in my opinion, improve the article".
 * Please don't say "there never was any OR" when talking to someone who has expressed a neutral position on whether there was or was not OR. It would be more polite to say "there never was any OR, in my opinion".  As I think I've said before, my position on that longstanding OR issue is neutral.
 * Please express your comments in a way which shows awareness of and respect for the variety of opinions about article content which exist among editors. See WP:CONSENSUS. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please see Respecting others' opinions (section of an essay in my userspace). ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Theses are the bold edits I was mentioning. According to Levine2112 there is still no concensus for the mass improvements* (in accordance with NPOV according to QuackGuru*). I remember explaining to you consensus can be misused. Editors can block imnprovements* by saying no consensus without a logical reason. The effectiveness section contains general spinal manipulation research. Top researchers outside of Wikipedia are doing the same thing I did on Wikipedia. When we are following the experts it is clear it can't be OR. If I tried to add the effectiveness section today it would be reverted again. The greatest respect is to improve* the article and ignore editors who make bogus arguments. If Larry Sanger ran this place, there would be a policy called WP:NEVERASSUMEGOODFAITH! In the real world, AGF is extremely dangerous. I can be WP:HONEST with the situation.


 * The template at the top of the page is not directly part of any Wikipedia policy. I don't see different rules for different articles. I could not find any policy on Wikipedia that mentions the template.


 * Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. If an old BLP article was linked to from Wikipedia it would be considered a BLP violation. Editors get blocked for removing a BLP violation. The way things work on Wikipedia is sometimes backwords and completely wrong. If someone wants to be an admin they should not be honest. And always keep to oneself and stay away from too much conflict. A person should always remain quiet and don't speak up. The more I did what was right the more I got blocked. Funny how things work (or don't work around here). Lol!  Q ua ck Gu ru   17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes editors block consensus. They may have a reason that seems valid to them.  According to WP:CONSENSUS, "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns..."  However, before editing substantial changes into the Chiropractic article, there should be at least rough consensus and there should have been a reasonable amount of time for discussion.
 * There may not be a policy specifically describing that template, but its meaning is obvious. In my opinion, the policy that applies here is WP:CONSENSUS.  If the template is there and has been there for a while, we can assume that there is consensus for having it there and that editors should follow its instructions.  If you don't want to follow those instructions, you can suggest removing the template, and can remove it if, after a reasonable length of time for discussion, there is consensus for removing it.  However, at the moment you may still need to follow similar instructions based on the warning from TimVickers even if the template is removed.  It's not a good idea to leave the template in place and ignore what it says, because then different editors would be following different rules.  I think that the situations in which I think you ignored the template are exactly the types of situations that the template was designed to be used in, so using IAR in those situations is not a good idea.  (See WP:WIARM.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Supporting harassment is not right
An editor accused me of vandalism not once but twice. It was clearly bad faih for that editor to accuse me of vandalism. I remember a while back an editor was blocked for accusing another editor of vandalism.

I was not giving that editor a hard time The editor falsey accused me of vandalism and made reposts on my talk page. You have made a false statement. Please stop with your bad faith allegation against me. Q ua ck Gu ru  19:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:HUSH,

Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing 'suspected sockpuppet' and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.

User pages are provided so that editors can provide some general information about themselves and user talk pages are to facilitate communication. Neither ''is intended as a 'wall of shame' and should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues. Any sort of content which truly needs to be displayed, or removed, should be immediately brought to the attention of admins rather than edit warring to enforce your views on the content of someone else's user space.''

This was harassment which you supported. My edits were not vandalism. Q ua ck Gu ru  00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that your edits were not vandalism. My comments, to which you give a link, were not intended to support actions by Grsz11 or anyone else.  I apologize for the long delay in responding to the above comment. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You explained you did not see evidence of bad faith but the editor accused me of vandalism. You agree that my edits were not vandalism. Do you think it was bad faith when an editor accused me of vandalism when my edits were clearly not vandalism.  Q ua ck Gu ru   03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of bad faith. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 21:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Please show and not assert your view would be more helpful
Your comment is not backed up with any references to support your view of original research. However, another comment has provided evidence that chiropractic is directly related. I am having trouble understanding your agreement with Surtuz's statement when no evidence of orginal research has been presented. Consensus is based on good faith comments and editing. You have not shown there is any WP:OR. Q ua ck Gu ru  19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fyslee proposed a very specific question and insisted that people only answer that specific question, not any broader question. My comment means that when the result of the poll is used, then it should be used only in the context of that specific question, not interpreted as applying to any broader or different question.  My comment is based on the way the question and poll were constructed; I see no need to prove that there is or is not OR in order to support that comment.  Thank you very much for drawing Eubulides' reply to my attention. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors have provided evidence that there is no OR and we are doing what reserachers are doing outside of Wikipedia but you are unable to provide any evidence of OR.
 * Coppertwig wrote in part: My comment is based on the way the question and poll were constructed; I see no need to prove that there is or is not OR in order to support that comment.
 * I am asking for any evidence of OR. We should not continue a discussion when OR does not exist. Continuing the OR discussion when editors can't provide any evidence of OR is not productive.  Q ua ck Gu ru   19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig, you have properly stuck to the subject of the RfC. The OR business is another matter, so don't let QG sidetrack you. Keeping the OR matter and this RfC separate is a good idea. Just because some editors didn't do that is no justification for QG to demand that you also get involved in that discussion in the context of this RfC. -- Fyslee / talk 16:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have responded to your comment and other comments. I have noticed you are unable to provide a single reference that demonstrated general SM is not related to chiropractic but editors have provided evidence that it is directly related.  Q ua ck Gu ru   22:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you currently believe there is any OR in the article then I request you provide evidence such as a reference to support your position.  Q ua ck Gu ru   16:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There never was any OR in the chiropractic article IMHO. Editors asserted but have not shown any evidence of OR. After about six months, editors have been given plenty of time to provide evidence of OR. It's time to remove the OR tag.  Q ua ck Gu ru   01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think there is any OR in the chiropractic article?  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * During the time that you put some of these messages on my talk page, I was neither replying to them, nor editing the Chiropractic article nor editing its talk page. In such a situation, I suggest that a single message would suffice; further messages could be placed on the article talk page, to be read by anyone with the time and interest.
 * I think you have things backwards: editors who want to remove something because they allege it's OR don't have to provide proof or a reference showing that it's OR. Instead, those who want to keep the material in the article have to provide a reference backing up the assertions or implications, in order to demonstrate that it isn't OR. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to move things forward. I provided references to demonstrate that it isn't OR.  Q ua ck Gu ru   01:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You said those were references to show that SM is directly related to chiropractic, not to show that something (what exactly?) isn't OR. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OR: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
 * I provided the evidence that SM is directly related. According to OR we can use references that are directly related to the topic.  Q ua ck Gu ru   02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Notification
The RFC was very clear. There was consensus that spinal manipulation is relevant to chiropractic. Editors should avoid arguing on the grounds that there is OR in chiropractic based on general SM research. If editors still have concerns about OR it should not be based on claims that SM is not related when there is a clear consensus that SM is related according to the closing administrator. Editors need to abide by the closing of the RFC. Here are more comments from the closing administrator. Please abide. Q ua ck Gu ru  22:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation is directly related to chiropractic according to the references presented. SM is a technique strongly associated and directly related to chiropractic. Per WP:OR, when SM is directly connected to chiropractic it is okay to cite research that has a direct connection. Q ua ck Gu ru  16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This comment was inappropriate. Please don't treat a woman like that again. Editors have been informed that SM is related to chiropractic.  Q ua ck Gu ru   01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see that I misspelled the username. That was unintentional, and I'll edit it.  The first three sentences of my comment are intended as a reply to Eubulides' comment, and only the fourth and last sentence is intended as a reply to Crohnie.  My comment consists mostly of questions, which I've asked in order to encourage others to give information about their opinions. I wonder whether you've misunderstood it somehow? Could you please explain what, if anything, other than the misspelling of a username, you consider to be inappropriate?  If it's unclear I may need to refactor it. Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See here.  Q ua ck Gu ru   03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Timotheos Evangelinidis
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry! Apparently that website licenses its material under GFDL, so there's apparently no problem with copyright.  See my message at Talk:Timotheos Evangelinidis.  Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Coppertwig (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate. J Bar (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple Wikiquote
Please the read second paragraph of the bottom of this. Thank you. --  American Eagle ( talk ) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Better check it again - you may remove it. Thanks --  American Eagle ( talk ) 03:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comment
Blackworm claims that a comment I made a year and a half ago is how I "really" feel about a current issue. That's an abusive misuse of my statements, and in any event is a personal comment having nothing whatsoever to do with article content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Now I understand why you consider it misleading.  I agree that a comment from so long ago can't necessarily be assumed to represent your current position. I also agree that it's a personal comment not directly related to article content. May I suggest discussing it politely with Blackworm on his talk page?  I'm willing to act as a sort-of mediator. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, per Wikipedia policies which have been quoted, please don't edit or delete another editor's comments (except under certain circumstances such as vandalism, BLP etc., which have not arisen here). Since you consider the comment to be misleading, I suggest you ask Blackworm to modify it.  I think it would help if you state how your current views differ from the views you expressed in that diff.  Although I said above I understood why you consider it misleading, I only understand that your views might have changed, but don't know how they might have changed or even whether they've changed; I think it would help to clarify this.  Also note my suggestions re the quotation marks around the word "really".  You linked to Talk page guidelines.  That guideline states, "When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs." Blackworm did use a diff.  The guideline also states, "As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures." (Related discussions: User talk:Jayjg; User talk:Blackworm.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Jayjg; when I said, above, that I understood, maybe I didn't actually understand correctly. I thought you meant that your views had changed; but maybe you meant that you had been commenting on one situation, and Blackworm was stating that the diff showed your views "on that", which seemed to refer to a different situation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The comment I made 1.5 years ago was about a different situation. Blackworm has no right to misrepresent it as a comment about a current situation, per WP:TALK.
 * 2. The comment Blackworm made had nothing whatsoever to do with article content, but rather was about me, violating both WP:TALK and WP:NPA.
 * That's why it won't be staying on the Talk: page. If he insists on playing games instead of trying to improve articles, I'll simply revert him. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling my edits "good faith edits". I'll reply more later. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re (1.): I agree that Blackworm has no evidence that views you expressed in the past, in a different situation, apply to a particular more recent situation. However, Blackworm may have been intending the word "that" to mean something more general and abstract than the recent situation, and may not have intended his comment to be interpreted as asserting that the comments applied to the recent situation.
 * Re (2.): I agree that the comment was not about article content and was therefore inappropriate on an article talk page.
 * However, apparently you and I disagree on how to respond to inappropriate comments. I consider that an appropriate first step is either to resolve to (permanently) ignore it, or to discuss it with the editor on their talk page.  Rather than modifying or deleting another editor's comments, the usual accepted practice, in my opinion, is to try to persuade the editor to modify their own comments.
 * If you would like to persuade Blackworm to retract, delete, modify or strike out the disputed edit, I suggest that it would likely help if you would strike out some or all of the following words in the discussion preceding the disputed edit: "that might help clear up your confusion"; "as opposed to over 50% of yours."; "rather distasteful"; and "(though he stated it in more dramatic way)". These words don't seem to me to be discussing article content, and seem to me to be unnecessary to the discussion; some of them seem to me to be about another editor, and all of them could be considered to be essentially about another editor rather than about article content.
 * Re "or pursuing absurd and petty vendettas." and "if he insists on playing games " (in your comment above): I don't think Blackworm would describe his behaviour in those terms. Please assume good faith, or at least formulate your comments as if you do. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done Teacher Coppertwig!
I have read through a large part of your correspondence with User:Arilang1234 and I'm amazed at your patience. You may not realize that (assuming they are actually Han) Arilang1234 calling you Teacher Coppertwig is a real sign of respect on their part, and it's encouraging to see the improvements in their editing. Well done!Matt's talk 08:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)