User talk:Peterstrempel/Apr-Jul-2011

That f#@^%*g day again
Yes, pranksters everywhere, including me. But I'll be glad when it's over. — Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   13:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WWI/genocide content advice sought
[helpme-helped template removed 09:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)]

Note: this is not a request for action, arbitration, interpretation of rules. It is entirely to do with seeking advice and discussion with an experienced Wikipedian. I posted my original request to the admin noticeboard, but Jayron32 Skomorokh (sorry Jayron32) moved it to the admin/incidents noticeboard, where I don't think it belongs, hence the help template on this page.


 * ===Help needed to discuss WWI genocide issue===


 * As part of copy editing an article on alleged Turkish genocide of Armenians in WWI, it occurred to me that the article might be badly named/disambiguated/categorised, which isn't really my field.


 * Because of Turkish-Armenian sensitivities about this topic, I wonder whether there is a senior editor/admin with some expertise or interest in WWI or genocide who might discuss with me how I best go about not just abandoning this article to obscurity or pseudo-orphan status after the copy edit.

Even if you come here and cannot help, maybe you can suggest who might be able to. Believe me, I spent more than an hour browsing through the help system to find the appropriate avenue of approach for advice, but I am forced once again to conclude that the help system is useful only if you already know exactly you are looking for. Regards — Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   08:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe ask for help from MilHist.  Chzz  ► 17:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is definitely something what you should discuss on talk there, or on talk page of some another wiki project which it's covered by. Petrb (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 14:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Inter-allied stuff
Replied on my talk page. Feel free to me if you're one of the few who know how to use a watchlist. Killiondude (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply:Dr Doom edit request
Go for it dude. That's ok I am a slow editor too sometimes. And if you got any questions about it you can consult me on my talk page or the article talk page. But yeah I would definitely love to see some progress going on with that article if you can help out with that. :) Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I replied to your message. Sorry it took so long. The answer might be a little rambling, I am quite tired and drained tonight :) --Errant (chat!) 22:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cached Japanese Page
Thank you very much for your assistance re: this cached Japanese page. I hadn't replied sooner as I was under the assumption I'd get an email alert to changes. Yeah - if you hadn't guessed I don't use wikipedia much other than for searching! I had tried emailing these contacts that were highlighted by Kwamikagami and yourself, I too found them by translating the page in Google Translate and I sent an email to them translated through Google too, however after several requests they too were ignored. I'll keep trying however I might have to just hope that eventually the page gets updated automatically. The page also isn't easy to find through google, hopefully its obscurity will see it fade away. Please pass my thanks to Kwamikagami ! Bgrinter (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin culture
I would like to have a short e-mail with you, but am blocked always, indefinatly, forever, everywhere and no matter what I say. At your option, johndearhart@gmail.com. Thanx either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.14.103 (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive invitation
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Return to 'pedia life
A sudden and serious medical emergency took me away from all but private concerns for three months from mid-April. Apologies to all with whom I was working on anything. I'm looking at a slow re-entry to 'pedia life. Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope the problem is fully resolved and everything is OK now. I noticed in the discussion pages of the Astrology page that you were involved in changes to the page some while back. I've been mainly interested in contributing to other astrology pages that need improvement, but recently entangled myself in discussion on the main astrology page when a simple point regarding the first sentence of the first paragraph turned into a more protracted discussion than I'd have imagined.
 * A couple of days ago I made some design changes to the page and suggested that editors keep an eye on the bigger picture and work collaborately to bring that page up to a good WP standard. One editor has asked for the changes to be reverted but I think this is arising from a desire to continue problems this editor has had with my contributions elsewhere (see).
 * The page needs more involvement from sensible editors without agendas who can contribute towards consensus on reasonable points and keep the page content attached to sanity. If you get chance take a look at the comments I made in my point about the layout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Layout
 * I'm not asking you to contribute to that, but think you might agree with my general drift and just wanted to say that if you get the chance and have the interest, that page would benefit from you keeping it on your watchlist. Regards, Zac  Δ talk   10:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * :: Hi Peter, just wanted to say – in addition to the reassurances I tried to give on the talk page – I hope you don’t take the directness of my debate comments as disrespectful. So much to say, it’s sometimes necessary to use few words, and that can sometimes (unintentionally) come across as abrasive. I tried to include smiley faces in that comment where I was being a little flippant (though I think my point needed making - sorry). I hope you realise that when I made you aware that this subject had come up for discussion again, it wasn’t because I expected us to share the same views. Looking over the history of the discussion pages, I could see the past contributions you have made, and that you and Robert Currey had recently worked hard at the revision of the content from different perspectives. You are clearly an involved editor who avoids bullshit and wants to focus on verifiability and reliable sources. That’s good. That’s why I hoped you would get involved again and I consider it of great benefit to that page that you have. So you understand - I'm not pushing a POV on WP. I've tried to make that clear in my posts and hopefully you will see that given time. I won't reply again here, but if you feel that my comments were abrasive and want to clarify that on mine, feel free. No offense (I hope) and best regards  Zac  Δ talk   15:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Opeth discography
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Opeth discography. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamic terrorism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Requests for comment
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Militant atheism
I left you a note here. While I appreciate your desire to help, you'll only catalyze an edit war or result in the page being locked down - neither of these things are helpful. Creating a draft in your userspace sounds like the best idea. Cheers, m.o.p  20:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * While you appreciate my desire to help? I didn't realise that I was helping anyone.  My stated aim is to remove unreferenced assertions, which is the polite way of saying I intend to remove those lies for which credible citations cannot be found.


 * Catalyze an edit war? You have me mistaken for some chemical substance, don't you?  What do you think has been happening at militant atheism since its inception?


 * Page locked down? I'm reasonably certain that Beltway Biblethumpers would sleep better if you locked in all the bullshit the page contains at the moment.  Those godless atheist scum have no right to remove themselves from Christian judgement!


 * You're kinda new to this admin thingie, ain't ya. Maybe you better check with one of the grown-ups about unreferenced assertions.  The kind that ain't supposed to exist in Wikipedia pages.


 * If I wasn't obliged to give you the benefit of the doubt I'd be inclined to suspect your motives as being tainted by anti-atheist sentiment. You sure you're not a bit McCarthyist?  See ya in four days.  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   22:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, boy.
 * Let's rephrase: your interest in improving the article is noted, but your proposed methods are invalid. As the saying goes, "One does not simply walk into Mordor." You can't waltz into what is a very tense situation and declare yourself the adjudicator sent to quell all things that are not worthy.
 * Anyway, I'll ignore your comments and leave it at this: if you decide to carry out undiscussed edits without gaining consensus on them first, you will be blocked. If you've got any questions, let me know. Cheers, m.o.p  01:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I should have known that you are one of the ‘nice’ people who is impervious to direct and grotesque ideological subversion of Wikipedia articles to make them fit completely irrational purposes.  Proving that proposition rationally is, of course, completely impossible and as pointless as the hair-splitting in the militant atheism talk page.  And that’s where nice people give up or surrender to the madness of zealots.
 * So I guess I’m not ‘nice’. I can live with that, and there’s actually nothing in Wikipedia rules that demands that I behave in a way that accords with your notion of ‘nicencess’, which I take to mean some kind of behaviour that would be legitimate for a children’s story featuring bunnyrabbits and cats.
 * Just in case you might have missed a salient feature about the militant atheism article: what is said there is also used as justification for persecution and murder. You won’t read about that in children’s fiction, and the topic is definitely not for the young and impressionable.  My point is, if you don’t wanna take sides, get out of the way, because no one active in the militant atheism talk page is neutral.
 * That leads me to a dispassionate analysis of what you know about me. I really can’t get past my words.  You know nothing about me that you cannot infer from my words because all you have ever seen about me is my words.  But on the basis of my words you have inferred some Wikiunlegal activity.  So, with your administrator hat on, tell me now and emphatically that removing unreferenced assertions from Wikipedia articles is against Wikipedia rules.  If you can do that I will cease to take an active interest in Wikipedia altogether.  I suspect you cannot do that because Wikipedia rules don’t support ideological censorship no matter how much you would just like everyone to be ‘nice’.
 * Further, having naturally assumed good faith, the way you and all Wikizealots do, when I announced that I would remove all unreferenced assertions, you were compelled to assume bad faith to the extent that you gave me instructions on how I am permitted to behave? I don’t know whether I should be insulted, flattered or gobsmacked by that assumption.  But I do know it’s a leap of faith that doesn’t quite square with my Heideggerrian ‘being in the world’ rather than some Walt Disney cartoon.
 * Did I misunderstand that material published by Wikipedia must be verifiable? Or are you just keen to slap a ban on me?  Do you really need a spurious justification for that?  Before you cluck about my lack of manners, put yourself in my shoes.  I am confronted by rancid Christian Right rhetoric and a debate mired in irrelevances.  To cut through the crap I choose not to debate irrelevances, but to focus on the published copy.  Before committing any effort to that copy, my ambit is to trim away from it all unreferenced assertions (that is, remove unverifiable content).
 * Then you come along and tell me that I have to talk about this in some unspecified way. Is this some kinda couch you want to put me on?  What’s not clear about removing ‘unreferenced assertions’?  This isn’t me imposing anything other than encyclopaedic rules, and regardless of ideological motivation.  If you really want to know how I do this, take a look at the talk page for astrology in March.  That would be better than taking bunnyrabbit leaps of faith about who I am and what I mean.
 * Now let’s look at what I know about you. I know that you like to represent yourself as a bunnyrabbit, cat, children’s fiction kinda person.  And I know that someone gave you admin powers.  What possible reason do I have to infer from that information that your judgement is sound, or even indifferent?  Is there the slightest chance that I might rationally conclude you are so irresponsibly naïve about a topic that determines life or death for thousands of people that I’d prefer to trust rationality, not your subversion of it, to adjudicate the matter?
 * Could I interpret your comments as bullying, intimidation or censorship masked by disingenuous lovableness? Not in a world of bunnyrabbits and cats, maybe, but definitely in the real world in which I can get shot for saying or not saying some of the bullshit that is there for the world to see on the Wikipedia militant atheism page.
 * If you don’t have the stomach to recognise that the real world doesn’t amount to a Walt Disney fable, don’t behave like a cop. In the grand scheme of insanity that characterises world history people usually don’t come looking for bunnyrabbit and cat people ... unless they put themselves in harm’s way.  And then it’s usually people like me who have to come rescue them from their own stupidity.
 * The final word: if you prevent me from removing unreferenced assertions you might as well be putting them there yourself. You ally yourself with nonsense when you defend it.
 * Your cynicism is appreciated, but, if you don't mind, I'll skip my reply. To reiterate: any undiscussed additions to the page will result in a block. Thanks, m.o.p  06:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your 'Wikiniceness' is equally appreciated. However, since we are discussing my proposed amendments, what's 'undiscussed' about my proposal? Moreover, since I proposed removing, not adding, content, why limit yourself to banning me only for additions? How about banning me for not subscribing to infantilism, or disrespect for bunnyrabbits? Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk   02:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Any edit that isn't consensus backed is forbidden, be it a removal or addition (pardon me for not clarifying that earlier). Get a feeling for what other editors think before you make changes. Or - the best option - make a userspace copy. Those are the only open paths. Cheers, m.o.p  03:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. C'est incroiable. Just to make sure there’s no mistake about my intent, please point me to passages in any Wikipedia rules or guidelines stating verbatim that ‘any edit that isn't consensus backed is forbidden’ and ‘those are the only open paths’. If you can do that you can ignore the rest of this comment and I will withdraw from the militant atheism article and Wikipedia altogether because those words used in the context you applied to them would mean Wikipedia has become an authoritarian, determinist vehicle for ideology rather than an encyclopaedic endeavour.

I draw your attention to the guideline about content changes, specifically explaining edits and appropriate referencing. I draw your attention to the explicit caution that ‘when content is controversial, editors have an extra responsibility to cite a source, in accordance with the core policies of verifiability (WP:V) and no original research (WP:NOR)’. I draw your attention to WP:NPOV which refers specifically to undue weight given to any particular point of view. I draw your attention to the incontrovertible fact that content is routinely removed from Wikipedia, including by administrators, without seeking consensus or attracting censure; examples include vandalism, copyright violations, personal attacks, and all the above mentions of non-consensus driven reasons.

My own interpretation of these guidelines, which I am specifically permitted to form independent to those of an administrator, is that verifiability is not subject to a consensus to ignore it. As a matter of personal subjectivity I assert here that I have gained the distinct impression that what other editors of militant atheism think is that they can’t agree on anything, which I have traced back to voluminous unreferenced assertion and extraneous material. I think that assessment is entirely in accordance with the guideline about working out what other editors think. The character and/or bias of the article that I mentioned in another, unrelated post cannot be accurately assessed until all unverifiable material has been removed or sourced, as I invited everyone to do. I think this satisfies the requirement of announcing my intention on the talk page before doing anything else.

Jumping to conclusions about my methods is your prerogative, but might be better informed by looking at the March entries for the astrology talk page, in which I applied the word razor with the assistance of an administrator who did not misrepresent my intentions, and without controversy in an article mired in controversy.

With the exception of Anupam, you are the only one to object to excising unreferenced assertions. That kinda means you have no consensus for your indicated censorship either. And Anupam spent most of his words opposing my proposal for a re-wording, with which I have not and will not proceed, and my contention that the article is in fact seriously biased. It is my assertion that I cannot offer valid wording that accurately reflects the content of an article until that content is composed of only verifiable assertions. Further, I cannot proceed to evidence my claim that the article is seriously biased until all unverified assertions are removed to leave only content that can be sourced to a credible reference, at which time I believe I will be able to make the statistical correlation between word count about Marxism Leninism and militant atheism that evidences an undue inference that militant atheism is equivalent to militant socialism.

Please also note that the proposal under dispute here is to remove unverified content only, not to change wording or mess with any content I may not agree with, but that has one or more verifiable references to a credible source.

To prevent me from removing unverified content is to prevent me from presenting a rational assessment of the article, and any logical conclusions about its biases or otherwise. I regard being prevented from these purposes as being an act so obviously tainted by partisan bias I am at a loss to understand how you cannot see it.

I know that so far I have been unable to get through your armour of Wikiniceness, masking what is increasingly exposed as crude authoritarianism, but I will try one final time: you do not make the ‘rules’, and your interpretation of them is as open to debate as mine. Moreover, most of what are considered rules are actually deliberately and accurately labelled ‘guidelines’. Behind these guidelines is an assumption pretty hard for fundamentalist literalists to understand: a rational assessment must be made for every specific circumstance or conflict encountered, and the literal words of guidelines hardly ever apply absolutely to any concrete circumstance.

By telling me as absolute certainties that ‘any edit that isn't consensus backed is forbidden’ or ‘those are the only open paths’, you assume for yourself a mantle of authoritarian dictatorship. I think on careful reflection you will find this concept to be completely contrary to Wikipedia principles, and abhorrent to most rational people anywhere.

When you are acting as an administrator I think you should be more cautious about making the absolute statements you make about what is allowed as opposed to what you will personally impose. Not to be more careful carries the risk of legitimate concerns that you might be a partisan in the militant atheism controversies, and threatening to use your admin powers to assist a particular point of view (for example, that of obfuscating the topic to assist deliberate and sustained violation of NPOV). That suspicion might be heightened by any apprehension that you are applying a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation of guidelines, much the way religious fundamentalists apply it to their holy books. If that were the case in the militant atheism article, where would your neutrality be about a topic in which religious fundamentalists are almost always partisans?

As a final caution, I would commend to you looking up the concept of ‘escalation of commitment’, commonly applied to strategic mistakes made on the basis of an original decision or interpretation that was erroneous or harmful, but persisted with as a point of vanity, pride, delusion or myopia to a conclusion or outcome of avoidable failure or harm. Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk   09:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Militant atheism is currently undergoing RfC/mediation, as it has been the site of multiple disagreements and reversions in the recent past. As a result, any major changes should be passed by editors on the talk page. As I said, your will to help a struggling article is appreciated, but you should not make significant undiscussed changes to the page - please discuss with other editors first. According to this, you're still proceeding on schedule - remember that my block warning still stands. Cheers, m.o.p  10:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, no references at all to specific guidelines that authorise your threat as legitimate Wikipedia sanction. Do what you think you need to, but be ready to be held accountable for it.   Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   13:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I really think it would be best for you to heed my warning and engage in discussion instead of continuing on with your intentions. I'll point you towards this if you're still wondering why I would prefer you didn't go on with your plan. As I said above, the page is undergoing mediation and content is disputed; please do not go against my multiple warnings on this matter. It isn't like you're the only editor I'm stopping from editing - nobody is currently allowed to make large changes. The difference is that they've listened to my requests, and you're not. Regards, m.o.p  17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in here, but I'd like some clarification. Since WP:Verifiability is a policy and per WP:CONLIMITED
 * Doesn't that mean he has the right to remove the un–sourced content? I agree that discussion is preferable, but I can also see, from the existing talk page discussion, why Peter may think it would be fruitless. Peter, perhaps an acceptable compromise would be for you to post a list of what you are challenging and intend to remove at the talk page and if it's still not properly referenced the next day then go ahead and remove it… Mojoworker (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mojoworker, on one previous occasion on which I cut significant unverified content I employed a talk page subpage that was a copy of the article, used strikethrough to indicate the copy to be cut, offered notes on my reasoning, and linked to it from the talk page with a comment that set a seven day period before the strikethroughs would be put into practice. I see no reason to depart from that formula, which was accepted uncontroversially in a controversial talk page.


 * My objection here is to the power of anyone, administrator or not, to impose interpretations on Wikipedia guidelines that are tendentious, to order me to adhere to a specific methodology not in keeping with guidelines as opposed to personal opinion, and to consistently refuse to back threats of official Wikipedia censure with references to specific guidelines or principles. As already stated, I regard that as coercion, bullying and, for an administrator, abuse of power.


 * In that regard, I obviously appreciate that you have located another Wikipedia principle that appears to support my interpretation of the guidelines, but I am not at all opposed to being proven wrong on a rational basis. Hence my detailed arguments above, and also my less than spinelessly submissive attitude.


 * So thanks for dropping by and offering your advice. Regards  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to leave a thank you for not making substantial changes to the actual article itself. Creating a spin-off page is a much better option. If other editors weigh in, it might just help out that much more. Cheers, m.o.p  07:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem of your warning to return next week with your word-razor
I hope you take the time to read my response to your commentson the astrology discussion page, and understand the benefits of helping everyone in the problem the editors have already recognised and are taking care to adress properly and appropriately. Promising to return in a week and rip through the content of a mass of related pages, rather than helping us by simply placing 'citation needed' tags could be hugely disruptive to to the long-term interests of the page and its related content. Yes, you can argue that it is your right to cut all remarks that don't meet your standards of citation, but we are holding the discussions to see where these problems exist and are currently in the process of rectifying. These things cannot be done overnight, and such long standing problems cannot be resolved in one week through the impetus of fear of what you might come back and do.

So much good work will be undone if you move the focus away from the constructive changes that are being made, by acting single-handedly and expecting a wholly unreasonable amount of work - which we expect to take months - to be done in one week. Even finding time to reassure you, as I have tried to do on the talk page, has taken good time away from what could have been spent rectifying the problem. Ut doesn't help that you don't keep up with the discussions; that you raise points but don't engage in the discussion that follows, and that you don't seem to be aware of how myself and others have been working specifically on the problem that you have noticed. I have been locating and providing citations and so have others. Have you noticed that? It is so easy to identify the problems - it takes a lot more commitment to rectify them properly. There is so much negative obstruction from editors with agendas who are recognised by their willingness to escalate problems without prospect of compromise or solution. Yesterday I posted the WP criteria for Featured article standard, which is the standard we are trying to achieve on a page that has a massive history of problems and poor quality content - please give us the chance to do that without a climate of fear and hostily being brought to the discussion page, which is always to the detriment of time that could be spent on content. Zac Δ talk   10:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Demonstrable nonsense. If changes being made at militant atheism were constructive there wouldn't be disputes warranting an RfC.  Zac, you seem like an enthusiastic editor, so, to assume good faith I must assume that you are unaware that the outcome of your involvement in any and all debate about militant atheism has been to prolong the debate rather than resolving any of the issues.  That is not constructive debate, or good work, just debate for its own sake.


 * On the basis of good faith I must also assume that you are unable to recognise your ability to cease debating and to spend your time referencing unverified assertions instead, which you have chosen not to do. Please take note of your freedom to choose exactly that course of action.


 * Asking for more time to substantiate is fine if you can be specific about the time needed and the specific assertions you will address. Unless you can do that, it sounds awfully like stalling for time to get involved in yet more pointless debate about assertions that have no right to exist in the article in the first place.


 * It is no secret that all copy that presently exists will still be accessible in the article history, and can therefore be restored once suitable references have been found. That method allows for both the removal of unverified assertions right now, and the non time critical location of references where these exist.


 * Please read again what I said about the logical impossibility of debating an introduction based on assertions that do not reflect the verifiable content of the article. My point is that unverified assertions must be excluded from that debate for it to have any chance of meeting Wikipedia principles and guidelines.  This includes assertions from any partisan position on the basis not of the opinion expressed, but the absence of a credible reference.  Ergo, removing unverified assertions is necessarily a non-partisan position.  Were I interested only in pursuing my point of view, I would be seeking to stack the article with citations to change its meaning rather than merely ensuring that the existing content passes as verifiable.  A corollary of that position is that if the article actually consisted more of verifiable knitting tips than discussion of militant atheism, that's what should be reflected in the opening sentences.


 * My proposed course of action relies only on agreement with the Wikipedia commandment that all article content must be verifiable. Your suggestion relies on the leap of faith that references can and will be found in an unspecified time-frame, during which assertions that might be outright fabrications continue to make up substantial parts of the article, and therefore of the opening sentences that are so hotly disputed.


 * I appreciate your enthusiasm, but if you refuse to engage with the specific points I raise, don't expect responses that can only restate positions you have failed to address, apparently because you haven't actually read what I said.

Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk   12:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Peter you have me confused. I wasn't aware of your problem with the Militant Atheism article, I am talking about your declared intentions towards all the Astrology pages. (And also, to clarify, I am not in favour of keeping poor quality content; I am saying there is a collaborative effort going on to attend to the problems, despite the huge obstructions caused by an editor who delights in  disruption and division). The reason I asked you to get involved and help was because the problems will only get resolved if warring editors stop exercising agendas and listen to each other and take each others points on board. You have an opposite view to mine and I want to hear it and understand it; not to reject it, but to accomodate it. There has to be a line somewhere, in the coverage of this controversial topic, where reasonable editrs will say "well that's not exactly how I would like it reported but it's fair enough; it covers the issues and refers to reliable sources".  That is the attitude that we seem to be generating as a collaborative group. At the same time, we need to be clear about the big picture we are aiming for. Hence I'm reminding you that whilst the hacking of poor content might seem like the obvious thing to do, it could be hugely disruptive and demoralising to those who are working on the content. And the problems with the content are obviously rooted in the fact that the contributing editors have had such a difficult time trying to work together. I can assure you that I have read every word you have posted, as should be clear from the fact that I've responded to much of it.  Zac  Δ talk   14:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euthanasia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Euthanasia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'Threats' to delete unsourced within seven days
This is not a good idea. I strongly uphold our policy on sourcing and I do delete unsourced material where I think it can't be sourced, is a BLP violation, etc. But I also spend a lot of time providing sources. In the case of the articles you are targeting some clearly are simply about ancient history while others are about astrology as a pseudoscience. I imagine that it would be possible to source most of the history articles. You're welcome to add a reasonable number of fact tags and I very much hope you will try to find sources. If you actually delete material that appears to be easily sourced that will be a different matter and this could lead to your being blocked, something I hope will not happen. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do you want to discuss this? Here or at ANI?  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * At ANI, where I've copied my post. You won't find many stronger supporters of our sourcing policy than me. I think you misunderstand it. And why pick on articles that are about the history of a subject in Babylonian or Hellenistic times? Sure they could use more sources, but are you saying huge swathes of them are wrong and likely to be challenged? Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't go
Could you provide some links to the word razor. POV warriors are battering Militant atheism with really just a propaganda offensive from a rather superstitious evangelical perspective and I hope you will stay around. In any case, perhaps you can help me get up to speed on the word razor. I saw it before it seemed really cool. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did m.o.p or DougWeller ever answer your question about verifiability of challenged unreferenced content and WP:CONLIMITED? Mojoworker (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Devilishlyhandsome, The word razor comment and link to the work page are here Talk:Militant_atheism. I can't, in all good conscience, do battle with administrators until I am more certain about the quality of Wikipedia guidelines, and the predictability of administrator interpretations of them.


 * Mojoworker, I have withdrawn all my objections to Dougweller's rejection of my AfD requests. He had to make only one point to demonstrate he was right to do so.  That leaves all my other questions, including unverified content and CONLIMITED, unanswered as yet.  I think Dougweller earnestly believes that if an assertion is unreferenced, I ought to look for references, not make efforts to argue or delete content.  I'm reasonably certain that mop just wants to turn me into a stuffed toy (bunnyrabbit?).  But I haven't yet exhausted avenues for asking questions.  I would like to do that separately from any controversy in any particular article, but until I know whether Wikipedia is worth the time and effort, I won't return to discussions or editing at militant atheism and one or two other pages.  I haven't signed off for good, but I might not be visibly active for a while.  Regards  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   07:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I genuinely think you should make some efforts to reference articles. Astrology/astronomy is not of that much interest to me, but if you look at my contributions you'll see I've been trying to reference/correct some articles in the last couple of days (and in one case remove some pov). It's what skilled editors should be doing (where it seems worthwhile). I also removed some unverified content yesterday. Two of the problems I see are scale - time scale and the amount you want to remove at once. We normally allow at least a few weeks after we add citation tags. I remove stuff with old tags (usually months if not years, not just weeks) if I can't easily find a reliable source. If it's just nonsense or clearly original research I might not even tag it, just remove it. Stick around. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hamsa
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hamsa. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)