Good luck on your RfA -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 06:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Incivility by Redthoreau [1] 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)
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.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] 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)
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)
After your last comment at your RfA. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I am continually impressed with your unshakeable civility, kindness, objectivity, fairness, and indomitable will to remain "above the fray" regardless of how many times others snipe at you. Your decorum and resolute commitment to polite discussion, exemplifies how every Wiki editor should behave.
![]() |
I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Raul654 ( talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
![]() |
The Che 'Beret'star | |
"Hasta la Victoria Siempre"
For your dilligent and "revolutionary" commitment to improving the quality of Che Guevara. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
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
☺
Sincerely, Coppertwig ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Coppertwig. While I did not find myself able to support your RfA this time around, I do commend you for taking the time to write a brief note of thanks to everyone who participated in the process, rather than pasting a generic "thank you" template-like message on each talk page. To me, that shows a good amount of maturity and/or sincerity, which I can certainly appreciate. Please keep me informed of any future RfA attempts, as I will be more than happy to reconsider you in the future. Best regards, -- InDeBiz1 ( talk) 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you misread my actions completely. First off, removing the !vote and placing it on the talk page was to avoid drama, not create more (and to be honest find it rather offensive to be accused of trying to create drama). Instead of leaving it on the RfA mainpage to be read and ultimatly allowing others to continue to post would only further the drama that was not meant to be there in the first place, and if I would have placed a link from the RfA mainpage to the talk page, it would have read pretty much like “To continue in the drama fest, click here” and "drama" would have only continued in the talk page. Understand that my intention, whether the candidate does not mind at all was that simply !voting for the heck of it, and stating that you may remove it is completely un-expectable. And after asking if she would remove it, I did so myself. I hoped that it would limit any more !votes like that, which can in fact hurt newer or less confident candidates. RfA is not a place to play around, or at least not in the way that user went about it. Also, understand I would never remove a !vote from an RfA, or any content for that matter, and always move it to the talk page. Tiptoety talk 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the smiles, Coppertwig! Kitty53 ( talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Lurking, I noticed a request for citation tools. See Wikipedia:CITE#Tools, I use WPCite and find the Google Scholar page useful for making refs. DigitalC ( talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: Your red smiley thingy is cute. You might want to know, in Firefox running on FreeBSD it's tiny, about the height of this: t , while in Firefox on a MacBook pro running OS X it's BIG, overlapping some into the line above. Fonts! Gwen Gale ( talk) 07:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. Thanks a lot for the Barnstar of Aqueous Service and the very original text which you withdrew from your brain!! Kerres ( Talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed a lot of CSD templates recently edited by you with no actual content change, but with the edit summary (Contributors to the new versions of CSD templates of March 24 were Moonriddengirl, Happy-melon, Coppertwig and Od Mishehu.) It sounds like you are claiming ownership of the templates, and if not, why did you make the 'edits'? Asenine 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Those who participanted in
my RfA, please see
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I'm going to try to keep this section at the bottom of my talk page, so please add other sections above this one, but don't worry about it too much – you can add sections below if you want and I or someone else can move this section back to the bottom again later. I expect to be on Wikibreak from approximately now until approximately May 20. ☺
Coppertwig (
talk)
19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The acceptance you see here (supp. 75 / opp. 120). regards Rauenstein ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT. Thanks for correcting my statement in the thread. I'm responding here rather than there because I don't want to edit such a huge thread, and I'm afraid adding section breaks might be controversial. Your understanding is that:
I still believe your translation project (of the poll) is worthwhile. I'd care more about the comments that revealed some actual usage of the system, and (in my copious spare time) I was going to go through and look for such comments. It did appear that there has been at least one sighting edit war!
I think Rollback might be Zurücksetzen, but I'm not sure. I don't know if they have rollbackers there. Have you noticed? This picture makes zurücksetzen look like our 'undo.' EdJohnston ( talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig,
I totally forgot about your comment on my talk page regarding the cite button. Do you require any more help or is it resolved? Cheers. CorticoSpinal ( talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I know there is a lot to review on the talk page at Chiropractic, but I personally feel a defining thread of the dysfunction at that article is this one. Any comments, criticisms, insights, suggestions would be appreciated. Feel free to pass on the link to neutral editors who might be able to help us resolve this particular dispute. CorticoSpinal ( talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. I noticed that you recently made a comment about WP:FRINGE on Talk:Chiropractic. There is a new RfC on whether it (the entire article) is Fringe. Perhaps you want to move your comment to there? Talk:Chiropractic#Challenge. Cheers, DigitalC ( talk) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT, thank you for your kind note, which has made me very happy. I accept your apology of course, although there's no need for it. I understand how hard it can be to find the right words to mend fences when there has been a complex dispute about policy or content. The important thing is that we all intended to benefit the project; we just disagreed on how best to do it, and that's the nature of Wikipedia. I also owe you an apology for not finding a more constructive way to work with you, and for being too abrasive about criticisms of the proposal. The abrasiveness is something I'm working hard on to reduce.
I very much hope we can work well together in future, whether on policy or elsewhere. Again, thank you for reaching out. SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, you asked here for a conclusion of the discussion. I tried to do it here, see No. 128 – perhaps it will be interesting for you. Unfortunately my english is to bad for a translation. Greetings from Berlin -- Lienhard Schulz ( talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
At some point, you and a few others standardized these templates, which broke {{ db-u1}}. It should require a rationale parameter when used on User_talk: pages. Please fix it. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT.
It happened more than once.
I was riding my bicycle, and turned my head to the left to look for traffic coming from behind me. Well, there's this bright orangish-yellow line down the middle of the road.
For an instant, I thought I was seeing my "you have new messages" banner.
Come on, people – send me more messages. I try writing messages to myself, but it doesn't work: the banner doesn't appear.
(Although I admit I've been busy recently and haven't responded promptly to some messages – I'll get to them soon.) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 10:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You write: "Here, the topic is male circumcision. [...] A Wikipedia article has no obligation to explore all topics that relate to all definitions of a word." But an article does have an obligation to have its title reflect its topic non-ambiguously: WP:TITLE states, Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(precision) states, This page in a nutshell: Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings. The incredibly strong resistance to renaming circumcision (i.e., the article which discusses male circumcision titled by a word that could apply to males and females) to male circumcision is based on circumcision advocacy, not policy or guideline. Blackworm ( talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're the first one I know ever read that FAQ. Glad to help on chiro where I can without knowing the subject (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm commenting here because I remember your work on adding the "pregnancy rate" wording to Template:Infobox Birth control, and on the birth control article. I've proposed a task force to provide a discussion place for articles on methods of birth control, and was hoping you would be interested in joining. If you're interested, please add your name to the proposal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl Talk C 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this. While SMT is generic, and Adjustments are the chiropractic version of SMT, no chiropractor worthy of the name doesn't use it. The profession is defined by their use of it, and are legally limited and required in many states and by Medicare to use Adjustments for the "correction of vertebral subluxations" in order to get paid at all! (That legalizes a fiction, which has a very interesting history. A trap was laid for chiropractic by the AMA, and an ignorant Congress unfortunately took the bait and legalized a fiction. The story was told to Stephen Barrett by the AMA player himself. The AMA's trap ended up backfiring.) You can read it here. [5] [6]
You may wish to avoid giving SMT/Adjustments too much coverage in the chiropractic article, but that doesn't make it necessary to deny the dominating role of SMT in chiropractic. The coverage should just be done in the Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment articles. The chiropractic article can still mention and give plenty of weight to SMT/Adjustments, but shouldn't waste space on details and research. That belongs in the respective articles. -- Fyslee / talk 05:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I like your contributions to the chiropractic page, some of which I agree with and some of which perhaps I don't; but I respectfully disagree with some of what you're saying here. You say "certainly not have any significant effect": I don't see how that could possibly be proven. You say "There is no scientifically proven therapeutic effect known and accepted by mainstream biomedical science." That may well be. However, there may be some individuals who are validly convinced of benefits as a result of having experienced things like their pain disappearing at the moment of adjustment; if this happens on a number of occasions it can be statistically significant and convincing to the individual, who naturally applies some intuitive approximation of statistics, although it would tend to be difficult to measure and record in such a way as to be convincing to the scientific community. Practitioners observing such reactions in their patients may also be validly convinced without necessarily having publication-quality data. Re Medicare: "It was a real struggle, but we obtained a letter from Medicare qualifying the Activator instrument." (Alan Fuhr, Dynamic Chiropractic, Dec 17, 2005 according to this web page: [7]). Coppertwig ( talk) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I explained on the talk page to fix the references first by using the properly formatted ref from draft 7 but you ignored what I wrote on the talk page. You removed a ref from the sentence "In the U.S., chiropractic schools are accredited through the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE)." You also removed a direct link to CCE-I and replaced it with a link an earthlink page. You edit was blindly replacing the correct version of the refs and dumping in the wrongly formatted ref from version 8. [8] I fixed the publisher with the ref. publisher=Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards The publisher was removed from more than one ref. I made some general fixes and ref improvements. QuackGuru 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please have the book (Magnum Crimen) in your hands and join to discussion on the talk pages-- 72.75.24.245 ( talk) 12:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The request to explain. Mister anarchist has achieved the, i.e. that that the fact, mismatching its representation about Guevara, are cleaned. Though they have been supplied by authoritative sources, and cleaning authoritative sources, how much I know, contradicts rules of Vicipedia. What should be my actions that them to restore? Sfrandzi ( talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I and have acted. If you have time and desire - I would ask you to look, express the opinion yes by the way to correct my English☺ Sfrandzi ( talk) 20:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That has got to be one of the coolest RfA thanks that I've seen! I'm sure everyone appreciate the personal touches that you put into it. -- Natalya 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For the good info and links...lord knows I need all the help i can get ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParrotBSD ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, Hiram111 removes heavily sourced large criticism sections he doesn't like. He calls them "unreferenced" in his edit summaries. I don't go around Wikipedia removing criticism sections I don't like in articles about politicians I support because that would be disruptive and in violation of policies. How can anyone consider what he's doing anything less than disruptive vandalism? GreenEcho ( talk) 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
So he will not "assume good will" concerning my edits and will engage in Edit warring as he did previously and taking this to the “notice board” might increase his hostility, I hope as a more experienced “Third Party” you will asses if his edits should be reverted concerning Walid Jumblatt and I’m sorry for any inconvenience but this issue had been going for days.
I discussed the controversial edits that violates WP:living policy on the Article's talk page. Hiram111 ( talk) 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. I think I remember you asking about sources that clearly consider the topic of circumcision to be inclusive of male circumcision and female circumcision (forgive me, I don't recall your exact words). Would it be alright if I start posting them here as I run into them again? I'll begin with this one. If this isn't of any interest, let me know and I'll stop posting to this section with links. Blackworm ( talk) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I do not authorize you or anyone to edit my posts, and I'm greatly disturbed by your sudden adoption of User:Jayjg's new initiative in editing the discussion posts of others on Talk:Circumcision. WP:CIVIL states: Only in the most serious of circumstances should an editor replace or edit a comment made by another editor. Only in the event of something that can cause actual damage in the real world should this be the first step [...]. Blackworm ( talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the welcome; I'm afraid I don't have the time to really return. But I keep an eye on what happens here, and was sad to see things getting if anything worse. All the very best. Gleng ( talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
At the end of this section I have a references section with code. Somehow it isn't working. Can you figure it out? -- Fyslee / talk 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis posted the following message at User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 7#British Isles:
I was wondering if it's possible, perhaps, that I create the infobox and in the Template: Infobox XXX format and then can you install it on the server?
I just asked someone else, but then I thought that you may know too so I decided to ask here as well
Thanks, Lihaas ( talk) 00:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader,
geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at
geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Thank You, BCeagle0312 ( talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, your kind words are much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Coppertwig. Thank you for your kind note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT. Yes, if you want to wikilink the notes section, that would be a big improvement! The FA review has been extended on the grounds that work is still being done on the article, so now I have to finish all my planned improvements that were on the back burner.. They must do this just to get more work out of us :-). EdJohnston ( talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with your communication attempts, and thanks for the help. -- El on ka 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There is this IP adress, 81.109.11.33, which makes a series of edits on Dharma that I revert. A user by name user:Langdell reverts my edits to the IP address's version, and then the series of edits from the IP address continue. I think that Langdell may be masquerading here justo show that more than 1 people agree with his version of the article. This has been happening in the Revision history of Dharma since 19 July 2008. Can you just check it out ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That I have done, in the section right above Langdell's created one. But the pattern that I talked about has occured twice :- An IP address makes a series of edits. Then I revert them, only to be reverted back by Langdell. After this, the IP's edits continue. If this repeats, I'll let you know. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've discussed the article here, [10] which is now archived (I did not realise this earlier).
Your suggestion about "avoiding words that evoke neg emotions" is noted. But Langdell has used such language too like, "disruptive interventions of IAF" and later going on to question/demand my identity - a discussion that's nothing to do with the article's topic. Even if devoid of some adjectives, this was equally if not more evocative of "negative emotions".
Earlier too I have very politely requested this user on his talk:page here [11] sometime in December last, urging him to discuss the article instead of posting 'warnings' and threats on my talk page. Even at that time he was simply reverting my edits without a word of explanation on the talk page. So his behavior is all the more un-wikipedia like. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 07:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comment avoided answering the question. [12]
Did you comment on Dematt's talk page to deflect attention away from my question?
Here is a reply to your question. It would be inmpossible to suggest a wording that everyone agrees upon. There is no need for attribution which would water down the sources.
Here is the question below.
This edit by Levine2112 was inaccurate because it was more than Keating. [13] What do you think about the misleading edit. QuackGuru 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
See if you can think of a good wording that won't be considered to require attribution. I'm just going to try to think of a new suggested wording now. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, as someone who has tried to convince User:Logicus to avoid personal attacks in the past, would you be willing to explain to Logicus why edits like this (see the end, especially) constitute personal attacks? I've asked him to be civil and avoid personal attacks (see User_talk:Logicus#Please_be_civil), and rather than let it go, he demands that that I provide the same details I've already provided to him about what constitutes a personal attack or "withdraw" the claim that he has made personal attacks. Cheers-- ragesoss ( talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. It seems that the user you interacted with a few month ago - 71.100.x.x - is back at analog hole, and this time, inserting links to his wikibooks:analog hole article, which contains some of the exact links that were removed previously. The editor has some personal issues with me ( [20]) due to an AfD ( [21]), so I'd like your opinion on the WikiBooks issue before this turn into an edit war. Thanks! -- Jiuguang ( talk) 21:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello coppertwig. Thankyou for your attempts to harmonise the edit on the subject of the article dharma. It may be true that editors choose anonymity but please be kind enough to take time to look at User:IAF's talk page. If you do not do this I am afraid that we cannot get anywhere. Please also note that I am the principal editor of Ajahn Munindo's last book 'Unexpected Freedom'. Ajahn Munindo is a senior representative of the Theravada Buddhist religion in the West. He is the abbot of Aruna Ratanagiri Buddhist Monastery. I can assure you that a teacher of Ajahn Munindo's eminence would not invite and then request assistance in putting a book together from someone who did not know what he was talking about. I hope (and assume) that since you have intervened you have some knowledge of this subject yourself. In order to improve the article I need the assistance of someone who actually knows something about this subject. I am very sorry but I shall be unable to enter into any dispute with the user in question. He has more than adequately demonstrated his true colours in the past. My only desire is to further knowledge of this subject because it is one in which I just happen to have a better than average understanding. The User:IAF has a long history of anti-social behaviour. You can only know this by seeing how many times he has been blocked. If you would like to help me improve the article dharma, you are most welcome. Best wishes.Glenn Langdell ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, from personal experience, most editors who have a "gudge" against my edits bring up the issue of past warnings and "past behaviour" to further their view-point. I don't think that that is applicable while editing articles because an article's discussion must contain content solely about the articles improvement or furtherment. A User's identity, his User:page being blank, past block-log etc. are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
So I request you that whatever decision you make further about the [Dharma] article involving me and Langdel/anyone, it should ONLY involve my (and the other user's) recourses to action that are taken for that article only. Any other aspect/attribute should not be entertained or taken as a mesure of forming opinion or enforcing something. In my case, I have previously invited Langdel quite respectfully to enter the negotiation round, and have put forth a detailed reason for my edits (now in the archives). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 08:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they weren't rhetorical questions at all and I appreciate your help. Those were the kind of questions that stymied the article in question. ChrisO, being an administrator and knowing the ropes, was able to search for more individuals to lend weight to his view, and when there was no consensus proceeded to tie the article up with these complaints. This is not a good way to proceed. I did not know one could do an RfC on article content. Perhaps that would be the way to proceed with this article. Thanks again for your guidance. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replied at my talk (with another question, of course!). Thanks for your message. Antelan 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering, did you at this comment for the benefit of the IP because it wasn't explicit in my note? No problem, just interested if there was another reason. Cheers TigerShark ( talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Coppertwig. Are you currently mentoring for QuackGuru? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is another example of QuackGuru reverting one of my edits on an article in which he has never participated in discussion. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems misplaced.... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Rationale for deleting these:
There's no such thing as a "non-admin opinion". The opinions of all editors count. Comments that are insightful and backed by evidence may count more, but who makes the comments is not relevant (unless it's a single purpose account, a sock puppet or a banned user). Jehochman Talk 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 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!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hadn't crossed your wikipath in a while, so thought I'd stop in and say hi. :) And also comment how strange I find it that the drawing board has practically dried up! For a while there, I didn't feel like I could go on wikibreak without asking somebody to babysit the board (as you know, since you kindly pitched in). We used to get multi-questioners a week. Now we're down to multi-questioners a month. Wonder why?
Hope you're well. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello and greetings; replying to the message you left on my talk page. A twig that will grow into a shrubbery will make an adequate replacement for a shrubbery. BTW, from a brief perusal of your pages, I'm guessing we live in the same country; can't narrow down our proximity further. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to this comment: Jayjg, please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your comment on the source at talk:Golan Heights. AreaControl ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The first published study is in the US in 1990. Note the patients were "elective," which means without medical reason. [24] The second cite is a published survey, written by a mohel and urologist [25]... both qualified as a source. TipPt ( talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem about the citation! I'm reading Ramonez' book right now so I might contribute more to this article. Maybe you could comment on my suggestion on the talk page. Zatoichi26 ( talk) 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed my uncivil comment at the Sockpuppet case in question. GoodDay ( talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. Would you please do me a favor and look at the PNA edit history? (I'm in a rush.) It looks like Fipplet has ignored our warnings, plus violated 3RR (in content edits, if not "reverts" per se). I suspect a brief block is in order. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your amendment to my 3RR report, and have added yet another (subsequent) revert. That makes eight by my count, seven by yours. I am well aware that I cannot again re-revert; but I hope someone else does, and that we can stop this disruption. RolandR ( talk) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately the extremely high volume of edits to that article makes it impractical for me to find the link to the version of the article that existed before people started adding in the bit about the Alaska Independence Movement. It was time-consuming enough to compile the diffs for the report as it is. I am hopeful that whichever admin handles my report will recognize that user as having violated the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR. Mike R ( talk) 16:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Replying to Moonriddengirl who suggested Ship Ahoy (album): OK, sorry, I should have described better the type of article I'm looking for. I don't think that's it. The citation system I'm putting in is useful in articles where the same source is cited more than once, but with different page numbers. See Che Guevara for example. On the article you're suggesting, some references are used more than once, but there's no change in page number of anything, so there's no need for a separate "Notes" and "References" section. Generally, medical articles won't usually need the two separate sections, but history articles often will. So I'm looking for articles that need to have a separate References section added, or that have one but need links to it. Or to put it another way: if you'd like something done to that article, what would you like done? ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thank you for the message you left me. however we both know that what i want to add is not going to be allowed up because of my disagreement and apparent war with User:CalendarWatcher. It is sad really that small editors like myself have to avoid using a registered name because of people like CW. I have been trying for months to get someone to understand my perspective, however that is not going to happen because User:CalendarWatcher has a history on here and i am fairly new. Please take notice however that i have never made a malicious edit to wikipedia. perhaps after my cyber stalker moves on or grows up i will use my account again and start editing again. Until then i am done trying to make a difference or do the right thing. 98.222.196.27 ( talk) 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
i expected such response.. User:CalendarWatcher has on many occasions warred with many people and no action has ever been taken. but forget about it its not a problem. also.. i apologized for the "attack" i made on that douche bag. 98.222.196.27 ( talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
nullified huh? yea.. maybe theres a hidden message there.. if there were such a message it would prolly read "i dont give a rusty eff word". but there may not even be a message.. anyways it was not MY edit to begin with i just get tired of CalendarWatcher playing God all the time and no one standing up to him.. Oh i saw it was you being nosey and 3rr'd me. you can piss off too now. later!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.218.171 ( talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much user coppertwig,you are very kind and gentle.I guess I got carried away a bit,please forgive me for far too many silly mistakes I have made.To tell you the truth,my Wiki knowledge is minimum,my English is hardly passable,but I still have the desire to learn and to improve.And I am very passionate about Manchu and Ming dynasty history,Opium War,Matteo Ricci etc.In my heart,I have this urge,to share my knowledge with others,and at the same time to learn from others.That is why I spend so much time on that page alone,because the more I google,the more facts resurface,and I wish I could have ten pairs of eyes,with ten pairs of hands to record them all onto wiki,so that others can read them,without going through the world wide web like I did. While I was typing away,I completely forgot about others.I hope you,and other editors can understand and forgive me at the same time. I do like the idea of having my own user's page,can you kindly help me to set it up ?If so how to let others know of my user's page? Many thanks. Arilang1234 ( talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,its me again.I have managed to put something on sandbox,here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox.
Please help me by pointing out all my short comings.Thanks
Arilang1234 (
talk)
21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Arilang1234 ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are referring to Matteo Ricci,Johann Adam Schall von Bell , Ferdinand Verbiest,the three most famous missionaries that went to China in the 16 century.So just to inner-link them within wiki is not enough? So I have to provide outside reference ?I have just learn how to use the ref tag today,it is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
http://home.newadvent.org/cathen/13034a.htm catholic encyclopedia
Arilang1234 (
talk)
22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just did two ref tag,it looks ok,but I can't find the foot note.Don't know where is it. Arilang1234 ( talk) 22:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Harry G. Gelber's book is the source of all the info on "short term cause".I am working on a project to examine the two Chinese dynasty Manchu and Ming;so this kind of info should be relevant.
Thanks for pointing out my short coming.I can change the wordings and the tone.About Chinese point of view,they are of complete opposite to the western point of view.Do I need to put them alongside the western point of view too?
Arilang1234 (
talk)
04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have modify my article a bit and put it on my user page(not sandbox).Please have a look when you got time.I will keep on experiment on it to improve my skill. Arilang1234 ( talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have put up more ref links,please have a look and tell me how you feel Arilang1234 ( talk) 23:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Me again. About Chinese source. Most of the Chinese internet web page are blogs, news sites, or bbs forums,and wiki may class them as unreliable.Unlike English source, there ain't that many university web sites. And where I live,there ain't that many Chinese history text books either. I know how and when to use external links and ref now,but I don't know anything about foot note.Can you explain when you have more time? I would like to name my article "Boxer Rebellion, Opium Wars and Beyond." What you think? Arilang1234 ( talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, long time have not heard from you. Must be busy. My used page have new theme now, please go have a look when you have time? Arilang1234 ( talk) 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind reply. It is good to have a teacher like you. (1)To all the Chinese, all over the world, Matteo Ricci was, and is, the Saint who tried to fuse Confucianism and Christianity together.Though the Jesuit priests failed in their effort, because the Pope put a stop to it, that did not make Matteo Ricci any less important to Chinese. (2) I am writing Matteo Ricci from a Chinese's perspective.More precisely, from a Ming Dynasty's perspective.To me,and also to many Chinese, Ming Dynasty was being skillfully smeared by the barbaric Manchu tribal slaves owners who ended up ruling China for 263 years, and this 263 years represented the Darkest era in Chinese history. Ming Dynasty is still under a pile of rubbish. I would like to bring the glory of Ming to the surface again. (3) Do you think the time has come for my article to be transfer to a proper page, instead of my user page? If so, please help me. (4) About Chinese characters, if possible, I like to see they stay as it is. My reasons:(a)Ricci was a scholar of many talents, including the use of Latin, Italian, and Chinese.So it is only natural to include these 3 languages in my article. (b) Many Chinese can read both English and Chinese. (C) I hope one day my article will be translated into Chinese wiki. (5) Please feel free to edit my page anytime, not only grammar, anything you think not right, you can change it. You are my teacher. (6) Matteo Ricci is more than a Jesuit priest. He was the Ambassador of Culture between Europe and China in the 16 century. Arilang1234 ( talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. Sorry for not being able to answer you more fully, because I am really completely ignorant on many aspects of Wiki, and with only minimum of internet web blogging.But I am passionate about Christianity and China.The following quote sums up my feelings:"As Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889 – 1975)( a British historian) said: "at this point Christianity had a chance to become a true world religion and rejected it. Never again in history has that opportunity presented itself on such favorable terms. Had Ricci and his colleagues been permitted to continue on their way, there is certainly no question but that the history of the world would have been far different."
Arilang1234 (
talk)
02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,me again. I have repair some footnotes, but not all. Question:When one web page is being referred to more than one times, is the title still remains the same?
Arilang1234 (
talk)
04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
In early September I was given a 3 R warning on Boxer Rebellion. I am now more experience( please check 2008 Chinese milk scandal, I did a lot of work there.) Can I go to Boxer Rebellion and do a bit of editing there? Arilang1234 ( talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I wrote some comments at Talk:Yuan Weishi. About editing Boxer Rebellion: anyone can edit any page. However, I suggest that before editing the article, you put your changes on the talk page and see whether people agree with them; and it may be better, before putting your changes on the talk page, to put your changes on your user page or another page in your user space (sandbox), and ask me to look at them. If you do that, please mark clearly which page you want to put the changes on. I mean, on your user page you can write "The following are suggested changes to the page Boxer Rebellion", then quote or describe the changes, then write "(end of suggested changes to Boxer Rebellion)"; or any other way to make it clear which page the changes are for. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
One new question I like to ask is: there are some articles on zh.wikipedia that I like to translate them into English and put it on en.wikipedia. Can you advice me on how to do it ? Arilang1234 ( talk) 13:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
To answer your another, all Chinese Encyclopedia (including zh.wikipedia) use Chinese source, they never use English source. Arilang1234 ( talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
What will happen after 2 or 3 days, and nobody care to comment at all? What about the big churn of Chinese text in the foot notes, can I leave it there? Arilang1234 ( talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Question(1)If nobody comments and I got to put back into the article, what about 'cite'? {{cite---news}} or {{cite---web}} ? So as long as I can translate between zh and en, and I can cite Chinese online encyclopedia, and I stick to all these WP rules, then I can work on any WP article I like? Arilang1234 ( talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not what I mean! en.wikisource accepts articles in English. en.wikisource also accepts translations into English. I meant: you can translate something that is in zh.wikisource, and put the English translation in en.wikisource. But, if there is a published translation, it would be better to use it instead (if there is no problem with copyright). See wikisource translation.
You may use anything in en.wikisource as a reference.
I think you can also use Chinese text in zh.wikisource as a reference for English Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 02:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qing_Dynasty#Requesting_consensus_discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wang_Xiuchu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qianlong_Emperor#Requesting_consensus_discussion
I am slowly figureing out all these wiki rules, and I will make sure that all rules are being taken care of. Arilang1234 ( talk) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
(1)Ebrey, Patricia (1993). Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook. Simon and Schuster.
(2)
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/geog/population.htm#2b Chinese population charts in 1000 years.
(3)
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Manchu17c Han murdered when Manchu defeat Ming
(4)McFarlane, Alan: The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap, Blackwell 2003,
ISBN
0631181172,
ISBN
978-0631181170
(5)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580815/Taiping-Rebellion
(6)
http://www.archive.org/index.php
(7)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchresults.aspx?q=Manchu+atrocity
(8)
http://baike.baidu.com/
(9)
http://www.hudong.com
Arilang1234 (
talk)
00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote:"Non-English sources Policy shortcuts: WP:RSUE WP:VUE WP:NONENG
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Unquote Arilang1234 ( talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Bathrobe on that.
(2)May be you have noticed I use template 'cquote' quite a bit, please tell me if I have overuse it or not.
(3)
Qing,
Qianlong,
Boxer Rebellion,
Wang Xiuchu are all interrelated articles, and I am doing revisions on them at the same time, because I think they all need to be more NPOV.
Arilang1234 (
talk)
20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | This article was nominated for deletion on 23/12/06. The article still lacks references, so I've tagged it. It also contains many statements that are off topic. —Babelfisch
This topic is highly inflammatory and has not being supported by facts. POV!!!! Super POV! A blatant racist attack on Han civilization(comment by Arilang) |
” |
The above quotation is cut-n-paste from talk page
Han chauvinism. It look a very long time for Bathrobe to see that I am not a Han chauvinist, only after repeating protests from me. To be fair, all I did was adding information that previous editors forgot to supply, though my editing was(and still is) often messy, but I will try to improve. Just because I was editing
Qing and I was wrongly labeled a Han chauvinist, that was the only reason why my retorts were so sharp and irritating. I want to both appololize to you and him.
Now things seems to have resolve, I will try my best to tidy up any mess I have left on
Qing.
Arilang1234 (
talk)
00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Coppertwig, Regarding the 3RR "report" filed against me, I feel that you have failed to perform the necessary due-diligence to examine this particular case beyond the skin-deep level. The reporting individual is highly skilled at masking his own incitement and violation, and craftily reports a revert when his own inappropriate material is adjusted, changed, altered or removed. Please email me, or allow me to email you to discuss this further offline. I have been highly upset and disturbed by the nature of these other users. I am a retired professional, and gentle soul, with many high-quality contributions, and livlihood which backs my contributions. Most Sincerely, Grayghost01 ( talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and time. Terms like "radical abolitionist" are historical and of old use. If you found that on a wiki article, then it likely is found in its correct context of referring to abolitionists who were willing to either commit murder or insurrection in the name of abolition. There is a whole wiki article devoted to these people at
Radical Republican (USA). So ... some editors who have been dabbling in the American Civil War, I've noticed, get wrapped around the axle slapping "POV" on items thinking there is a problem, when in fact there is not. In my particle case, one example of what upset these other editors was the word "invasion" that I must have put on an article about 2 years ago, and which they recently observed. These fellows cried "POV". I tried, to no avail, to explain that this is a purely military term. We, the United States, invaded Normandy (see
Invasion of Normandy). The word "invasion" as you see in this main wiki article is not a POV.
Now, while geographic location of one's residence is not normally an issue ... it can be a cause of POV in certain cases, such as the American Civil War. So these other editors "provoke" edit battles by deleting or inserting items which either reflect their own POV .... or which incorrectly assumes a POV on something like the word "invasion" or perhaps "radical" as you pointed out. Its a form of vandalism, because the TRUE spirit of wiki's intent is not meant. I say that because these editors have received many warnings. In tracing through their many edits, they have left a trial of being provoking and warned in other articles. If anyone resists their efforts, they jump on them with 3RR "attacks". These two also work in tandem, cooperatively with each other, to form a perception of "false" consensus on talk pages. Most people are unaware they are working together. Grayghost01 ( talk) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment. Although the autoblock got in the way for a wee while, it was not a problem. I'm not one of those folks who throws toys out of the pram if access to Wikipedia editing is impeded, because I have some form of life outside of this beast. It was the actions of the reporting editor that caused me problems - haunting my contribs and such like. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig (nice name). I just noticed that Happy-melon is "off to distant lands, and will be editing sporadically – if at all – until September 25, 2008." Would you please revise the Db-g8 template I requested at Template:Db-g8. Thanks. Suntag ( talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2008
Abd; and also by Abd: "If a decision has supposedly been made "by the community," with whom do you discuss it?" [34] Coppertwig ( talk) 01:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing interest at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table in my standing userspace RfC. The first questions to be addressed are at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, which is a page for the questions and (later) a summary of consensus. Comments and discussion have been begun, by me, at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Because the first questions address the warning issued to me by Jehochman before the block on 8/11, and should not involve extensive research, I have several times asked Jehochman to comment, but he has declined so far. I have also asked Carcharoth, as suggested by Jehochman, to look at it, but so far he hasn't found time; perhaps he will in the next few days. If you are able to look at the pages ref'd above, and comment regarding the questions, or otherwise as you see fit, it would be appreciated. I am waiting to see if these questions can be resolved and a preliminary consensus found, without going to a wider forum, such as the Village Pump, AN, or a standard user RfC. Thanks for any time you can give this. -- Abd ( talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. Apparently, {{
db-g7}} now requires a rationale for all posts. Would you please revise
Template:Db doc to remove the most basic form of the template at
Template:Db-g7. Also, I think db-g7 is used alot by the authors themselves. Thus, would you please add the example,{{db-g7|rationale=For this page, I am the author of the only substantial content and request deletion of it in good faith.}}
to Template:Db doc so that it only appears at
Template:Db-g7. I came up with all this via
this post. Thanks. --
Suntag (
talk)
18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
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. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 09:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
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#Nangparbat if you're interested. Cheers. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It was a complete (but pleasant) surprise that it was on the front page. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
I have a question about your support comment at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Civility restrictions#Proposal A.2: Low level incivility is a serious problem. 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)
Thanks for the barnstar! It is much appreciated. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
I very much appreciate it. GreekParadise ( talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You have not explained your revert. [35] 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. QuackGuru 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
I just noticed this: [36]. 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)
Replied on my talk page. Bstone ( talk) 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning on stalking your edits for the next few days.-- Tznkai ( talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, C-Twig. This may help: http://www.hebcal.com/converter/ -- Avi ( talk) 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem levelheaded and intelligent. I'd like your input on WP:AE#Domer48.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment at Talk:Chiropractic#Topic_ban, could you comment there on exactly what you'd like to change? Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:05, 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)
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)
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)
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)
[37] 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. QuackGuru 04:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor accused me of vandalism not once but twice. [38] [39] 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. [40] [41] You have made a false statement. Please stop with your bad faith allegation against me. QuackGuru 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 [42] [43] which you supported. My edits were not vandalism. QuackGuru 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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. QuackGuru 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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. [47] [48] Please abide. QuackGuru 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. [49] [50] Per WP:OR, when SM is directly connected to chiropractic it is okay to cite research that has a direct connection. QuackGuru 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. [51] QuackGuru 01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please the read second paragraph of the bottom of this. Thank you. -- American Eagle ( talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Adopt-a-User Barnstar | |
For services above and beyond the call of duty in welcoming and coaching User:Arilang1234 |
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)
Good luck on your RfA -- ₮inucherian (Talk) - 06:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Incivility by Redthoreau [1] 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)
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.
Redthoreau (
talk Redthoreau
16:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] 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)
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)
After your last comment at your RfA. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
I am continually impressed with your unshakeable civility, kindness, objectivity, fairness, and indomitable will to remain "above the fray" regardless of how many times others snipe at you. Your decorum and resolute commitment to polite discussion, exemplifies how every Wiki editor should behave.
![]() |
I have closed your RFA as unsuccessful. Raul654 ( talk) 04:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
![]() |
The Che 'Beret'star | |
"Hasta la Victoria Siempre"
For your dilligent and "revolutionary" commitment to improving the quality of Che Guevara. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC) |
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
☺
Sincerely, Coppertwig ( talk) 20:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Coppertwig. While I did not find myself able to support your RfA this time around, I do commend you for taking the time to write a brief note of thanks to everyone who participated in the process, rather than pasting a generic "thank you" template-like message on each talk page. To me, that shows a good amount of maturity and/or sincerity, which I can certainly appreciate. Please keep me informed of any future RfA attempts, as I will be more than happy to reconsider you in the future. Best regards, -- InDeBiz1 ( talk) 23:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you misread my actions completely. First off, removing the !vote and placing it on the talk page was to avoid drama, not create more (and to be honest find it rather offensive to be accused of trying to create drama). Instead of leaving it on the RfA mainpage to be read and ultimatly allowing others to continue to post would only further the drama that was not meant to be there in the first place, and if I would have placed a link from the RfA mainpage to the talk page, it would have read pretty much like “To continue in the drama fest, click here” and "drama" would have only continued in the talk page. Understand that my intention, whether the candidate does not mind at all was that simply !voting for the heck of it, and stating that you may remove it is completely un-expectable. And after asking if she would remove it, I did so myself. I hoped that it would limit any more !votes like that, which can in fact hurt newer or less confident candidates. RfA is not a place to play around, or at least not in the way that user went about it. Also, understand I would never remove a !vote from an RfA, or any content for that matter, and always move it to the talk page. Tiptoety talk 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the smiles, Coppertwig! Kitty53 ( talk) 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Lurking, I noticed a request for citation tools. See Wikipedia:CITE#Tools, I use WPCite and find the Google Scholar page useful for making refs. DigitalC ( talk) 03:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: Your red smiley thingy is cute. You might want to know, in Firefox running on FreeBSD it's tiny, about the height of this: t , while in Firefox on a MacBook pro running OS X it's BIG, overlapping some into the line above. Fonts! Gwen Gale ( talk) 07:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. Thanks a lot for the Barnstar of Aqueous Service and the very original text which you withdrew from your brain!! Kerres ( Talk) 08:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed a lot of CSD templates recently edited by you with no actual content change, but with the edit summary (Contributors to the new versions of CSD templates of March 24 were Moonriddengirl, Happy-melon, Coppertwig and Od Mishehu.) It sounds like you are claiming ownership of the templates, and if not, why did you make the 'edits'? Asenine 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Those who participanted in
my RfA, please see
Thank you for participating in my RfA. I'm going to try to keep this section at the bottom of my talk page, so please add other sections above this one, but don't worry about it too much – you can add sections below if you want and I or someone else can move this section back to the bottom again later. I expect to be on Wikibreak from approximately now until approximately May 20. ☺
Coppertwig (
talk)
19:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The acceptance you see here (supp. 75 / opp. 120). regards Rauenstein ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT. Thanks for correcting my statement in the thread. I'm responding here rather than there because I don't want to edit such a huge thread, and I'm afraid adding section breaks might be controversial. Your understanding is that:
I still believe your translation project (of the poll) is worthwhile. I'd care more about the comments that revealed some actual usage of the system, and (in my copious spare time) I was going to go through and look for such comments. It did appear that there has been at least one sighting edit war!
I think Rollback might be Zurücksetzen, but I'm not sure. I don't know if they have rollbackers there. Have you noticed? This picture makes zurücksetzen look like our 'undo.' EdJohnston ( talk) 14:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig,
I totally forgot about your comment on my talk page regarding the cite button. Do you require any more help or is it resolved? Cheers. CorticoSpinal ( talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I know there is a lot to review on the talk page at Chiropractic, but I personally feel a defining thread of the dysfunction at that article is this one. Any comments, criticisms, insights, suggestions would be appreciated. Feel free to pass on the link to neutral editors who might be able to help us resolve this particular dispute. CorticoSpinal ( talk) 17:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. I noticed that you recently made a comment about WP:FRINGE on Talk:Chiropractic. There is a new RfC on whether it (the entire article) is Fringe. Perhaps you want to move your comment to there? Talk:Chiropractic#Challenge. Cheers, DigitalC ( talk) 04:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT, thank you for your kind note, which has made me very happy. I accept your apology of course, although there's no need for it. I understand how hard it can be to find the right words to mend fences when there has been a complex dispute about policy or content. The important thing is that we all intended to benefit the project; we just disagreed on how best to do it, and that's the nature of Wikipedia. I also owe you an apology for not finding a more constructive way to work with you, and for being too abrasive about criticisms of the proposal. The abrasiveness is something I'm working hard on to reduce.
I very much hope we can work well together in future, whether on policy or elsewhere. Again, thank you for reaching out. SlimVirgin talk| edits 19:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, you asked here for a conclusion of the discussion. I tried to do it here, see No. 128 – perhaps it will be interesting for you. Unfortunately my english is to bad for a translation. Greetings from Berlin -- Lienhard Schulz ( talk) 09:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
At some point, you and a few others standardized these templates, which broke {{ db-u1}}. It should require a rationale parameter when used on User_talk: pages. Please fix it. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT.
It happened more than once.
I was riding my bicycle, and turned my head to the left to look for traffic coming from behind me. Well, there's this bright orangish-yellow line down the middle of the road.
For an instant, I thought I was seeing my "you have new messages" banner.
Come on, people – send me more messages. I try writing messages to myself, but it doesn't work: the banner doesn't appear.
(Although I admit I've been busy recently and haven't responded promptly to some messages – I'll get to them soon.) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 10:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You write: "Here, the topic is male circumcision. [...] A Wikipedia article has no obligation to explore all topics that relate to all definitions of a word." But an article does have an obligation to have its title reflect its topic non-ambiguously: WP:TITLE states, Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(precision) states, This page in a nutshell: Be precise when necessary; don't title articles ambiguously when the title has other meanings. The incredibly strong resistance to renaming circumcision (i.e., the article which discusses male circumcision titled by a word that could apply to males and females) to male circumcision is based on circumcision advocacy, not policy or guideline. Blackworm ( talk) 15:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're the first one I know ever read that FAQ. Glad to help on chiro where I can without knowing the subject (: —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm commenting here because I remember your work on adding the "pregnancy rate" wording to Template:Infobox Birth control, and on the birth control article. I've proposed a task force to provide a discussion place for articles on methods of birth control, and was hoping you would be interested in joining. If you're interested, please add your name to the proposal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl Talk C 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this. While SMT is generic, and Adjustments are the chiropractic version of SMT, no chiropractor worthy of the name doesn't use it. The profession is defined by their use of it, and are legally limited and required in many states and by Medicare to use Adjustments for the "correction of vertebral subluxations" in order to get paid at all! (That legalizes a fiction, which has a very interesting history. A trap was laid for chiropractic by the AMA, and an ignorant Congress unfortunately took the bait and legalized a fiction. The story was told to Stephen Barrett by the AMA player himself. The AMA's trap ended up backfiring.) You can read it here. [5] [6]
You may wish to avoid giving SMT/Adjustments too much coverage in the chiropractic article, but that doesn't make it necessary to deny the dominating role of SMT in chiropractic. The coverage should just be done in the Spinal manipulation and Spinal adjustment articles. The chiropractic article can still mention and give plenty of weight to SMT/Adjustments, but shouldn't waste space on details and research. That belongs in the respective articles. -- Fyslee / talk 05:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I like your contributions to the chiropractic page, some of which I agree with and some of which perhaps I don't; but I respectfully disagree with some of what you're saying here. You say "certainly not have any significant effect": I don't see how that could possibly be proven. You say "There is no scientifically proven therapeutic effect known and accepted by mainstream biomedical science." That may well be. However, there may be some individuals who are validly convinced of benefits as a result of having experienced things like their pain disappearing at the moment of adjustment; if this happens on a number of occasions it can be statistically significant and convincing to the individual, who naturally applies some intuitive approximation of statistics, although it would tend to be difficult to measure and record in such a way as to be convincing to the scientific community. Practitioners observing such reactions in their patients may also be validly convinced without necessarily having publication-quality data. Re Medicare: "It was a real struggle, but we obtained a letter from Medicare qualifying the Activator instrument." (Alan Fuhr, Dynamic Chiropractic, Dec 17, 2005 according to this web page: [7]). Coppertwig ( talk) 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I explained on the talk page to fix the references first by using the properly formatted ref from draft 7 but you ignored what I wrote on the talk page. You removed a ref from the sentence "In the U.S., chiropractic schools are accredited through the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE)." You also removed a direct link to CCE-I and replaced it with a link an earthlink page. You edit was blindly replacing the correct version of the refs and dumping in the wrongly formatted ref from version 8. [8] I fixed the publisher with the ref. publisher=Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards The publisher was removed from more than one ref. I made some general fixes and ref improvements. QuackGuru 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Please have the book (Magnum Crimen) in your hands and join to discussion on the talk pages-- 72.75.24.245 ( talk) 12:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The request to explain. Mister anarchist has achieved the, i.e. that that the fact, mismatching its representation about Guevara, are cleaned. Though they have been supplied by authoritative sources, and cleaning authoritative sources, how much I know, contradicts rules of Vicipedia. What should be my actions that them to restore? Sfrandzi ( talk) 18:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I and have acted. If you have time and desire - I would ask you to look, express the opinion yes by the way to correct my English☺ Sfrandzi ( talk) 20:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That has got to be one of the coolest RfA thanks that I've seen! I'm sure everyone appreciate the personal touches that you put into it. -- Natalya 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For the good info and links...lord knows I need all the help i can get ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParrotBSD ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, Hiram111 removes heavily sourced large criticism sections he doesn't like. He calls them "unreferenced" in his edit summaries. I don't go around Wikipedia removing criticism sections I don't like in articles about politicians I support because that would be disruptive and in violation of policies. How can anyone consider what he's doing anything less than disruptive vandalism? GreenEcho ( talk) 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
So he will not "assume good will" concerning my edits and will engage in Edit warring as he did previously and taking this to the “notice board” might increase his hostility, I hope as a more experienced “Third Party” you will asses if his edits should be reverted concerning Walid Jumblatt and I’m sorry for any inconvenience but this issue had been going for days.
I discussed the controversial edits that violates WP:living policy on the Article's talk page. Hiram111 ( talk) 23:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. I think I remember you asking about sources that clearly consider the topic of circumcision to be inclusive of male circumcision and female circumcision (forgive me, I don't recall your exact words). Would it be alright if I start posting them here as I run into them again? I'll begin with this one. If this isn't of any interest, let me know and I'll stop posting to this section with links. Blackworm ( talk) 09:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I do not authorize you or anyone to edit my posts, and I'm greatly disturbed by your sudden adoption of User:Jayjg's new initiative in editing the discussion posts of others on Talk:Circumcision. WP:CIVIL states: Only in the most serious of circumstances should an editor replace or edit a comment made by another editor. Only in the event of something that can cause actual damage in the real world should this be the first step [...]. Blackworm ( talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for the welcome; I'm afraid I don't have the time to really return. But I keep an eye on what happens here, and was sad to see things getting if anything worse. All the very best. Gleng ( talk) 08:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
At the end of this section I have a references section with code. Somehow it isn't working. Can you figure it out? -- Fyslee / talk 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis posted the following message at User talk:Coppertwig/Archive 7#British Isles:
I was wondering if it's possible, perhaps, that I create the infobox and in the Template: Infobox XXX format and then can you install it on the server?
I just asked someone else, but then I thought that you may know too so I decided to ask here as well
Thanks, Lihaas ( talk) 00:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader,
geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at
geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
Thank You, BCeagle0312 ( talk) 18:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, your kind words are much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Coppertwig. Thank you for your kind note. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi CT. Yes, if you want to wikilink the notes section, that would be a big improvement! The FA review has been extended on the grounds that work is still being done on the article, so now I have to finish all my planned improvements that were on the back burner.. They must do this just to get more work out of us :-). EdJohnston ( talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with your communication attempts, and thanks for the help. -- El on ka 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
There is this IP adress, 81.109.11.33, which makes a series of edits on Dharma that I revert. A user by name user:Langdell reverts my edits to the IP address's version, and then the series of edits from the IP address continue. I think that Langdell may be masquerading here justo show that more than 1 people agree with his version of the article. This has been happening in the Revision history of Dharma since 19 July 2008. Can you just check it out ? Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 16:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That I have done, in the section right above Langdell's created one. But the pattern that I talked about has occured twice :- An IP address makes a series of edits. Then I revert them, only to be reverted back by Langdell. After this, the IP's edits continue. If this repeats, I'll let you know. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I've discussed the article here, [10] which is now archived (I did not realise this earlier).
Your suggestion about "avoiding words that evoke neg emotions" is noted. But Langdell has used such language too like, "disruptive interventions of IAF" and later going on to question/demand my identity - a discussion that's nothing to do with the article's topic. Even if devoid of some adjectives, this was equally if not more evocative of "negative emotions".
Earlier too I have very politely requested this user on his talk:page here [11] sometime in December last, urging him to discuss the article instead of posting 'warnings' and threats on my talk page. Even at that time he was simply reverting my edits without a word of explanation on the talk page. So his behavior is all the more un-wikipedia like. Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 07:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comment avoided answering the question. [12]
Did you comment on Dematt's talk page to deflect attention away from my question?
Here is a reply to your question. It would be inmpossible to suggest a wording that everyone agrees upon. There is no need for attribution which would water down the sources.
Here is the question below.
This edit by Levine2112 was inaccurate because it was more than Keating. [13] What do you think about the misleading edit. QuackGuru 18:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
See if you can think of a good wording that won't be considered to require attribution. I'm just going to try to think of a new suggested wording now. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Coppertwig, as someone who has tried to convince User:Logicus to avoid personal attacks in the past, would you be willing to explain to Logicus why edits like this (see the end, especially) constitute personal attacks? I've asked him to be civil and avoid personal attacks (see User_talk:Logicus#Please_be_civil), and rather than let it go, he demands that that I provide the same details I've already provided to him about what constitutes a personal attack or "withdraw" the claim that he has made personal attacks. Cheers-- ragesoss ( talk) 19:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. It seems that the user you interacted with a few month ago - 71.100.x.x - is back at analog hole, and this time, inserting links to his wikibooks:analog hole article, which contains some of the exact links that were removed previously. The editor has some personal issues with me ( [20]) due to an AfD ( [21]), so I'd like your opinion on the WikiBooks issue before this turn into an edit war. Thanks! -- Jiuguang ( talk) 21:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello coppertwig. Thankyou for your attempts to harmonise the edit on the subject of the article dharma. It may be true that editors choose anonymity but please be kind enough to take time to look at User:IAF's talk page. If you do not do this I am afraid that we cannot get anywhere. Please also note that I am the principal editor of Ajahn Munindo's last book 'Unexpected Freedom'. Ajahn Munindo is a senior representative of the Theravada Buddhist religion in the West. He is the abbot of Aruna Ratanagiri Buddhist Monastery. I can assure you that a teacher of Ajahn Munindo's eminence would not invite and then request assistance in putting a book together from someone who did not know what he was talking about. I hope (and assume) that since you have intervened you have some knowledge of this subject yourself. In order to improve the article I need the assistance of someone who actually knows something about this subject. I am very sorry but I shall be unable to enter into any dispute with the user in question. He has more than adequately demonstrated his true colours in the past. My only desire is to further knowledge of this subject because it is one in which I just happen to have a better than average understanding. The User:IAF has a long history of anti-social behaviour. You can only know this by seeing how many times he has been blocked. If you would like to help me improve the article dharma, you are most welcome. Best wishes.Glenn Langdell ( talk) 18:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, from personal experience, most editors who have a "gudge" against my edits bring up the issue of past warnings and "past behaviour" to further their view-point. I don't think that that is applicable while editing articles because an article's discussion must contain content solely about the articles improvement or furtherment. A User's identity, his User:page being blank, past block-log etc. are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
So I request you that whatever decision you make further about the [Dharma] article involving me and Langdel/anyone, it should ONLY involve my (and the other user's) recourses to action that are taken for that article only. Any other aspect/attribute should not be entertained or taken as a mesure of forming opinion or enforcing something. In my case, I have previously invited Langdel quite respectfully to enter the negotiation round, and have put forth a detailed reason for my edits (now in the archives). Indian_Air_Force (IAF) ( talk) 08:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, they weren't rhetorical questions at all and I appreciate your help. Those were the kind of questions that stymied the article in question. ChrisO, being an administrator and knowing the ropes, was able to search for more individuals to lend weight to his view, and when there was no consensus proceeded to tie the article up with these complaints. This is not a good way to proceed. I did not know one could do an RfC on article content. Perhaps that would be the way to proceed with this article. Thanks again for your guidance. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I've replied at my talk (with another question, of course!). Thanks for your message. Antelan 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Just wondering, did you at this comment for the benefit of the IP because it wasn't explicit in my note? No problem, just interested if there was another reason. Cheers TigerShark ( talk) 14:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Coppertwig. Are you currently mentoring for QuackGuru? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is another example of QuackGuru reverting one of my edits on an article in which he has never participated in discussion. -- Levine2112 discuss 05:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems misplaced.... -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Rationale for deleting these:
There's no such thing as a "non-admin opinion". The opinions of all editors count. Comments that are insightful and backed by evidence may count more, but who makes the comments is not relevant (unless it's a single purpose account, a sock puppet or a banned user). Jehochman Talk 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl
(talk) 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!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hadn't crossed your wikipath in a while, so thought I'd stop in and say hi. :) And also comment how strange I find it that the drawing board has practically dried up! For a while there, I didn't feel like I could go on wikibreak without asking somebody to babysit the board (as you know, since you kindly pitched in). We used to get multi-questioners a week. Now we're down to multi-questioners a month. Wonder why?
Hope you're well. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello and greetings; replying to the message you left on my talk page. A twig that will grow into a shrubbery will make an adequate replacement for a shrubbery. BTW, from a brief perusal of your pages, I'm guessing we live in the same country; can't narrow down our proximity further. -- A Knight Who Says Ni ( talk) 13:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Because my participation as a Wikipedia editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. -- Abd ( talk) 02:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
In response to this comment: Jayjg, please comment on content, not on the contributor. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your comment on the source at talk:Golan Heights. AreaControl ( talk) 13:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The first published study is in the US in 1990. Note the patients were "elective," which means without medical reason. [24] The second cite is a published survey, written by a mohel and urologist [25]... both qualified as a source. TipPt ( talk) 19:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem about the citation! I'm reading Ramonez' book right now so I might contribute more to this article. Maybe you could comment on my suggestion on the talk page. Zatoichi26 ( talk) 01:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed my uncivil comment at the Sockpuppet case in question. GoodDay ( talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Greetings. Would you please do me a favor and look at the PNA edit history? (I'm in a rush.) It looks like Fipplet has ignored our warnings, plus violated 3RR (in content edits, if not "reverts" per se). I suspect a brief block is in order. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed your amendment to my 3RR report, and have added yet another (subsequent) revert. That makes eight by my count, seven by yours. I am well aware that I cannot again re-revert; but I hope someone else does, and that we can stop this disruption. RolandR ( talk) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. Unfortunately the extremely high volume of edits to that article makes it impractical for me to find the link to the version of the article that existed before people started adding in the bit about the Alaska Independence Movement. It was time-consuming enough to compile the diffs for the report as it is. I am hopeful that whichever admin handles my report will recognize that user as having violated the spirit, if not the letter, of 3RR. Mike R ( talk) 16:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Replying to Moonriddengirl who suggested Ship Ahoy (album): OK, sorry, I should have described better the type of article I'm looking for. I don't think that's it. The citation system I'm putting in is useful in articles where the same source is cited more than once, but with different page numbers. See Che Guevara for example. On the article you're suggesting, some references are used more than once, but there's no change in page number of anything, so there's no need for a separate "Notes" and "References" section. Generally, medical articles won't usually need the two separate sections, but history articles often will. So I'm looking for articles that need to have a separate References section added, or that have one but need links to it. Or to put it another way: if you'd like something done to that article, what would you like done? ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thank you for the message you left me. however we both know that what i want to add is not going to be allowed up because of my disagreement and apparent war with User:CalendarWatcher. It is sad really that small editors like myself have to avoid using a registered name because of people like CW. I have been trying for months to get someone to understand my perspective, however that is not going to happen because User:CalendarWatcher has a history on here and i am fairly new. Please take notice however that i have never made a malicious edit to wikipedia. perhaps after my cyber stalker moves on or grows up i will use my account again and start editing again. Until then i am done trying to make a difference or do the right thing. 98.222.196.27 ( talk) 21:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
i expected such response.. User:CalendarWatcher has on many occasions warred with many people and no action has ever been taken. but forget about it its not a problem. also.. i apologized for the "attack" i made on that douche bag. 98.222.196.27 ( talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
nullified huh? yea.. maybe theres a hidden message there.. if there were such a message it would prolly read "i dont give a rusty eff word". but there may not even be a message.. anyways it was not MY edit to begin with i just get tired of CalendarWatcher playing God all the time and no one standing up to him.. Oh i saw it was you being nosey and 3rr'd me. you can piss off too now. later!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.218.171 ( talk) 18:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.-- SaraNoon ( talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much user coppertwig,you are very kind and gentle.I guess I got carried away a bit,please forgive me for far too many silly mistakes I have made.To tell you the truth,my Wiki knowledge is minimum,my English is hardly passable,but I still have the desire to learn and to improve.And I am very passionate about Manchu and Ming dynasty history,Opium War,Matteo Ricci etc.In my heart,I have this urge,to share my knowledge with others,and at the same time to learn from others.That is why I spend so much time on that page alone,because the more I google,the more facts resurface,and I wish I could have ten pairs of eyes,with ten pairs of hands to record them all onto wiki,so that others can read them,without going through the world wide web like I did. While I was typing away,I completely forgot about others.I hope you,and other editors can understand and forgive me at the same time. I do like the idea of having my own user's page,can you kindly help me to set it up ?If so how to let others know of my user's page? Many thanks. Arilang1234 ( talk) 21:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,its me again.I have managed to put something on sandbox,here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sandbox.
Please help me by pointing out all my short comings.Thanks
Arilang1234 (
talk)
21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. Arilang1234 ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you are referring to Matteo Ricci,Johann Adam Schall von Bell , Ferdinand Verbiest,the three most famous missionaries that went to China in the 16 century.So just to inner-link them within wiki is not enough? So I have to provide outside reference ?I have just learn how to use the ref tag today,it is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilang1234 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
http://home.newadvent.org/cathen/13034a.htm catholic encyclopedia
Arilang1234 (
talk)
22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have just did two ref tag,it looks ok,but I can't find the foot note.Don't know where is it. Arilang1234 ( talk) 22:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Harry G. Gelber's book is the source of all the info on "short term cause".I am working on a project to examine the two Chinese dynasty Manchu and Ming;so this kind of info should be relevant.
Thanks for pointing out my short coming.I can change the wordings and the tone.About Chinese point of view,they are of complete opposite to the western point of view.Do I need to put them alongside the western point of view too?
Arilang1234 (
talk)
04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have modify my article a bit and put it on my user page(not sandbox).Please have a look when you got time.I will keep on experiment on it to improve my skill. Arilang1234 ( talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have put up more ref links,please have a look and tell me how you feel Arilang1234 ( talk) 23:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Me again. About Chinese source. Most of the Chinese internet web page are blogs, news sites, or bbs forums,and wiki may class them as unreliable.Unlike English source, there ain't that many university web sites. And where I live,there ain't that many Chinese history text books either. I know how and when to use external links and ref now,but I don't know anything about foot note.Can you explain when you have more time? I would like to name my article "Boxer Rebellion, Opium Wars and Beyond." What you think? Arilang1234 ( talk) 15:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, long time have not heard from you. Must be busy. My used page have new theme now, please go have a look when you have time? Arilang1234 ( talk) 23:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your kind reply. It is good to have a teacher like you. (1)To all the Chinese, all over the world, Matteo Ricci was, and is, the Saint who tried to fuse Confucianism and Christianity together.Though the Jesuit priests failed in their effort, because the Pope put a stop to it, that did not make Matteo Ricci any less important to Chinese. (2) I am writing Matteo Ricci from a Chinese's perspective.More precisely, from a Ming Dynasty's perspective.To me,and also to many Chinese, Ming Dynasty was being skillfully smeared by the barbaric Manchu tribal slaves owners who ended up ruling China for 263 years, and this 263 years represented the Darkest era in Chinese history. Ming Dynasty is still under a pile of rubbish. I would like to bring the glory of Ming to the surface again. (3) Do you think the time has come for my article to be transfer to a proper page, instead of my user page? If so, please help me. (4) About Chinese characters, if possible, I like to see they stay as it is. My reasons:(a)Ricci was a scholar of many talents, including the use of Latin, Italian, and Chinese.So it is only natural to include these 3 languages in my article. (b) Many Chinese can read both English and Chinese. (C) I hope one day my article will be translated into Chinese wiki. (5) Please feel free to edit my page anytime, not only grammar, anything you think not right, you can change it. You are my teacher. (6) Matteo Ricci is more than a Jesuit priest. He was the Ambassador of Culture between Europe and China in the 16 century. Arilang1234 ( talk) 02:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply. Sorry for not being able to answer you more fully, because I am really completely ignorant on many aspects of Wiki, and with only minimum of internet web blogging.But I am passionate about Christianity and China.The following quote sums up my feelings:"As Arnold Joseph Toynbee (1889 – 1975)( a British historian) said: "at this point Christianity had a chance to become a true world religion and rejected it. Never again in history has that opportunity presented itself on such favorable terms. Had Ricci and his colleagues been permitted to continue on their way, there is certainly no question but that the history of the world would have been far different."
Arilang1234 (
talk)
02:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi,me again. I have repair some footnotes, but not all. Question:When one web page is being referred to more than one times, is the title still remains the same?
Arilang1234 (
talk)
04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
In early September I was given a 3 R warning on Boxer Rebellion. I am now more experience( please check 2008 Chinese milk scandal, I did a lot of work there.) Can I go to Boxer Rebellion and do a bit of editing there? Arilang1234 ( talk) 11:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I wrote some comments at Talk:Yuan Weishi. About editing Boxer Rebellion: anyone can edit any page. However, I suggest that before editing the article, you put your changes on the talk page and see whether people agree with them; and it may be better, before putting your changes on the talk page, to put your changes on your user page or another page in your user space (sandbox), and ask me to look at them. If you do that, please mark clearly which page you want to put the changes on. I mean, on your user page you can write "The following are suggested changes to the page Boxer Rebellion", then quote or describe the changes, then write "(end of suggested changes to Boxer Rebellion)"; or any other way to make it clear which page the changes are for. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 12:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
One new question I like to ask is: there are some articles on zh.wikipedia that I like to translate them into English and put it on en.wikipedia. Can you advice me on how to do it ? Arilang1234 ( talk) 13:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
To answer your another, all Chinese Encyclopedia (including zh.wikipedia) use Chinese source, they never use English source. Arilang1234 ( talk) 00:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
What will happen after 2 or 3 days, and nobody care to comment at all? What about the big churn of Chinese text in the foot notes, can I leave it there? Arilang1234 ( talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Question(1)If nobody comments and I got to put back into the article, what about 'cite'? {{cite---news}} or {{cite---web}} ? So as long as I can translate between zh and en, and I can cite Chinese online encyclopedia, and I stick to all these WP rules, then I can work on any WP article I like? Arilang1234 ( talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not what I mean! en.wikisource accepts articles in English. en.wikisource also accepts translations into English. I meant: you can translate something that is in zh.wikisource, and put the English translation in en.wikisource. But, if there is a published translation, it would be better to use it instead (if there is no problem with copyright). See wikisource translation.
You may use anything in en.wikisource as a reference.
I think you can also use Chinese text in zh.wikisource as a reference for English Wikipedia. See WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 02:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qing_Dynasty#Requesting_consensus_discussion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wang_Xiuchu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qianlong_Emperor#Requesting_consensus_discussion
I am slowly figureing out all these wiki rules, and I will make sure that all rules are being taken care of. Arilang1234 ( talk) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
(1)Ebrey, Patricia (1993). Chinese Civilization: A Sourcebook. Simon and Schuster.
(2)
http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/geog/population.htm#2b Chinese population charts in 1000 years.
(3)
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Manchu17c Han murdered when Manchu defeat Ming
(4)McFarlane, Alan: The Savage Wars of Peace: England, Japan and the Malthusian Trap, Blackwell 2003,
ISBN
0631181172,
ISBN
978-0631181170
(5)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/580815/Taiping-Rebellion
(6)
http://www.archive.org/index.php
(7)
http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchresults.aspx?q=Manchu+atrocity
(8)
http://baike.baidu.com/
(9)
http://www.hudong.com
Arilang1234 (
talk)
00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote:"Non-English sources Policy shortcuts: WP:RSUE WP:VUE WP:NONENG
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Unquote Arilang1234 ( talk) 07:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Bathrobe on that.
(2)May be you have noticed I use template 'cquote' quite a bit, please tell me if I have overuse it or not.
(3)
Qing,
Qianlong,
Boxer Rebellion,
Wang Xiuchu are all interrelated articles, and I am doing revisions on them at the same time, because I think they all need to be more NPOV.
Arilang1234 (
talk)
20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | This article was nominated for deletion on 23/12/06. The article still lacks references, so I've tagged it. It also contains many statements that are off topic. —Babelfisch
This topic is highly inflammatory and has not being supported by facts. POV!!!! Super POV! A blatant racist attack on Han civilization(comment by Arilang) |
” |
The above quotation is cut-n-paste from talk page
Han chauvinism. It look a very long time for Bathrobe to see that I am not a Han chauvinist, only after repeating protests from me. To be fair, all I did was adding information that previous editors forgot to supply, though my editing was(and still is) often messy, but I will try to improve. Just because I was editing
Qing and I was wrongly labeled a Han chauvinist, that was the only reason why my retorts were so sharp and irritating. I want to both appololize to you and him.
Now things seems to have resolve, I will try my best to tidy up any mess I have left on
Qing.
Arilang1234 (
talk)
00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Coppertwig, Regarding the 3RR "report" filed against me, I feel that you have failed to perform the necessary due-diligence to examine this particular case beyond the skin-deep level. The reporting individual is highly skilled at masking his own incitement and violation, and craftily reports a revert when his own inappropriate material is adjusted, changed, altered or removed. Please email me, or allow me to email you to discuss this further offline. I have been highly upset and disturbed by the nature of these other users. I am a retired professional, and gentle soul, with many high-quality contributions, and livlihood which backs my contributions. Most Sincerely, Grayghost01 ( talk) 03:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and time. Terms like "radical abolitionist" are historical and of old use. If you found that on a wiki article, then it likely is found in its correct context of referring to abolitionists who were willing to either commit murder or insurrection in the name of abolition. There is a whole wiki article devoted to these people at
Radical Republican (USA). So ... some editors who have been dabbling in the American Civil War, I've noticed, get wrapped around the axle slapping "POV" on items thinking there is a problem, when in fact there is not. In my particle case, one example of what upset these other editors was the word "invasion" that I must have put on an article about 2 years ago, and which they recently observed. These fellows cried "POV". I tried, to no avail, to explain that this is a purely military term. We, the United States, invaded Normandy (see
Invasion of Normandy). The word "invasion" as you see in this main wiki article is not a POV.
Now, while geographic location of one's residence is not normally an issue ... it can be a cause of POV in certain cases, such as the American Civil War. So these other editors "provoke" edit battles by deleting or inserting items which either reflect their own POV .... or which incorrectly assumes a POV on something like the word "invasion" or perhaps "radical" as you pointed out. Its a form of vandalism, because the TRUE spirit of wiki's intent is not meant. I say that because these editors have received many warnings. In tracing through their many edits, they have left a trial of being provoking and warned in other articles. If anyone resists their efforts, they jump on them with 3RR "attacks". These two also work in tandem, cooperatively with each other, to form a perception of "false" consensus on talk pages. Most people are unaware they are working together. Grayghost01 ( talk) 22:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comment. Although the autoblock got in the way for a wee while, it was not a problem. I'm not one of those folks who throws toys out of the pram if access to Wikipedia editing is impeded, because I have some form of life outside of this beast. It was the actions of the reporting editor that caused me problems - haunting my contribs and such like. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig (nice name). I just noticed that Happy-melon is "off to distant lands, and will be editing sporadically – if at all – until September 25, 2008." Would you please revise the Db-g8 template I requested at Template:Db-g8. Thanks. Suntag ( talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertwig ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2008
Abd; and also by Abd: "If a decision has supposedly been made "by the community," with whom do you discuss it?" [34] Coppertwig ( talk) 01:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing interest at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table in my standing userspace RfC. The first questions to be addressed are at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, which is a page for the questions and (later) a summary of consensus. Comments and discussion have been begun, by me, at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. Because the first questions address the warning issued to me by Jehochman before the block on 8/11, and should not involve extensive research, I have several times asked Jehochman to comment, but he has declined so far. I have also asked Carcharoth, as suggested by Jehochman, to look at it, but so far he hasn't found time; perhaps he will in the next few days. If you are able to look at the pages ref'd above, and comment regarding the questions, or otherwise as you see fit, it would be appreciated. I am waiting to see if these questions can be resolved and a preliminary consensus found, without going to a wider forum, such as the Village Pump, AN, or a standard user RfC. Thanks for any time you can give this. -- Abd ( talk) 21:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. Apparently, {{
db-g7}} now requires a rationale for all posts. Would you please revise
Template:Db doc to remove the most basic form of the template at
Template:Db-g7. Also, I think db-g7 is used alot by the authors themselves. Thus, would you please add the example,{{db-g7|rationale=For this page, I am the author of the only substantial content and request deletion of it in good faith.}}
to Template:Db doc so that it only appears at
Template:Db-g7. I came up with all this via
this post. Thanks. --
Suntag (
talk)
18:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
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. Redthoreau ( talk) RT 09:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
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#Nangparbat if you're interested. Cheers. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It was a complete (but pleasant) surprise that it was on the front page. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
I have a question about your support comment at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Civility restrictions#Proposal A.2: Low level incivility is a serious problem. 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)
Thanks for the barnstar! It is much appreciated. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
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.
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)
I very much appreciate it. GreekParadise ( talk) 03:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You have not explained your revert. [35] 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. QuackGuru 18:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
I just noticed this: [36]. 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)
Replied on my talk page. Bstone ( talk) 02:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm planning on stalking your edits for the next few days.-- Tznkai ( talk) 02:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, C-Twig. This may help: http://www.hebcal.com/converter/ -- Avi ( talk) 01:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem levelheaded and intelligent. I'd like your input on WP:AE#Domer48.-- Tznkai ( talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment at Talk:Chiropractic#Topic_ban, could you comment there on exactly what you'd like to change? Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:05, 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)
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)
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)
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)
[37] 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. QuackGuru 04:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
An editor accused me of vandalism not once but twice. [38] [39] 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. [40] [41] You have made a false statement. Please stop with your bad faith allegation against me. QuackGuru 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 [42] [43] which you supported. My edits were not vandalism. QuackGuru 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
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. QuackGuru 19:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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. [47] [48] Please abide. QuackGuru 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. [49] [50] Per WP:OR, when SM is directly connected to chiropractic it is okay to cite research that has a direct connection. QuackGuru 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. [51] QuackGuru 01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
Please the read second paragraph of the bottom of this. Thank you. -- American Eagle ( talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Adopt-a-User Barnstar | |
For services above and beyond the call of duty in welcoming and coaching User:Arilang1234 |
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)