Semi-retired or retired. May stop editing suddenly and unexpectedly at any time, and don't know when if ever I'll be back. I was away for years and might be again. For now, I can't be reached by email. By the way, consider watchlisting my
Notices page. |
☺
Welcome to my talk page.
Messages that are welcome here:
Not welcome here:
One way to leave a message here is to click on the "+" tab at the top of this page. Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.; feel free to let me know which you'd prefer.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 |
Re: your comment here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Null_hypothesis#%22File_drawer_problem%22?
That is a wonderfully lucid and useful explanation. Thanks! DeepNorth ( talk) 20:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
For this edit. I apologize for catagorizing you as a pro circumcision editor. You stood up to Jake and Avi with clear logic and listened to others concerns with an opened mind. Garycompugeek ( talk) 13:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking another look at this edit? I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think that both refs support both claims in that sentence... Thanks, Jakew ( talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I finally got around to finishing this template, the one we discussed a while ago here question about parsing in a template and here User_talk:Coppertwig#Extension:VariablesExtension. It is not the most eloquent solution, but the wikipedia templating language is not exactly the most sophisticated language either. Which is by choice, I was surprised to find out. But, I wanted to show you what I came up with. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to comment.
Search All Deletion Discussions with instructions (strikeout/fix stmrlbs| talk 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
stmrlbs| talk 04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I have an idea to improve a template, but have no idea where to start, to implement it.
{{NYCS-bull-small}} produces small bullets for New York City Subway services, for example . It is used on the rolling stock page to identify which trains operate on which services. Someone recently improved it with the capability to link to the service page.
Here's where the problem comes in. The bullet links to a disambiguation page listing all former and current shuttles. I kludged the output of the rolling stock page for the three current shuttle services. It looks silly, and I'd like to streamline the appearance.
How do I modify the template to accept the parameters of "42nd Street", "Franklin Avenue" and "Rockaway Park" to produce an bullet with the proper link to those shuttle's service page?
Acps110 ( talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Copper, hope life is well. Just a quick note that I added you to a maintained tag on the Che article as you and I are usually the first to respond. If you would rather me remove you, just let me know. As an aside, I miss running into you around the Wiki world :o) - hope you're not to busy. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 03:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for all your help with it. Nice to see you editing again! Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
I appreciate your follow-up on my talk page. All the best to you as well. Debresser ( talk) 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you "seem to suggest" is civil. The current presentation has strong bias. I addressed Jake's criticism directly with him, with his own prompting discussion text.
HIV belongs in the text, but not in the lead. It is not a significant healtlh issue basically unless you live in Africa.
No dates should be used (as is standard in the body), or all the association dates are needed (cite not just the AMA 1999 but most associations with their respective dates) along with the WHO/UNAIDS and CDC dates.
I will find religious advocacy statements. You don't understand, or disagree, that medical issues are over emphasized in the circumcision article? Zinbarg ( talk) 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remove the "medical propaganda" discussion I started. First, I looked more carefully, and it's nothing near 2/3 of the text. The whole text loads slowly because it's so full of stuff that's not actually readable. I do think it's wrong to seek medical justification for something sacred. What set me off is it sometimes makes the text unprofessional and dated. The medical camp is a relatively tiny fringe group with generally weak research. But, there are more important things for me to do. Can I delete the section from discussion? Zinbarg ( talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
AfDM| page=Stephan Schulz|logdate=2009 December 10
I thought you might be interested in this vote. Vanity Pages for Admins really have no place on Wikipedia and it is high time to clear this detritus. ~ Rameses ( talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.
Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As technically redirects aren't applicable to the WP:PROD process, I deprodded this one... and sent it straight to RfD here. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 10:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Good quotes in the NPOV section of your user page. I agree completely that minority / fringe POVs should be represented as such, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated. Depth perception.. good analogy. For any controversial subject, I think the public is interested both mainstream and non-mainstream opinion, and the reasons behind the difference of opinion. stmrlbs| talk 04:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I responded to you on my talk page. Have a happy and healthy New Year. -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK ( talk) 09:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You wrote this: "if the only information we had about an author was in court documents, we might use those to help decide whether the author was a reliable source (without using the court documents themselves as a citation in the article)." on the RPOV noticeboard. can you explain how one might do what you propose? This could be really helpful to me. Thanks.
BTW: You need to remember that the AMA, et al was convicted in Federal Court in Wilk v. American Medical Association of a conspiracy to destroy Chiropractic. Since they continue to use Barrett's vituperation against Chiropractic in their journals, while, it would seem, from Court records supporting him financially, doesn't that call THEIR RPOV into qestion???. Д-р СДжП,ДС 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
from JAMA:
The court conducted a lengthy trial of this case in May and June of 1987 and on August 27,1987, issued a 101 page opinion finding that the American Medical Association ("AMA") and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws. Thereafter an opinion dated September 25, 1987 was substituted for the August 27,1987 opinion. The question now before the court is the form of injunctive relief that the court will order.
And here is the full statement. stmrlbs| talk 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The court concluded that the AMA had a genuine concern for scientific methods in patient care, and that this concern was the dominant factor in motivating the AMA's conduct. However, the AMA failed to establish that throughout the entire period of the boycott, from 1966 to 1980, this concern was objectively reasonable. The court reached that conclusion on the basis of extensive testimony from both witnesses for the plaintiffs and the AMA that some forms of chiropractic treatment are effective and the fact that the AMA recognized that chiropractic began to change in the early 1970s. Since the boycott was not formally over until Principle 3 was eliminated in 1980, the court found that the AMA was unable to establish that during the entire period of the conspiracy its position was objectively reasonable. Finally, the court ruled that the AMA's concern for scientific method in patient care could have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition and that a nationwide conspiracy to eliminate a licensed profession was not justified by the concern for scientific method. On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the AMA had failed to establish the patient care defense.
Hi Coppertwig: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 05:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Coppertwig. I intended no offence and have added a further statement to clarify my intention. I was simply shocked to find an admin engaging in such a degree of incivility. May I say that the readiness of anyone to interpret my comments as antagonistic is indicative of how over-heated the entire discussion has become. Oh and thanks for the welcome but I have been a member here since 2005, although I usually don't log in to contribute. :) All the best. Nigedo ( talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you help out with this?
User:Tom Butler#A perfect quote.
It refers directly to me and I would like it taken down. Tom Butler does not like me, and so I'd like to get an outside, uninvolved user to advocate for its removal. Would you be willing?
Thanks,
ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about this. The feedback is much appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Tom Butler's user page. He doesn't quote me out of context, and he is as entitled to believe that I represent what is wrong with Wikipedia as I am to believe that he represents a fatal flaw in the system. He never did seem to get the point of what I was saying, which is a bit sad.— Kww( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested, as per previous discussions about templates. bugzilla:22135 stmrlbs| talk 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 08:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT ( talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see you editing again. Jakew ( talk) 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi CT, I've replied to you here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe you'd know how best to remedy the current orphaned status of Gardner's relation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Coppertwig -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.
With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:
Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.
Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?
Thank you for your helpful postings here and here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The re-thinking rationale is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?
Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I've got an unintended consequence problem here. Someone recently showed me
Special:ExpandTemplates; I was playing around with it the other day.
If I put in {{NYCS Franklin-Botanic}}
, I get the expected output of
2,
3,
4,
5, and
S, with the proper link the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. However, if I put in {{NYCS Franklin-Botanic|time=bullets}}
, the output is
with the S bullet linking to the S services dab page. I think the problem stems from the implementation of the bullets in {{
NYCS time 2}}.
Help! I can't make heads or tails of that page and where to insert your solution from {{
NYCS-bull-small}}. Thanks,
Acps110 (
talk •
contribs) 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, Tinlinkin fixed it after I wrote you this message. Acps110 ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
To take so long to reply to your question in circ discussion. I'd been on vacation. Zinbarg ( talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The poll tally favored keeping one of the three tags Coppertwitg. And it was there for a long time. The problems leading to that decision have not been fixed. I've revisited some issues recently. You know the tag rules; three known, discussed but not fixed issues of bias in content or presentation ie POV. I've detailed, discussed and tried to fix. Reverted by Jakew with often silly spurious comment.
As for the current discussion conclusion, please see this cut and paste:
Spaully has yet to present that repair suggestion.
I suggest you study the nature of introductions and reconsider HIV having it's own exagerated references ending lead paragraph! Silly POV.
Deleted. Zinbarg ( talk) 00:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
But highlighting Jakew is fruitless. I need your help to make Circumcision neutral. Zinbarg ( talk) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Unindent. You evidently haven't read the UN/WHO statement, which is quite clear about benefits. Coppertwig noted that only in S Africa would wiki readers find the info relevant. (Only english speaking country where AIDS prevalence is sufficient to find public health benefit). Zinbarg ( talk) 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Misses the primary change in the edit. Instead, You highlighted a very minor change. Zinbarg ( talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Please be advised that voting has commenced on a Motion concerning your mentorship of Tenmei.
For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 18:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Your passive oversight may be needed at Talk:Shinto shrine#Revert. I am posting an alert on the talk pages of the others in the mentorship group; however, I anticipate that none of you will need to intervene.
If something does develop, I agreed in months ago to be guided by Leujohn's active mentoring lead.
The contributions history here + an old dispute thread at Talk:Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū#Top three shrines cause me to guess that this is precisely the kind of problem which calls for a heads-up. For more background, see also here
In response to an early-2009 dispute, I created Hakozaki Shrine, Usa Shrine and Modern system of ranked Shinto Shrines. The research which went into developing these articles informs my reaction to an otherwise trivial edit here. The small change suggests that this may have something to do with pre-1947 State Shinto ranking.
From 1871 to 1947, the Kanpei-sha (官幣社) identified a hierarchy of government-supported shrines most closely associated with the Imperial family. Included in the highest ranks were these three:
Before 1947, the mid-range of ranked, nationally significant shrines or Kokuhei Chūsha (国幣中社) included Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū at Kamakura, Kanagawa.
Maybe nothing will come of this, but I will invite Oda Mari and Urashimataro to watchlist Shinto Shrine. We'll see.
Thank you for your investment of time and concern. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I just saw your name in my watchlist, for the first time in about a month. So I wanted to say 'welcome back'. Jakew ( talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. I've created a new article, Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom, I thought you might be interested in reading it. Cheers! Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 04:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A couple of good things happened today: A minor edit here reminded me of an article I created in 2008.
Елисеева is Russian for Elisséeff; and it caused me to remember writing about Serge Elisséeff at Harvard. It will take time for me to figure out how to explain why this seemed helpful.
A more immediate consequence was the opportunity to enjoy effective collaboration. I worked with In ictu oculi in improving the text of William George Aston and Kim Chae-guk. This was a very small illustration of what I hope to encounter whenever I log on to Wikipedia. Good news is good to share. -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially
As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 08:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take note of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Requested move discussion at Talk:Eulsa Treaty and watchlist Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested Move, especially in the context established here.
I endorse Nihonjoe's summary of the substance of my scrupulously mild comments.
I am especially eager for your close scrutiny of any further comments about the role of mentors, if it develops an issue. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You may no longer care a year later, but User:KeltieMartinFan is up to the same old tricks re: the Quick article. (There's a sock puppet, User:Fourviz that may do damage, too.)
76.114.197.43 ( talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You complained about a comment I made a week ago. The guy had lumped me in with the NAMBLA perverts, and I took exception to that. He also hasn't been paying attention. I have said over and over again that my interest in this is not to glorify Letourneau; it's to not make Wikpedia look stupid by trying to make a big thing over the episode of Letourneau and that kid years ago, given the current situation of them being married and presumably happily so. He's got blinders on, so I got tired of dealing with it, and almost a week ago I stopped watching both the article and his page. Enough, already! ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
This barnstar is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank).
Awarded by PhilKnight ( talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
As a heads up, I complimentarily "name dropped" you in my recent RFA --> answer (#3). I hope you don’t mind :o) Redthoreau -- ( talk) 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Template:Db-a1/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-a5/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-c3/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-g12/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-g7/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-r3/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-u3/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Since your account has recently not been editing very regularly, on the page Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list you name has been moved to a list of editors who are willing to give assistance, but may not always be available. There is an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. You are, of course, welcome to move yourself back to the other list if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
Maybe you'd know the answer this question? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
for your kind words about some of my recent editing! Nandt1 ( talk) 00:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank you again for your mentoring.
I appreciated your efforts; and my participation the project was affected by your investments of time and thought. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I started the article Hypothes.is. People are welcome to help edit it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 19:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no clue why you don't like my comment; if you have anything constructive to add, add it at the conversation. No one likes arguments that go around in circles. You should look at the various proposals for dealing with these timewasters in various fora on this particular article, especially. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on
my talk page
RDN1F
TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings.
I'm a newbie, and I'm wise enough to say so, so pardon me if I'm doing things the "wrong" way or seem to be out of place. I'm trying to learn all I can and practice techniques in my own userspace before attempting to do things in the "real world" and inadvertently causing a big stir, as newbies are wont to do. :-)
It seems like you were the original contributor of Template:Split from some five years ago. So it seems to me like you may be an excellent person to have in the discussion we're having on how to properly split an article, and then properly updating WP:SPLIT to reflect what we've learned. I think I'm not the only one who's a bit confused about how this template is to be used and what the final result should look like.
I'm actually an old computer geek, myself, and pretty good at writing documentation, so I can certainly help there ... but where we're weak is understanding specifically what the template is calling for.
I'll also be inviting contributors of Template:Split to to our discussion, so we can have a full understanding and agreement on this.
Thanks in advance for your help and comments!
Djdubay ( talk) 13:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day ( see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across by chance your repeated reasoned attempts at finding compromise and civility on the beleaguered Circumcision article talk pages seven years ago. As an editor now experiencing the same frustrations as editor Blackworm at what we both perceive to be a pro circumcision cabal/patrol/ content skew in the article it does give perspective and pause to see that this process is cyclical. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mys_721tx ( talk) 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. A long time ago I asked people for help with removing misrepresentations from an article (it was a BLP though I didn't realise that for some time). Unfortunately everyone I asked , including admins and a ?sysop candidate (JMW)?, failed to recognise that it was a BLP. As I remember you were at the stage were WP:Verafiability hadn't yet sunk in. I was repeatedly advised to enter into a dispute resolution process. Unsurprisingly this went no-where. Soon after the involved misrepresenting editor was banned as a WP:DE serial sock-puppet user. And his off-sider warned.
However by then I had found the stress of running ineffectually in circles trying to get help for something that was so very obvious too much and I came to the conclusion that WP was broken and formed a culture that promoted dehumanisation and hopelessness.
Many years passed.
About 3 weeks ago I came across a very strange WP article. And began comparing the content with the sources. About 50% of the content consists of misrepresentation of the sources. With another 30% OR, non-RS and POV. All negative to the subject.
So I raised the issue on the talk page and deleted the first 3 BLP violations. I put in a BLPN. A week later many violations remained. I put in a ANI. A week (today) later I put in an Oversight email. (My deletions were soon reverted, edit summ. "please discuss before", the ANI and BLP are gone to archive. And multiple BLP violations remain.)
There is an admin who defends the BLP violations. "Guy". You could look on User:SmithBlue for my interpretation of Guy's approach to editing the article.
Guy indulges in a lot of handwaving, smoke-screen WP:DE.
I have no faith in WP processes. This is the second article where BLP violations have been replaced, BLPN & ANI have been ignored and all my attempts to address the violations have come to nought.
I see you are intelligent enough to avoid the unpleasant side of WP. And I see too much evidence of a healthy, humanising influence on WP that could be lost or damaged by me trying to push you towards something that you don't want to involve yourself with.
So here is my request. Please send an admin (or higher), who will call it like it is, to WP:Brian Martin (Professor).
regards SmithBlue 124.171.110.75 ( talk) 03:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:Split from has been nominated for merging with [[Template:]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS ( talk) 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shih apso. Since you had some involvement with the Shih apso redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You once told me if I ever came around to stop and say hi. So, HI! I came back and found some things never change, except for the worse. See my talk page at November 2018. I tried to float a proposal at Larry Sanger's talk page for a new project and it was deleted by Guy Macon before I even had a chance to finish a line requesting comments. He could not possibly have read it, but claimed it was "promotional," which it was not intended to be. Query: if a mere proposal seeking comments on a talk page is "promotional," what is the article about Julian Assange? Isn't WP promoting his ideas and actions simply by publishing an article about him? Anyway, Sanger never saw the proposal, so does not know what it is about. If people are deleting things from other person's talk pages, how does any communication or productive discourse ever happen on WP today? I mean, is WP discussion today limited only to confrontation? From my brief encounter today, it would appear so. I don't know who or what Guy Macon is, but he appears determined to stifle communication between editors, and his arrogance is breathtaking. Hardly one foot in the door and again I'm being driven away from WP. I like Jimbo's comments at the top of your user page a great deal, but I don't take intentional provocation very well. I have an idea for a very large project on the causes and causers of climate change (which DoD now considers a national security issue), but it looks like I won't even be able to get any discussion going about it with the current brain police regime (Frank Zappa's term, not mine). I'm not even sure I can send it to you without this bird dog preventing you getting it. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 07:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
... and again! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Db doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
Awarded for the significant reworking, rewording and paring down of text in numerous articles. SpookiePuppy ( talk) 22:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hello Coppertwig, I am a very interested observer of the discussion page of this article. Perhaps a "modern review" on his profiles and historical identity/identities will help. In this monograph, Heinzle and Lienert are quoted and commented among other text-critical researchers: https://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/MerovingSava.htm Regards, Yours Jonathan C. Wood. 87.151.75.220 ( talk) 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph is from (R. E. Gaffney, G. P. Gould and A. J. Semple, Broken Promises: The Aboriginal Constitutional Conferences (1984), at p. 62, quoted in Catherine Bell, “Who Are The Metis People in Section 35(2)?” (1991), 29 Alta. L. Rev. 351, at p. 356.) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
TylerBurden ( talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-retired or retired. May stop editing suddenly and unexpectedly at any time, and don't know when if ever I'll be back. I was away for years and might be again. For now, I can't be reached by email. By the way, consider watchlisting my
Notices page. |
☺
Welcome to my talk page.
Messages that are welcome here:
Not welcome here:
One way to leave a message here is to click on the "+" tab at the top of this page. Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.; feel free to let me know which you'd prefer.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 |
Re: your comment here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Null_hypothesis#%22File_drawer_problem%22?
That is a wonderfully lucid and useful explanation. Thanks! DeepNorth ( talk) 20:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
For this edit. I apologize for catagorizing you as a pro circumcision editor. You stood up to Jake and Avi with clear logic and listened to others concerns with an opened mind. Garycompugeek ( talk) 13:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Would you mind taking another look at this edit? I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I don't think that both refs support both claims in that sentence... Thanks, Jakew ( talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig, I finally got around to finishing this template, the one we discussed a while ago here question about parsing in a template and here User_talk:Coppertwig#Extension:VariablesExtension. It is not the most eloquent solution, but the wikipedia templating language is not exactly the most sophisticated language either. Which is by choice, I was surprised to find out. But, I wanted to show you what I came up with. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to comment.
Search All Deletion Discussions with instructions (strikeout/fix stmrlbs| talk 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC))
stmrlbs| talk 04:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I have an idea to improve a template, but have no idea where to start, to implement it.
{{NYCS-bull-small}} produces small bullets for New York City Subway services, for example . It is used on the rolling stock page to identify which trains operate on which services. Someone recently improved it with the capability to link to the service page.
Here's where the problem comes in. The bullet links to a disambiguation page listing all former and current shuttles. I kludged the output of the rolling stock page for the three current shuttle services. It looks silly, and I'd like to streamline the appearance.
How do I modify the template to accept the parameters of "42nd Street", "Franklin Avenue" and "Rockaway Park" to produce an bullet with the proper link to those shuttle's service page?
Acps110 ( talk) 23:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey Copper, hope life is well. Just a quick note that I added you to a maintained tag on the Che article as you and I are usually the first to respond. If you would rather me remove you, just let me know. As an aside, I miss running into you around the Wiki world :o) - hope you're not to busy. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 03:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for all your help with it. Nice to see you editing again! Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/blog/
I appreciate your follow-up on my talk page. All the best to you as well. Debresser ( talk) 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you "seem to suggest" is civil. The current presentation has strong bias. I addressed Jake's criticism directly with him, with his own prompting discussion text.
HIV belongs in the text, but not in the lead. It is not a significant healtlh issue basically unless you live in Africa.
No dates should be used (as is standard in the body), or all the association dates are needed (cite not just the AMA 1999 but most associations with their respective dates) along with the WHO/UNAIDS and CDC dates.
I will find religious advocacy statements. You don't understand, or disagree, that medical issues are over emphasized in the circumcision article? Zinbarg ( talk) 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remove the "medical propaganda" discussion I started. First, I looked more carefully, and it's nothing near 2/3 of the text. The whole text loads slowly because it's so full of stuff that's not actually readable. I do think it's wrong to seek medical justification for something sacred. What set me off is it sometimes makes the text unprofessional and dated. The medical camp is a relatively tiny fringe group with generally weak research. But, there are more important things for me to do. Can I delete the section from discussion? Zinbarg ( talk) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
AfDM| page=Stephan Schulz|logdate=2009 December 10
I thought you might be interested in this vote. Vanity Pages for Admins really have no place on Wikipedia and it is high time to clear this detritus. ~ Rameses ( talk) 11:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I have sent you an e-mail. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The Revision History of Wikipedia:Mentorship records your participation the article's development; and for this reason, I am reaching out to you.
Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I plan to cite this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind. -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As technically redirects aren't applicable to the WP:PROD process, I deprodded this one... and sent it straight to RfD here. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 10:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Good quotes in the NPOV section of your user page. I agree completely that minority / fringe POVs should be represented as such, but that doesn't mean they should be eliminated. Depth perception.. good analogy. For any controversial subject, I think the public is interested both mainstream and non-mainstream opinion, and the reasons behind the difference of opinion. stmrlbs| talk 04:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I responded to you on my talk page. Have a happy and healthy New Year. -- CrohnieGal Talk 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved WP:COI case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Chabad movement editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK ( talk) 09:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
You wrote this: "if the only information we had about an author was in court documents, we might use those to help decide whether the author was a reliable source (without using the court documents themselves as a citation in the article)." on the RPOV noticeboard. can you explain how one might do what you propose? This could be really helpful to me. Thanks.
BTW: You need to remember that the AMA, et al was convicted in Federal Court in Wilk v. American Medical Association of a conspiracy to destroy Chiropractic. Since they continue to use Barrett's vituperation against Chiropractic in their journals, while, it would seem, from Court records supporting him financially, doesn't that call THEIR RPOV into qestion???. Д-р СДжП,ДС 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
from JAMA:
The court conducted a lengthy trial of this case in May and June of 1987 and on August 27,1987, issued a 101 page opinion finding that the American Medical Association ("AMA") and its members participated in a conspiracy against chiropractors in violation of the nation's antitrust laws. Thereafter an opinion dated September 25, 1987 was substituted for the August 27,1987 opinion. The question now before the court is the form of injunctive relief that the court will order.
And here is the full statement. stmrlbs| talk 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The court concluded that the AMA had a genuine concern for scientific methods in patient care, and that this concern was the dominant factor in motivating the AMA's conduct. However, the AMA failed to establish that throughout the entire period of the boycott, from 1966 to 1980, this concern was objectively reasonable. The court reached that conclusion on the basis of extensive testimony from both witnesses for the plaintiffs and the AMA that some forms of chiropractic treatment are effective and the fact that the AMA recognized that chiropractic began to change in the early 1970s. Since the boycott was not formally over until Principle 3 was eliminated in 1980, the court found that the AMA was unable to establish that during the entire period of the conspiracy its position was objectively reasonable. Finally, the court ruled that the AMA's concern for scientific method in patient care could have been adequately satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition and that a nationwide conspiracy to eliminate a licensed profession was not justified by the concern for scientific method. On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the AMA had failed to establish the patient care defense.
Hi Coppertwig: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 05:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Coppertwig. I intended no offence and have added a further statement to clarify my intention. I was simply shocked to find an admin engaging in such a degree of incivility. May I say that the readiness of anyone to interpret my comments as antagonistic is indicative of how over-heated the entire discussion has become. Oh and thanks for the welcome but I have been a member here since 2005, although I usually don't log in to contribute. :) All the best. Nigedo ( talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you help out with this?
User:Tom Butler#A perfect quote.
It refers directly to me and I would like it taken down. Tom Butler does not like me, and so I'd like to get an outside, uninvolved user to advocate for its removal. Would you be willing?
Thanks,
ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your note about this. The feedback is much appreciated. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of Tom Butler's user page. He doesn't quote me out of context, and he is as entitled to believe that I represent what is wrong with Wikipedia as I am to believe that he represents a fatal flaw in the system. He never did seem to get the point of what I was saying, which is a bit sad.— Kww( talk) 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested, as per previous discussions about templates. bugzilla:22135 stmrlbs| talk 20:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help.
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig: A discussion has started if the Chabad editors case should be dismissed or should remain open. As someone who has been involved in the serious COI discussions leading up to this ArbCom case you should be informed of this motion and have the right to explain if you agree or disagree with this proposed motion and why. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence#Contemplated motion to dismiss. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 08:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You may be interested in commenting on this. NickCT ( talk) 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice to see you editing again. Jakew ( talk) 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi CT, I've replied to you here in case you miss it. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 20:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe you'd know how best to remedy the current orphaned status of Gardner's relation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Coppertwig -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.
With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:
Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.
Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?
Thank you for your helpful postings here and here. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The re-thinking rationale is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?
Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I've got an unintended consequence problem here. Someone recently showed me
Special:ExpandTemplates; I was playing around with it the other day.
If I put in {{NYCS Franklin-Botanic}}
, I get the expected output of
2,
3,
4,
5, and
S, with the proper link the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. However, if I put in {{NYCS Franklin-Botanic|time=bullets}}
, the output is
with the S bullet linking to the S services dab page. I think the problem stems from the implementation of the bullets in {{
NYCS time 2}}.
Help! I can't make heads or tails of that page and where to insert your solution from {{
NYCS-bull-small}}. Thanks,
Acps110 (
talk •
contribs) 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, Tinlinkin fixed it after I wrote you this message. Acps110 ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
To take so long to reply to your question in circ discussion. I'd been on vacation. Zinbarg ( talk) 16:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The poll tally favored keeping one of the three tags Coppertwitg. And it was there for a long time. The problems leading to that decision have not been fixed. I've revisited some issues recently. You know the tag rules; three known, discussed but not fixed issues of bias in content or presentation ie POV. I've detailed, discussed and tried to fix. Reverted by Jakew with often silly spurious comment.
As for the current discussion conclusion, please see this cut and paste:
Spaully has yet to present that repair suggestion.
I suggest you study the nature of introductions and reconsider HIV having it's own exagerated references ending lead paragraph! Silly POV.
Deleted. Zinbarg ( talk) 00:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
But highlighting Jakew is fruitless. I need your help to make Circumcision neutral. Zinbarg ( talk) 15:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Unindent. You evidently haven't read the UN/WHO statement, which is quite clear about benefits. Coppertwig noted that only in S Africa would wiki readers find the info relevant. (Only english speaking country where AIDS prevalence is sufficient to find public health benefit). Zinbarg ( talk) 15:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Misses the primary change in the edit. Instead, You highlighted a very minor change. Zinbarg ( talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Please be advised that voting has commenced on a Motion concerning your mentorship of Tenmei.
For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 18:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Your passive oversight may be needed at Talk:Shinto shrine#Revert. I am posting an alert on the talk pages of the others in the mentorship group; however, I anticipate that none of you will need to intervene.
If something does develop, I agreed in months ago to be guided by Leujohn's active mentoring lead.
The contributions history here + an old dispute thread at Talk:Iwashimizu Hachiman-gū#Top three shrines cause me to guess that this is precisely the kind of problem which calls for a heads-up. For more background, see also here
In response to an early-2009 dispute, I created Hakozaki Shrine, Usa Shrine and Modern system of ranked Shinto Shrines. The research which went into developing these articles informs my reaction to an otherwise trivial edit here. The small change suggests that this may have something to do with pre-1947 State Shinto ranking.
From 1871 to 1947, the Kanpei-sha (官幣社) identified a hierarchy of government-supported shrines most closely associated with the Imperial family. Included in the highest ranks were these three:
Before 1947, the mid-range of ranked, nationally significant shrines or Kokuhei Chūsha (国幣中社) included Tsurugaoka Hachiman-gū at Kamakura, Kanagawa.
Maybe nothing will come of this, but I will invite Oda Mari and Urashimataro to watchlist Shinto Shrine. We'll see.
Thank you for your investment of time and concern. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I just saw your name in my watchlist, for the first time in about a month. So I wanted to say 'welcome back'. Jakew ( talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. I've created a new article, Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom, I thought you might be interested in reading it. Cheers! Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk) 04:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A couple of good things happened today: A minor edit here reminded me of an article I created in 2008.
Елисеева is Russian for Elisséeff; and it caused me to remember writing about Serge Elisséeff at Harvard. It will take time for me to figure out how to explain why this seemed helpful.
A more immediate consequence was the opportunity to enjoy effective collaboration. I worked with In ictu oculi in improving the text of William George Aston and Kim Chae-guk. This was a very small illustration of what I hope to encounter whenever I log on to Wikipedia. Good news is good to share. -- Tenmei ( talk) 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added a Outside view by Tenmei at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. I would very much appreciate your impression, especially
As you will guess, I invested quite a bit of time in drafting this; and I want to encourage you to contact me by e-mail with any constructive comments and criticism. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have revived a discussion you took part in back in 2008. It's about improving watchlists to allow a little more user control. Perhaps you would like to contribute? -- bodnotbod ( talk) 08:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please take note of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Requested move discussion at Talk:Eulsa Treaty and watchlist Talk:Eulsa Treaty#Requested Move, especially in the context established here.
I endorse Nihonjoe's summary of the substance of my scrupulously mild comments.
I am especially eager for your close scrutiny of any further comments about the role of mentors, if it develops an issue. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You may no longer care a year later, but User:KeltieMartinFan is up to the same old tricks re: the Quick article. (There's a sock puppet, User:Fourviz that may do damage, too.)
76.114.197.43 ( talk) 13:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You complained about a comment I made a week ago. The guy had lumped me in with the NAMBLA perverts, and I took exception to that. He also hasn't been paying attention. I have said over and over again that my interest in this is not to glorify Letourneau; it's to not make Wikpedia look stupid by trying to make a big thing over the episode of Letourneau and that kid years ago, given the current situation of them being married and presumably happily so. He's got blinders on, so I got tired of dealing with it, and almost a week ago I stopped watching both the article and his page. Enough, already! ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
This barnstar is hereby awarded for extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank).
Awarded by PhilKnight ( talk) 18:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
As a heads up, I complimentarily "name dropped" you in my recent RFA --> answer (#3). I hope you don’t mind :o) Redthoreau -- ( talk) 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Template:Db-a1/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-a5/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-c3/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-g12/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-g7/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-r3/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Db-u3/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Since your account has recently not been editing very regularly, on the page Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list you name has been moved to a list of editors who are willing to give assistance, but may not always be available. There is an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. You are, of course, welcome to move yourself back to the other list if you wish to. JamesBWatson ( talk) 12:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi.
Maybe you'd know the answer this question? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
for your kind words about some of my recent editing! Nandt1 ( talk) 00:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank you again for your mentoring.
I appreciated your efforts; and my participation the project was affected by your investments of time and thought. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I started the article Hypothes.is. People are welcome to help edit it. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 19:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 10:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no clue why you don't like my comment; if you have anything constructive to add, add it at the conversation. No one likes arguments that go around in circles. You should look at the various proposals for dealing with these timewasters in various fora on this particular article, especially. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on
my talk page
RDN1F
TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings.
I'm a newbie, and I'm wise enough to say so, so pardon me if I'm doing things the "wrong" way or seem to be out of place. I'm trying to learn all I can and practice techniques in my own userspace before attempting to do things in the "real world" and inadvertently causing a big stir, as newbies are wont to do. :-)
It seems like you were the original contributor of Template:Split from some five years ago. So it seems to me like you may be an excellent person to have in the discussion we're having on how to properly split an article, and then properly updating WP:SPLIT to reflect what we've learned. I think I'm not the only one who's a bit confused about how this template is to be used and what the final result should look like.
I'm actually an old computer geek, myself, and pretty good at writing documentation, so I can certainly help there ... but where we're weak is understanding specifically what the template is calling for.
I'll also be inviting contributors of Template:Split to to our discussion, so we can have a full understanding and agreement on this.
Thanks in advance for your help and comments!
Djdubay ( talk) 13:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day ( see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I came across by chance your repeated reasoned attempts at finding compromise and civility on the beleaguered Circumcision article talk pages seven years ago. As an editor now experiencing the same frustrations as editor Blackworm at what we both perceive to be a pro circumcision cabal/patrol/ content skew in the article it does give perspective and pause to see that this process is cyclical. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/ Stalk 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/images during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mys_721tx ( talk) 03:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. A long time ago I asked people for help with removing misrepresentations from an article (it was a BLP though I didn't realise that for some time). Unfortunately everyone I asked , including admins and a ?sysop candidate (JMW)?, failed to recognise that it was a BLP. As I remember you were at the stage were WP:Verafiability hadn't yet sunk in. I was repeatedly advised to enter into a dispute resolution process. Unsurprisingly this went no-where. Soon after the involved misrepresenting editor was banned as a WP:DE serial sock-puppet user. And his off-sider warned.
However by then I had found the stress of running ineffectually in circles trying to get help for something that was so very obvious too much and I came to the conclusion that WP was broken and formed a culture that promoted dehumanisation and hopelessness.
Many years passed.
About 3 weeks ago I came across a very strange WP article. And began comparing the content with the sources. About 50% of the content consists of misrepresentation of the sources. With another 30% OR, non-RS and POV. All negative to the subject.
So I raised the issue on the talk page and deleted the first 3 BLP violations. I put in a BLPN. A week later many violations remained. I put in a ANI. A week (today) later I put in an Oversight email. (My deletions were soon reverted, edit summ. "please discuss before", the ANI and BLP are gone to archive. And multiple BLP violations remain.)
There is an admin who defends the BLP violations. "Guy". You could look on User:SmithBlue for my interpretation of Guy's approach to editing the article.
Guy indulges in a lot of handwaving, smoke-screen WP:DE.
I have no faith in WP processes. This is the second article where BLP violations have been replaced, BLPN & ANI have been ignored and all my attempts to address the violations have come to nought.
I see you are intelligent enough to avoid the unpleasant side of WP. And I see too much evidence of a healthy, humanising influence on WP that could be lost or damaged by me trying to push you towards something that you don't want to involve yourself with.
So here is my request. Please send an admin (or higher), who will call it like it is, to WP:Brian Martin (Professor).
regards SmithBlue 124.171.110.75 ( talk) 03:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Template:Split from has been nominated for merging with [[Template:]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS ( talk) 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shih apso. Since you had some involvement with the Shih apso redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi. You once told me if I ever came around to stop and say hi. So, HI! I came back and found some things never change, except for the worse. See my talk page at November 2018. I tried to float a proposal at Larry Sanger's talk page for a new project and it was deleted by Guy Macon before I even had a chance to finish a line requesting comments. He could not possibly have read it, but claimed it was "promotional," which it was not intended to be. Query: if a mere proposal seeking comments on a talk page is "promotional," what is the article about Julian Assange? Isn't WP promoting his ideas and actions simply by publishing an article about him? Anyway, Sanger never saw the proposal, so does not know what it is about. If people are deleting things from other person's talk pages, how does any communication or productive discourse ever happen on WP today? I mean, is WP discussion today limited only to confrontation? From my brief encounter today, it would appear so. I don't know who or what Guy Macon is, but he appears determined to stifle communication between editors, and his arrogance is breathtaking. Hardly one foot in the door and again I'm being driven away from WP. I like Jimbo's comments at the top of your user page a great deal, but I don't take intentional provocation very well. I have an idea for a very large project on the causes and causers of climate change (which DoD now considers a national security issue), but it looks like I won't even be able to get any discussion going about it with the current brain police regime (Frank Zappa's term, not mine). I'm not even sure I can send it to you without this bird dog preventing you getting it. Any advice will be greatly appreciated. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 07:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
... and again! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Template:Db doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
Awarded for the significant reworking, rewording and paring down of text in numerous articles. SpookiePuppy ( talk) 22:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hello Coppertwig, I am a very interested observer of the discussion page of this article. Perhaps a "modern review" on his profiles and historical identity/identities will help. In this monograph, Heinzle and Lienert are quoted and commented among other text-critical researchers: https://www.badenhausen.net/harz/svava/MerovingSava.htm Regards, Yours Jonathan C. Wood. 87.151.75.220 ( talk) 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph is from (R. E. Gaffney, G. P. Gould and A. J. Semple, Broken Promises: The Aboriginal Constitutional Conferences (1984), at p. 62, quoted in Catherine Bell, “Who Are The Metis People in Section 35(2)?” (1991), 29 Alta. L. Rev. 351, at p. 356.) ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 21:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
TylerBurden ( talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)