Hello Coppertwig! Thanks for your response. I actually am thinking of doing a translation of the French article on determinants [1] which is FA in the French Wikipedia. So I'm interested to see how you managed the Hellenistic Art translation. Do you still have active collaborators, or are they no longer available? And is it still legal to create a ../Translation_sandbox as you did under an article in the main space? I thought I might have to do it in my User Talk space. EdJohnston 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I noted you were involved in discussion about whether "Physical punishment" should be a separate article from "Corporal punishment", or a redirect as it is now. A technical question: How can I add "Physical Punishment" to my watchlist, so that if anybody changes the redirect back into a full article again I'll notice it? (And if I want to change it back to a redirect, how do I do that?) Thanks! -- Coppertwig 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Note: I have looked at the watchlist instructions and it says you can watch a nonexistent page, but I don't see how to follow those instructions. Searching for the page or using a URL just sends me to the CP page, which is already being watched. -- Coppertwig 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Another unrelated question: suppose a "diff" says there was a change on "line 330". Is there any easy way to find this line in the displayed article other than reading the entire article? And another question, is there a better place for questions like this than on the talk page of someone such as yourself? Thanks again! -- Coppertwig 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig! These are some of the techniques I use, although somebody else may have better ideas
Hope that helps! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig! There is a tradition to avoid 'cut-and-paste moves' because they lose the page history. The history is needed for copyright reasons (who were the contributors). If you approve, I'll re-do the move in the proper way, but I'll need to vary the resulting name slightly. Let me know. EdJohnston 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. It looks like the page move is correct, and all the history was preserved, but you might consider undoing the redirect from Hellenistic Art/Translation sandbox to the new location. The problem is that the page will still look like it's in the main space! EdJohnston 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
. I see you've only recently taken interest in wikipedia, if you have some doubts or questions I've been around here quite a long time.
Hi Coppertwig! You were thinking of creating new instructions for translators. If so it is worth looking at fr:Projet:Traduction. They appear to be super-organized. There are templates you are supposed to add to the article, to track the progress. To see one that's currently going on, look at fr:Histoire de la Grèce antique which is now being translated from English. The talk page at fr:Discuter:Histoire_de_la_Grèce_antique has interesting critique of how the corresponding English article is organized. There is some talk of using sub-pages but I couldn't tell if they're actually being used in this case. EdJohnston 04:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
|
Sorry about that, I thought I had put it back up for translation...don't have time to finish the whole thing right now. Cheers Claveau 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
First, remember one thing: we're not really deleting the material in question, but simply storing it in the verions conserved in the history pages. As for your other idea, "shortening the mention of each completed article down from a whole template with Status etc. to just a single line with a link to the article", I fully agree; simply reduce every single completed translation to a single line, like with the section titled "list of other recently completed translations", removing the "other", and leaving French original article link, english link, author of the translation. As for removing some of the older completed articles, personally I'd keep them all, so that we can have a full and immediate view of all the project's translations.-- Aldux 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I had been looking into the edits of user:BruceDLimber and it seemed to me like that there was rather large proportion of plain nonsense that had to be reverted, like [2], here and here. But in the last case I obviously did an erronous revert myself, and I completely misunderstood what he wanted to say in "Biohazard". Maybe I misjudged him alltogether. -- 790 10:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The line I deleted was unreferenced and should not have been added in the first place. Please do NOT add that material again, or I will revert it again. My policy is that whenever unreferenced material is questionable, it can and should be deleted regardless of what other's think. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cite for original research. – Chris53516 ( Talk) 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to tagging User:Coppertwig/Hellenistic Art translation sandbox, the remaining redirect from your userspace to the article. Since the page was moved properly, all history attribution is in the article itself, right? -- nae' blis 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I've been looking at the t-test page and it seems like we've been having similar problems :) My question would have been "why would a Student's t-test be used when you have unevenly distributed intervals?". Well done on continuing to contribute to the wiki and providing users your valued information. Grant 14:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed those links. Femto 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting Essential fatty acids in the Branches of Food chemistry template. My only concern is that you can consider fatty acids as part of lipids. Think about that. Chris 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you find it necessary to write
instead of the following?
I don't see any ambiguity in the latter form, so the parentheses seem like clutter. Michael Hardy 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Coppertwig, - Thanks for your efforts to protect the Domestic violence entry from vandalization.
With regards to Andrew_c's recent edits to that entry, I would like you to view my response to him on his talk page.
Kind regards,
My Wikidness 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My reversion was solely a linguistic one. At best implies that little can be expected, while at least implies that more can be expected. In the case of some purely fraudulent material, nothing (at least) can be expected, though perhaps the placebo effect might contribute to some benefit (at best). Perhaps an entire revision of the relevant sentence could satisfy all?
But on the underlying subject, there are some points I'd make, though I've not included them in any of my edits as explaning them neutrally to WP standards would not be easy. In the case of snake oil with some rationale for a mechanism of action, the situation is more confused. EPA is itself not an established therapeutic agent, and when contined in commercially prepared snake oil (ie, not quantitatively controlled to USP or equivalent standard), may or may not have a beneficial effect as intended (at best again). In particular, the agent will usually be present in varying quantitites, availabilities, purity, and contamination with other materials.
In general, there are many things for which a plausible mechanism of action has been proposed, and for many of them there are papers alleging some evidence of this action. However, a poorly done research project really does little to establish that this or that does anything in particular. Unfortunately, this criterion is all but opaque to the public, a fact which is exploited by snake oil salesmen of all kinds in promoting their wares. Modern science is not easily conveyed to the lay public, greatly assisting quacks of all types. ww 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! :D Thank you for telling me about all your suggestions, but I'm a bit overwhelmed with all of them! I think it's better for you to ask the Simple English Wiktionary community at large; discussion like this usually takes place at simple:wikt:Wiktionary:Simple talk. Hope to see you around! (P.S. I've replied to some of your messages on simple:wikt:Wiktionary talk:Basic English alphabetical wordlist) Cheers, Tangot a ngo 13:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks again for your involvement in putting "Complete list" at the bottom of the interwikis on the English Main Page. I'm considering putting in a bugzilla request for a feature to allow something like that to be easily done on any page. See meta:Meta:Babel "# 19 Suggestion re handling long interwiki (interlanguage) lists". What do you think? -- Coppertwig 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Would someone who speaks Russian please check the link to Russian from Parenting. Note that the Parenting page is about the details of how parents raise their children, and that many of the interwiki (interlanguage) links are wrong -- they're linking to pages about ancestry or sociology or something. The Russian link was recently changed by someone to: ru:Родительская любовь Previously, it was: ru:Родственные отношения Please check which of these is a more appropriate link for "Parenting" (or whether neither of them is). You can put a note here on my talk page in reply if you like. Thanks. -- Coppertwig 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Coppertwig (Pain is pain. Not all agree with jazzy definition. If wording needs to be changed, edit the article.) I have no issue with everthing being itself. What is the "jazzy definition" you refer to? The deleted paragraph acknowledges and warns of self contradiction present in the article. Whats your view? SmithBlue 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) OK with you if I change "Re deleted paragraph" to "Definitions, common usage; pain & nociception" ? SmithBlue 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see is a big section on the subjective experience of pain - which would form the core of the article and then sections on how psychological pain occurs and how the sensation of physical pain is caused. But info on the "how" of subjectivity is pretty thin. At present the article is a bit like one on cars that just focuses on metalurgy. SmithBlue 05:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Health Wiki Research A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics. Please consider taking our survey here. This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used. We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.Thanks,-- Sharlene Thompson 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I'm hoping you are coming back to Pain soon. If you are interested we could use your remaining questions about the topic (after reading the intro) to come up with something understandable and clear. I've reordered the introduction and (to me) its a lot clearer. What do you think? (I took the liberty of dedoublespacing Sharlene's request immed above. Hope OK with you) SmithBlue 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Coppertwig! I was glad to get your message. After not having done much on Wikipedia for a long time, I started to do a little disambiguation a few days ago. Like you, I enjoy it -- making the links point to the right articles is highly satisfying -- and there is always more work to do. Along the way I often see something that interests me and do a little more editing or add some new material.
While working on Valence, I did notice some of your messages on talk pages. To me it was pretty clear that most of the references were to Valence, Drôme, the largest, best-known, and most historically significant French city of that name. I was very happy to see that you had taken care of the rest!
It was I who moved Valence to the "done" section. For some reason that change shows up only in the history display of the subpage ( Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2006-11-30 dump). A number of links to the disambiguation page are left, but almost all are to talk pages, user pages, and "Wikipedia:" administrative pages, so I just left them, according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links: "The most important thing is to fix articles in the main namespace. 'User:' and 'Wikipedia:' administrative pages do not necessarily need to be fixed, and editing other people's comments on 'Talk:' pages without their permission is characterised as unacceptable by the Talk page guidelines." There were a few links in the main namespace that seemed acceptable; for example, at the beginning of Valence (chemistry), there is a general reference to the disambiguation article: "For other uses, see Valence." I left those alone as well.
You mentioned the popups tool. Have you tried it out? I have found it extremely helpful for both editing and browsing. Features and installation instructions (simple enough even for a non-programmer like me) are at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. If you don't like it or find that it causes problems, you can easily remove it. To enable the feature that fixes links to disambiguation pages, add this line to your monobook.js file:
popupFixDabs=true;
When you put the cursor over a link to a disambiguation page, the program presents you with a list of links taken from that page. Clicking on one of them changes the link automatically, though it gives you a chance to examine the article and make other changes or cancel before saving. It also gives you the option of simply removing the link. I sometimes edit the disambiguation page beforehand to get rid of links to terms other than those being disambiguated.
I hope my answer has been helpful to you. Thank you very much for participating in this great project!
Flauto Dolce 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Congradulations.
I was thinking the other day about the reasons that SEWQ is needed, and there were two particular examples that I came up with. We need SEWQ for the same reason that I have a dual-language version of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and for the same reason that my "Annotated Shakespeare" is the Shakespeare reference that I usually turn to for information on Shakespeare.
Good luck with SEWQ, and hopefully with your help the project will stick around. Blank Verse 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that having a moving picture on the Main Page isn't a problem in the way you describe. As you can see here, when an animation appears on the Main Page a still version is created and the moving version is linked to, so there won't be any annoying animations. Raven4x4x 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for Peer review of Eicosanoid. Since you've made good contributions with some of the associated pages, I'd like your input. David.Throop 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, whilst I agree you have discussed various points well, I do not see a clear consensus on Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy_rate" rather than "failure_rate" for the change to proceed. Discussion has been ongoing since 7th January, but absence of further replies does not make the last comments added the "final word". Please do not implement change on the template itself for now - I reverted on Essure, but then saw the more widespread changes you have recently made and I have no great desire to wholesale revert a large number of articles (and risk accidentally escalating an interesting and thoughtful discussion into argument). I feel we need to re-kick start the discussion to clarify how others do/do not wish to proceed. A straw poll is one option, perhaps raising a couple of options for quick & simple responding to, eg (a) keep as "failure rate" in all cases Agree/Disagree (b) preserve this phrase only for methods that are meant to be perminant Agree/Disagree and (c) other case-by-case selection of terms. David Ruben Talk 02:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. Thanks for the timely reminder. A cool head goes a long way here. Regards AKAF 09:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, thank you for the message on my talk page. While I appreciate the intention behind your message I am in fact an administrator with over 40,000 edits so I have some familiarity with how things work around here. The issue you are referring to between Hne123 and myself has resolved yesterday and does not require further intervention or discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 12:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith There's a point when it becomes not a personal attack to call out patterns of policy violation, but simply a matter of calling a spade a spade, so give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest you get a clue before leaving comments that are factually false on my talk page. See the above comments by FM. Also, I do not need your "lecturing", thank you very much (cf. above again). •Jim62sch• 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
---
What do you see as factually false in my comment to you? I claimed that you posted a certain comment to Talk:Uncommon Dissent; that I saw no basis for your remark; and I asked you to restrict your comments on article talk pages to article content (which I misspelled "comment"). Was the comment I quoted from Talk:Uncommon Dissent not posted by you? -- Coppertwig 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your more recent post on my talk page: Again, what do you see as inaccurate about my comment? Did you not post the comment I quoted and attributed to you? Which sentence in my comment do you believe to be false? -- Coppertwig 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Coppertwig! I posted a translation request for Safavid art from French to English. The French article is now a featured article. It is very kind of you if you could translate it or forward the request to some one you may know of. Thanks in advance. Sangak 18:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
About: [3] Since when is an explanation for every edit mandatory? This could be taken as biting newbies. Viewed with your leaving of clueless "warnings" [4], this raises some questions about your method. You are not an admin and clearly not up to speed on policy either. I suggest you stop taking action against other editors and focus on contributing to that article. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
When moving a page you're supposed to check for double redirects. You didn't. Are you planning on fixing this or do you expect someone else to clean up your mess? Special:Whatlinkshere/Canada's_Food_Guide_to_Healthy_Eating -- Walter Görlitz 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
(The above unsigned heading was added to this page by User:61.8.104.113).
I see your point there, but the thing there is, it would be hard to determine. With an accredited university, they've undergone (and periodically undergo again) a rigorous certification by an accreditation body which decides if their degree-granting procedures are sufficiently rigorous. Perhaps better to say that an accredited university's procedure should be presumed reliable, and that an unaccredited university's procedures should be presumed unreliable, unless the contrary can clearly be shown? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Coppertwig: thank you for your careful proof-reading of my Userpage. Some people don't think it's amusing at all! -- Wetman 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The article was about an Indian writer for whom no reliable sources could be found. The editors of the page said that the writer existed, and I told them that for him to have a Wikipedia article, the information about him must be verifiable. This got me nowhere because the editors were saying that they could personally verify that he existed and that it was well-known that he worked at Pune university, etc. I realised then that the word "verifiable" was not helping me, because the editors took it to mean that they could vouch for the information rather than that sources were required. "Verifiability, not truth" therefore came across as a contradiction in that situation, because these people were sure that the man existed, and, what's more, I believed them. This difficulty was what gave me the idea of quoting the new Attribution page, even though it was still only a proposed policy at the time. By saying now that I wasn't questioning the truth of the man's existence but that a Wikipedia article must have information attributable to reliable sources, the impression was then avoided that I was challenging the verifiability of the man's existence, ie. the truth. All I was questioning was the attributability of the man's existence. So the following wording proved much more useful to my needs than my previous use of the difficult and semantically complex word "verifiable":
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
qp10qp 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page with: Well...um...you're welcome! I decided to write the policy the way I did because I thought it would cover the problems. Everyone is welcome to suggest additions to the proposal. Acalamari 00:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add this again. You have only made a few hundreds edits to articles, and yet suddenly have become obsessed with changing a core content policy. Please gain more editing experience first. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure you can quote my stuff, unless you take it out of context. (Of course, it seems to be in context there.) My stuff's all GFDL, after all :) Gracenotes T § 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, please stop changing WP:ATT. Just because people don't respond to you on talk doesn't mean they agree or don't object. If people don't respond, please take it as an objection from now. The policy was extensively discussed, both as NOR and V, and in the early stages of ATT. The current wording has wide consensus, so please don't change anything unless you get clear, strong, and unambiguous consensus from all involved editors on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I believe that in the case of a core policy, that essentially controls all content on Wikipedia, it makes sense to tread lightly. If you have a suggestion, it is OK in principle to implement it, but be ready to be reverted. The fact that you mention a topic in the Talk page and it remains there with mimimal comments for a while, does not mean it's been 'accepted by consensus'. It may simply mean that it's been ignored, or people just overlooked it. I suggest that from now on, prior to making substantive changes to the core policies, you try to achieve 'active' consensus on the Talk page first - i.e. actual uniformly positive response from the main contributors to the policy page prior to making the change. This would save all of us a lot of stress and effort. Thanks for your understanding, Crum375 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion to which you refer has now been archived. I said there, as clearly as I can:
I may be wrong. This is in any case a proposed change to WP:ATT. It should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion so we don't have to revive the discussion every time WT:ATT is archived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I didn't feel it was proper for me to make a judgment and quietly recused myself. Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated. ;^) Crum375 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As you did at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
---
My warmest greetings and my best wishes to you, my friend. You and I both have to remember with compassion that it is natural for people, including you and me, to react only in terms of turf war when anyone gets them to deal with their real problems that they refuse to face. It is our nature and it is our inheritance. And in their hysteria, they do move things around, do they not? Let us be compassionate and recognize that in their temporary state of hysteria, all they see is turf war, so they have to move things around even if it makes no rational sense at all and is temporarily detrimental to the community work here of constructing a Wikipedia that accurately represents what reliable sources have said about our best descriptions of reality. -- Rednblu 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, did anyone bring this Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Statements_from_all_sides_needed to your attention? The space on the poll page is there. Johnbod 17:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, unfortunately I'm in a bad time-zone to discuss it fully, but it would be extremely useful if you did summarize your case, with the help from other people who object in a subpage on your user-space. Essentially the way SlimVirgin has done. I would like to read your case not scattered all over the talk pages and archives, but expressed succinctly in one page. I would suggest similarly: User:Coppertwig/Attribution. -- Merzul 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern, though I don't see a violation. Latest editing with Denny appears to have worked out amicably, given his agreement with my change. Marskell 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
.
Chairman Coppertwig, sir! (salute)
Over and out, sir! (salute) -- Rednblu 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the page will not be statements from all sides, but only anti-merge positions. So "Statements from all sides" would not be an appropriate name. I suggested "Stability" because it means not changing the original policies. I'm open to suggestions for other names (until I create the page, which may be soon). -- Coppertwig 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? -- Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add your personal sandbox page to the Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll or the Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion pages. What makes your opinions more important than those of hundreds of other editors? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
lol...thanks for the message! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Some of your userspace pages are being discussed on the incident noticeboard. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read this. But dont worry, we usually ASF We Need You 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On the slight chance anything I said could be misinterpreted, I would like to make it clear that this talk page is open for comments by all users, just as usual for these sorts of pages. I haven't restricted any individual from editing this page. -- Coppertwig 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks." Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
"Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users." Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions" (Written mainly by one user, usually? Not exactly same situation, but suggests Wikipedia space may be a more appropriate place.)
"Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space
"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space -- Coppertwig 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"# If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
"don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"" WP:POINT (Not what I'm doing, but might seem like it if not thought through) -- Coppertwig 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia Essays are a part of that last part. They are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces, created either by individual users or the community." Wikipedia:Essay (Hmm. Does "individual users" mean one user writes one essay? Seems to maybe say subgroups of users don't write them -- not completely clear.) -- Coppertwig 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful when editing high-traffic pages [6]. >Radiant< 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that apology. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. -- Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Over at the ATT poll, I've just flipped the order of the Oppose/Support sections, on the theory that it is heavily biasing the voting. I expect to be reverted within minutes. I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR over this, so additional eyes on the matter would be helpful. My theory is that if the vote is being biased by Support being at the top, it is only fair that they be inverted for the rest of the poll, and if this effect is not happening, the change will have no effect at all, ergo the only reason to revert it is to support bias in favor of Support votes. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 07:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Coppertwig, I don't think we've met before, so... ah, Hi. ^_^. I like meeting new people. ^_^ * Sam ov the blue sand, My Talk, And if you feel like spying on me 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you be interested in reviewing this article? It is right now up for AfD consideration and I would like your thoughts on this. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This was protected on May 16. Since then there has been discussions that have lead to consensus on a change. I proposed in the discussion that an early proposal be moved to the template in use. There were objections, so a change was not made at that time. Since that time, the consensus for some changes apparently became stronger after some wording changes. I again announced that the template would be updated and I don't recall any objections being voiced. There are some voices that the wording could be improved but not objections to the suggested replacement. So with an apparent consensus the change was made. The fact that there was an objection from one person, the last time I looked, does not mean there is not a consensus for this change. Vegaswikian 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, User:Coppertwig. As per our previous discussion [7] (17 June 07), I am glad to see the consensus holding up. I support the current version of the page. The phrase which was fought out for so long sits well on the page there, and I am hoping it will lead to progress in cleaning up poor sections (trivia) in WP. I have no problems with any changes users make, if done with reasonable courtesy, then hopefully edit-wars are avoided and all or any users may appropriately express their appropriate suggestions for improvement(s), appropriately, on the appropriate page. (Which page, sometimes, is an appropriate question, maybe.) Thanks for posting me then, (and I will try to state myself clearer in discussions in future, that I will bear in mind) :) Regards, user: Newbyguesses - Talk 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Coppertwig, Simple English Wiktionary is about 300 entries from 2,000. I'm trying to organise a drive to the 2,000 mark. Would you consider helping out?-- BrettR 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please visit the circumcision discussion. TipPt 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your work on the circumcision article. I hope that you continue to work to get the facts out there. The issue is so very important and the tendency has been for anything that isn't anti-circumcision to be removed, even when it is a quote from a major medical association sourced back to their site. Please keep it up!
Edwardsville 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig.
It is funny that you should send me that note because I just left a comment on the talk page for the article. My previous experience with this article has involved only certain posters, including Jakew, removing anything they didn't like regardless of what was being said on the talk page. This made me think that simply making changes by force was the only way that positive changes were going to be made. The fact that some real positive changes have been made to the article has heartened me greatly regarding the possiblity of using consensus to build the article.
Edwardsville 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, that last reversion to the text wasn't me. The text was mine, but I didn't post the reversion.
Edwardsville 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing from your contributions that you're either on vacation or a wikibreak. At any rate, I hope you have the opportunity to take a look at the second draft of WP:Relevance, written in response to the feedback you and others gave on the first draft.-- Father Goose 04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a third draft of WP:Relevance. I suspect this is the last wholesale revision. I contains your idea that material is relevant if it serves the interest of users. It may not have the weight you feel the concept deserves... looking for any changes or comments you deem appropriate. thanks — WikiLen 11:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig,
Wikipedia:Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. — WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this bothersome thing again. The "Establishing relevance" section, which I believe was the source of your greatest opposition, has been extensively tamed, and the rest of it has been slimmed down in a number of ways as well. I'd be happy to hear your views, and criticism, of the latest version, which is posted at Wikipedia:Relevance, or at User:Father Goose/Relevance if someone has removed it from the project page. As always, much obliged.-- Father Goose 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you! I've been away for a few weeks. Thanks for your note regarding the spanking article. I haven't checked to see who contributed what, so I'm not sure what you have done on it, but I'm guessing you have been one of the main authors. If so, nice work!
Edwardsville 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Edwardsville 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig,
Your most recent to circumcision does not conform to the Manual of Style. To quote:
Both foreskin and bioethics of... are already linked in the text (the latter as a {{ main}} under 'ethical issues'), and therefore should not be in 'see also'. Please would you self-revert? Jakew 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be right as a general rule, but not, I think, in this particular case. Please check out Special:Contributions/75.15.185.118, in particular this. Also see WP:VAND#Types of vandalism. Regards, Jakew 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to apologize for not keeping you up to date; I moved Wikipedia:Relevance to Wikipedia:Relevance of content about a week ago to stop the proposal from being reverted so discussion could continue.
I moved the comment you just posted at Wikipedia talk:Relevance to Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content; I hope you don't mind. I'll add a note to Wikipedia talk:Relevance directing further comments to the new page.-- Father Goose 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I again ask you to self-revert, this time not because of policy but for discussion? I'm going to explain on Talk:Circumcision now. Jakew 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Coppertwig! Thanks for your response. I actually am thinking of doing a translation of the French article on determinants [1] which is FA in the French Wikipedia. So I'm interested to see how you managed the Hellenistic Art translation. Do you still have active collaborators, or are they no longer available? And is it still legal to create a ../Translation_sandbox as you did under an article in the main space? I thought I might have to do it in my User Talk space. EdJohnston 22:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I noted you were involved in discussion about whether "Physical punishment" should be a separate article from "Corporal punishment", or a redirect as it is now. A technical question: How can I add "Physical Punishment" to my watchlist, so that if anybody changes the redirect back into a full article again I'll notice it? (And if I want to change it back to a redirect, how do I do that?) Thanks! -- Coppertwig 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Note: I have looked at the watchlist instructions and it says you can watch a nonexistent page, but I don't see how to follow those instructions. Searching for the page or using a URL just sends me to the CP page, which is already being watched. -- Coppertwig 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Another unrelated question: suppose a "diff" says there was a change on "line 330". Is there any easy way to find this line in the displayed article other than reading the entire article? And another question, is there a better place for questions like this than on the talk page of someone such as yourself? Thanks again! -- Coppertwig 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig! These are some of the techniques I use, although somebody else may have better ideas
Hope that helps! Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig! There is a tradition to avoid 'cut-and-paste moves' because they lose the page history. The history is needed for copyright reasons (who were the contributors). If you approve, I'll re-do the move in the proper way, but I'll need to vary the resulting name slightly. Let me know. EdJohnston 15:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. It looks like the page move is correct, and all the history was preserved, but you might consider undoing the redirect from Hellenistic Art/Translation sandbox to the new location. The problem is that the page will still look like it's in the main space! EdJohnston 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
. I see you've only recently taken interest in wikipedia, if you have some doubts or questions I've been around here quite a long time.
Hi Coppertwig! You were thinking of creating new instructions for translators. If so it is worth looking at fr:Projet:Traduction. They appear to be super-organized. There are templates you are supposed to add to the article, to track the progress. To see one that's currently going on, look at fr:Histoire de la Grèce antique which is now being translated from English. The talk page at fr:Discuter:Histoire_de_la_Grèce_antique has interesting critique of how the corresponding English article is organized. There is some talk of using sub-pages but I couldn't tell if they're actually being used in this case. EdJohnston 04:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
|
Sorry about that, I thought I had put it back up for translation...don't have time to finish the whole thing right now. Cheers Claveau 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
First, remember one thing: we're not really deleting the material in question, but simply storing it in the verions conserved in the history pages. As for your other idea, "shortening the mention of each completed article down from a whole template with Status etc. to just a single line with a link to the article", I fully agree; simply reduce every single completed translation to a single line, like with the section titled "list of other recently completed translations", removing the "other", and leaving French original article link, english link, author of the translation. As for removing some of the older completed articles, personally I'd keep them all, so that we can have a full and immediate view of all the project's translations.-- Aldux 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I had been looking into the edits of user:BruceDLimber and it seemed to me like that there was rather large proportion of plain nonsense that had to be reverted, like [2], here and here. But in the last case I obviously did an erronous revert myself, and I completely misunderstood what he wanted to say in "Biohazard". Maybe I misjudged him alltogether. -- 790 10:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The line I deleted was unreferenced and should not have been added in the first place. Please do NOT add that material again, or I will revert it again. My policy is that whenever unreferenced material is questionable, it can and should be deleted regardless of what other's think. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a cite for original research. – Chris53516 ( Talk) 14:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to tagging User:Coppertwig/Hellenistic Art translation sandbox, the remaining redirect from your userspace to the article. Since the page was moved properly, all history attribution is in the article itself, right? -- nae' blis 17:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I've been looking at the t-test page and it seems like we've been having similar problems :) My question would have been "why would a Student's t-test be used when you have unevenly distributed intervals?". Well done on continuing to contribute to the wiki and providing users your valued information. Grant 14:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed those links. Femto 20:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for putting Essential fatty acids in the Branches of Food chemistry template. My only concern is that you can consider fatty acids as part of lipids. Think about that. Chris 14:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do you find it necessary to write
instead of the following?
I don't see any ambiguity in the latter form, so the parentheses seem like clutter. Michael Hardy 19:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Coppertwig, - Thanks for your efforts to protect the Domestic violence entry from vandalization.
With regards to Andrew_c's recent edits to that entry, I would like you to view my response to him on his talk page.
Kind regards,
My Wikidness 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
My reversion was solely a linguistic one. At best implies that little can be expected, while at least implies that more can be expected. In the case of some purely fraudulent material, nothing (at least) can be expected, though perhaps the placebo effect might contribute to some benefit (at best). Perhaps an entire revision of the relevant sentence could satisfy all?
But on the underlying subject, there are some points I'd make, though I've not included them in any of my edits as explaning them neutrally to WP standards would not be easy. In the case of snake oil with some rationale for a mechanism of action, the situation is more confused. EPA is itself not an established therapeutic agent, and when contined in commercially prepared snake oil (ie, not quantitatively controlled to USP or equivalent standard), may or may not have a beneficial effect as intended (at best again). In particular, the agent will usually be present in varying quantitites, availabilities, purity, and contamination with other materials.
In general, there are many things for which a plausible mechanism of action has been proposed, and for many of them there are papers alleging some evidence of this action. However, a poorly done research project really does little to establish that this or that does anything in particular. Unfortunately, this criterion is all but opaque to the public, a fact which is exploited by snake oil salesmen of all kinds in promoting their wares. Modern science is not easily conveyed to the lay public, greatly assisting quacks of all types. ww 10:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi! :D Thank you for telling me about all your suggestions, but I'm a bit overwhelmed with all of them! I think it's better for you to ask the Simple English Wiktionary community at large; discussion like this usually takes place at simple:wikt:Wiktionary:Simple talk. Hope to see you around! (P.S. I've replied to some of your messages on simple:wikt:Wiktionary talk:Basic English alphabetical wordlist) Cheers, Tangot a ngo 13:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks again for your involvement in putting "Complete list" at the bottom of the interwikis on the English Main Page. I'm considering putting in a bugzilla request for a feature to allow something like that to be easily done on any page. See meta:Meta:Babel "# 19 Suggestion re handling long interwiki (interlanguage) lists". What do you think? -- Coppertwig 13:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Would someone who speaks Russian please check the link to Russian from Parenting. Note that the Parenting page is about the details of how parents raise their children, and that many of the interwiki (interlanguage) links are wrong -- they're linking to pages about ancestry or sociology or something. The Russian link was recently changed by someone to: ru:Родительская любовь Previously, it was: ru:Родственные отношения Please check which of these is a more appropriate link for "Parenting" (or whether neither of them is). You can put a note here on my talk page in reply if you like. Thanks. -- Coppertwig 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Coppertwig (Pain is pain. Not all agree with jazzy definition. If wording needs to be changed, edit the article.) I have no issue with everthing being itself. What is the "jazzy definition" you refer to? The deleted paragraph acknowledges and warns of self contradiction present in the article. Whats your view? SmithBlue 16:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC) OK with you if I change "Re deleted paragraph" to "Definitions, common usage; pain & nociception" ? SmithBlue 01:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
What I'd really like to see is a big section on the subjective experience of pain - which would form the core of the article and then sections on how psychological pain occurs and how the sensation of physical pain is caused. But info on the "how" of subjectivity is pretty thin. At present the article is a bit like one on cars that just focuses on metalurgy. SmithBlue 05:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Health Wiki Research A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics. Please consider taking our survey here. This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used. We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.Thanks,-- Sharlene Thompson 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I'm hoping you are coming back to Pain soon. If you are interested we could use your remaining questions about the topic (after reading the intro) to come up with something understandable and clear. I've reordered the introduction and (to me) its a lot clearer. What do you think? (I took the liberty of dedoublespacing Sharlene's request immed above. Hope OK with you) SmithBlue 13:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Coppertwig! I was glad to get your message. After not having done much on Wikipedia for a long time, I started to do a little disambiguation a few days ago. Like you, I enjoy it -- making the links point to the right articles is highly satisfying -- and there is always more work to do. Along the way I often see something that interests me and do a little more editing or add some new material.
While working on Valence, I did notice some of your messages on talk pages. To me it was pretty clear that most of the references were to Valence, Drôme, the largest, best-known, and most historically significant French city of that name. I was very happy to see that you had taken care of the rest!
It was I who moved Valence to the "done" section. For some reason that change shows up only in the history display of the subpage ( Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/2006-11-30 dump). A number of links to the disambiguation page are left, but almost all are to talk pages, user pages, and "Wikipedia:" administrative pages, so I just left them, according to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links: "The most important thing is to fix articles in the main namespace. 'User:' and 'Wikipedia:' administrative pages do not necessarily need to be fixed, and editing other people's comments on 'Talk:' pages without their permission is characterised as unacceptable by the Talk page guidelines." There were a few links in the main namespace that seemed acceptable; for example, at the beginning of Valence (chemistry), there is a general reference to the disambiguation article: "For other uses, see Valence." I left those alone as well.
You mentioned the popups tool. Have you tried it out? I have found it extremely helpful for both editing and browsing. Features and installation instructions (simple enough even for a non-programmer like me) are at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. If you don't like it or find that it causes problems, you can easily remove it. To enable the feature that fixes links to disambiguation pages, add this line to your monobook.js file:
popupFixDabs=true;
When you put the cursor over a link to a disambiguation page, the program presents you with a list of links taken from that page. Clicking on one of them changes the link automatically, though it gives you a chance to examine the article and make other changes or cancel before saving. It also gives you the option of simply removing the link. I sometimes edit the disambiguation page beforehand to get rid of links to terms other than those being disambiguated.
I hope my answer has been helpful to you. Thank you very much for participating in this great project!
Flauto Dolce 19:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:smile}}, {{
subst:smile2}} or {{
subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Congradulations.
I was thinking the other day about the reasons that SEWQ is needed, and there were two particular examples that I came up with. We need SEWQ for the same reason that I have a dual-language version of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, and for the same reason that my "Annotated Shakespeare" is the Shakespeare reference that I usually turn to for information on Shakespeare.
Good luck with SEWQ, and hopefully with your help the project will stick around. Blank Verse 06:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that having a moving picture on the Main Page isn't a problem in the way you describe. As you can see here, when an animation appears on the Main Page a still version is created and the moving version is linked to, so there won't be any annoying animations. Raven4x4x 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for Peer review of Eicosanoid. Since you've made good contributions with some of the associated pages, I'd like your input. David.Throop 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, whilst I agree you have discussed various points well, I do not see a clear consensus on Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy_rate" rather than "failure_rate" for the change to proceed. Discussion has been ongoing since 7th January, but absence of further replies does not make the last comments added the "final word". Please do not implement change on the template itself for now - I reverted on Essure, but then saw the more widespread changes you have recently made and I have no great desire to wholesale revert a large number of articles (and risk accidentally escalating an interesting and thoughtful discussion into argument). I feel we need to re-kick start the discussion to clarify how others do/do not wish to proceed. A straw poll is one option, perhaps raising a couple of options for quick & simple responding to, eg (a) keep as "failure rate" in all cases Agree/Disagree (b) preserve this phrase only for methods that are meant to be perminant Agree/Disagree and (c) other case-by-case selection of terms. David Ruben Talk 02:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig. Thanks for the timely reminder. A cool head goes a long way here. Regards AKAF 09:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, thank you for the message on my talk page. While I appreciate the intention behind your message I am in fact an administrator with over 40,000 edits so I have some familiarity with how things work around here. The issue you are referring to between Hne123 and myself has resolved yesterday and does not require further intervention or discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 12:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It is already established to the satisfaction of a good portion of the relevant editors that Tim Smith is running a low-grade vandalism campaign of misusing templates in a bid to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tim_Smith There's a point when it becomes not a personal attack to call out patterns of policy violation, but simply a matter of calling a spade a spade, so give it a rest. FeloniousMonk 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest you get a clue before leaving comments that are factually false on my talk page. See the above comments by FM. Also, I do not need your "lecturing", thank you very much (cf. above again). •Jim62sch• 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
---
What do you see as factually false in my comment to you? I claimed that you posted a certain comment to Talk:Uncommon Dissent; that I saw no basis for your remark; and I asked you to restrict your comments on article talk pages to article content (which I misspelled "comment"). Was the comment I quoted from Talk:Uncommon Dissent not posted by you? -- Coppertwig 14:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In reply to your more recent post on my talk page: Again, what do you see as inaccurate about my comment? Did you not post the comment I quoted and attributed to you? Which sentence in my comment do you believe to be false? -- Coppertwig 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Coppertwig! I posted a translation request for Safavid art from French to English. The French article is now a featured article. It is very kind of you if you could translate it or forward the request to some one you may know of. Thanks in advance. Sangak 18:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
About: [3] Since when is an explanation for every edit mandatory? This could be taken as biting newbies. Viewed with your leaving of clueless "warnings" [4], this raises some questions about your method. You are not an admin and clearly not up to speed on policy either. I suggest you stop taking action against other editors and focus on contributing to that article. FeloniousMonk 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
When moving a page you're supposed to check for double redirects. You didn't. Are you planning on fixing this or do you expect someone else to clean up your mess? Special:Whatlinkshere/Canada's_Food_Guide_to_Healthy_Eating -- Walter Görlitz 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
(The above unsigned heading was added to this page by User:61.8.104.113).
I see your point there, but the thing there is, it would be hard to determine. With an accredited university, they've undergone (and periodically undergo again) a rigorous certification by an accreditation body which decides if their degree-granting procedures are sufficiently rigorous. Perhaps better to say that an accredited university's procedure should be presumed reliable, and that an unaccredited university's procedures should be presumed unreliable, unless the contrary can clearly be shown? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Coppertwig: thank you for your careful proof-reading of my Userpage. Some people don't think it's amusing at all! -- Wetman 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The article was about an Indian writer for whom no reliable sources could be found. The editors of the page said that the writer existed, and I told them that for him to have a Wikipedia article, the information about him must be verifiable. This got me nowhere because the editors were saying that they could personally verify that he existed and that it was well-known that he worked at Pune university, etc. I realised then that the word "verifiable" was not helping me, because the editors took it to mean that they could vouch for the information rather than that sources were required. "Verifiability, not truth" therefore came across as a contradiction in that situation, because these people were sure that the man existed, and, what's more, I believed them. This difficulty was what gave me the idea of quoting the new Attribution page, even though it was still only a proposed policy at the time. By saying now that I wasn't questioning the truth of the man's existence but that a Wikipedia article must have information attributable to reliable sources, the impression was then avoided that I was challenging the verifiability of the man's existence, ie. the truth. All I was questioning was the attributability of the man's existence. So the following wording proved much more useful to my needs than my previous use of the difficult and semantically complex word "verifiable":
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.
qp10qp 00:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page with: Well...um...you're welcome! I decided to write the policy the way I did because I thought it would cover the problems. Everyone is welcome to suggest additions to the proposal. Acalamari 00:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add this again. You have only made a few hundreds edits to articles, and yet suddenly have become obsessed with changing a core content policy. Please gain more editing experience first. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure you can quote my stuff, unless you take it out of context. (Of course, it seems to be in context there.) My stuff's all GFDL, after all :) Gracenotes T § 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig, please stop changing WP:ATT. Just because people don't respond to you on talk doesn't mean they agree or don't object. If people don't respond, please take it as an objection from now. The policy was extensively discussed, both as NOR and V, and in the early stages of ATT. The current wording has wide consensus, so please don't change anything unless you get clear, strong, and unambiguous consensus from all involved editors on talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig, I believe that in the case of a core policy, that essentially controls all content on Wikipedia, it makes sense to tread lightly. If you have a suggestion, it is OK in principle to implement it, but be ready to be reverted. The fact that you mention a topic in the Talk page and it remains there with mimimal comments for a while, does not mean it's been 'accepted by consensus'. It may simply mean that it's been ignored, or people just overlooked it. I suggest that from now on, prior to making substantive changes to the core policies, you try to achieve 'active' consensus on the Talk page first - i.e. actual uniformly positive response from the main contributors to the policy page prior to making the change. This would save all of us a lot of stress and effort. Thanks for your understanding, Crum375 21:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The discussion to which you refer has now been archived. I said there, as clearly as I can:
I may be wrong. This is in any case a proposed change to WP:ATT. It should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion so we don't have to revive the discussion every time WT:ATT is archived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, I didn't feel it was proper for me to make a judgment and quietly recused myself. Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated. ;^) Crum375 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
As you did at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
---
My warmest greetings and my best wishes to you, my friend. You and I both have to remember with compassion that it is natural for people, including you and me, to react only in terms of turf war when anyone gets them to deal with their real problems that they refuse to face. It is our nature and it is our inheritance. And in their hysteria, they do move things around, do they not? Let us be compassionate and recognize that in their temporary state of hysteria, all they see is turf war, so they have to move things around even if it makes no rational sense at all and is temporarily detrimental to the community work here of constructing a Wikipedia that accurately represents what reliable sources have said about our best descriptions of reality. -- Rednblu 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, did anyone bring this Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Statements_from_all_sides_needed to your attention? The space on the poll page is there. Johnbod 17:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, unfortunately I'm in a bad time-zone to discuss it fully, but it would be extremely useful if you did summarize your case, with the help from other people who object in a subpage on your user-space. Essentially the way SlimVirgin has done. I would like to read your case not scattered all over the talk pages and archives, but expressed succinctly in one page. I would suggest similarly: User:Coppertwig/Attribution. -- Merzul 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern, though I don't see a violation. Latest editing with Denny appears to have worked out amicably, given his agreement with my change. Marskell 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
.
Chairman Coppertwig, sir! (salute)
Over and out, sir! (salute) -- Rednblu 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the page will not be statements from all sides, but only anti-merge positions. So "Statements from all sides" would not be an appropriate name. I suggested "Stability" because it means not changing the original policies. I'm open to suggestions for other names (until I create the page, which may be soon). -- Coppertwig 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You might like to comment at WP:AN3 under "User:Marskell reported by User:Coppertwig (Result:)". Note that the words "in principle" are contentious; people have been inserting and deleting these words from question 1. Two of Marskell's five (alleged) reverts in my allegation that the user violated 3RR were restoring the words "in principle" (among other words) which you had deleted. The user claims those were not reverts because you are now in agreement about the wording. What do you think -- were they reverts? Do you now support having the words "agree in principle" etc. in the question? -- Coppertwig 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add your personal sandbox page to the Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll or the Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion pages. What makes your opinions more important than those of hundreds of other editors? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
lol...thanks for the message! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Some of your userspace pages are being discussed on the incident noticeboard. You may wish to participate in the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read this. But dont worry, we usually ASF We Need You 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On the slight chance anything I said could be misinterpreted, I would like to make it clear that this talk page is open for comments by all users, just as usual for these sorts of pages. I haven't restricted any individual from editing this page. -- Coppertwig 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks." Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
"Any Wikipedia user may create a page such as Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy proposing a change in Wikipedia policy requesting discussion and feedback from other users." Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions" (Written mainly by one user, usually? Not exactly same situation, but suggests Wikipedia space may be a more appropriate place.)
"Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others." Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space
"In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space -- Coppertwig 18:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"# If you wish to change an existing procedure or guideline...
"don't reverse an arguably good change for no reason other than "out of process"" WP:POINT (Not what I'm doing, but might seem like it if not thought through) -- Coppertwig 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia Essays are a part of that last part. They are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces, created either by individual users or the community." Wikipedia:Essay (Hmm. Does "individual users" mean one user writes one essay? Seems to maybe say subgroups of users don't write them -- not completely clear.) -- Coppertwig 18:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be careful when editing high-traffic pages [6]. >Radiant< 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that apology. I appreciate it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have caused this mess, but apparently I accidentally deleted a comment by user Avraham during an edit conflict here. also a comment by Radiant!, but apparently the latter user added that comment back in. The comment by Avraham is still not in, I believe: "# First version; at least there is a representative range of choices. -- Avi 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)" in section "Option 3 - Verbose version" subsection "Endorse". Apparently the page is being archived so I don't know how to restore this comment to its proper place. I would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. -- Coppertwig 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Over at the ATT poll, I've just flipped the order of the Oppose/Support sections, on the theory that it is heavily biasing the voting. I expect to be reverted within minutes. I'm not willing to violate WP:3RR over this, so additional eyes on the matter would be helpful. My theory is that if the vote is being biased by Support being at the top, it is only fair that they be inverted for the rest of the poll, and if this effect is not happening, the change will have no effect at all, ergo the only reason to revert it is to support bias in favor of Support votes. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 07:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Coppertwig, I don't think we've met before, so... ah, Hi. ^_^. I like meeting new people. ^_^ * Sam ov the blue sand, My Talk, And if you feel like spying on me 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you be interested in reviewing this article? It is right now up for AfD consideration and I would like your thoughts on this. I would greatly appreciate it. Chris 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This was protected on May 16. Since then there has been discussions that have lead to consensus on a change. I proposed in the discussion that an early proposal be moved to the template in use. There were objections, so a change was not made at that time. Since that time, the consensus for some changes apparently became stronger after some wording changes. I again announced that the template would be updated and I don't recall any objections being voiced. There are some voices that the wording could be improved but not objections to the suggested replacement. So with an apparent consensus the change was made. The fact that there was an objection from one person, the last time I looked, does not mean there is not a consensus for this change. Vegaswikian 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, User:Coppertwig. As per our previous discussion [7] (17 June 07), I am glad to see the consensus holding up. I support the current version of the page. The phrase which was fought out for so long sits well on the page there, and I am hoping it will lead to progress in cleaning up poor sections (trivia) in WP. I have no problems with any changes users make, if done with reasonable courtesy, then hopefully edit-wars are avoided and all or any users may appropriately express their appropriate suggestions for improvement(s), appropriately, on the appropriate page. (Which page, sometimes, is an appropriate question, maybe.) Thanks for posting me then, (and I will try to state myself clearer in discussions in future, that I will bear in mind) :) Regards, user: Newbyguesses - Talk 01:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Coppertwig, Simple English Wiktionary is about 300 entries from 2,000. I'm trying to organise a drive to the 2,000 mark. Would you consider helping out?-- BrettR 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Please visit the circumcision discussion. TipPt 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your work on the circumcision article. I hope that you continue to work to get the facts out there. The issue is so very important and the tendency has been for anything that isn't anti-circumcision to be removed, even when it is a quote from a major medical association sourced back to their site. Please keep it up!
Edwardsville 12:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig.
It is funny that you should send me that note because I just left a comment on the talk page for the article. My previous experience with this article has involved only certain posters, including Jakew, removing anything they didn't like regardless of what was being said on the talk page. This made me think that simply making changes by force was the only way that positive changes were going to be made. The fact that some real positive changes have been made to the article has heartened me greatly regarding the possiblity of using consensus to build the article.
Edwardsville 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, that last reversion to the text wasn't me. The text was mine, but I didn't post the reversion.
Edwardsville 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing from your contributions that you're either on vacation or a wikibreak. At any rate, I hope you have the opportunity to take a look at the second draft of WP:Relevance, written in response to the feedback you and others gave on the first draft.-- Father Goose 04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a third draft of WP:Relevance. I suspect this is the last wholesale revision. I contains your idea that material is relevant if it serves the interest of users. It may not have the weight you feel the concept deserves... looking for any changes or comments you deem appropriate. thanks — WikiLen 11:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig,
Wikipedia:Relevance requests your presence — see, "Call for editor participation" at the talk page. — WikiLen 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this bothersome thing again. The "Establishing relevance" section, which I believe was the source of your greatest opposition, has been extensively tamed, and the rest of it has been slimmed down in a number of ways as well. I'd be happy to hear your views, and criticism, of the latest version, which is posted at Wikipedia:Relevance, or at User:Father Goose/Relevance if someone has removed it from the project page. As always, much obliged.-- Father Goose 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you! I've been away for a few weeks. Thanks for your note regarding the spanking article. I haven't checked to see who contributed what, so I'm not sure what you have done on it, but I'm guessing you have been one of the main authors. If so, nice work!
Edwardsville 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Edwardsville 04:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Coppertwig,
Your most recent to circumcision does not conform to the Manual of Style. To quote:
Both foreskin and bioethics of... are already linked in the text (the latter as a {{ main}} under 'ethical issues'), and therefore should not be in 'see also'. Please would you self-revert? Jakew 22:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You may be right as a general rule, but not, I think, in this particular case. Please check out Special:Contributions/75.15.185.118, in particular this. Also see WP:VAND#Types of vandalism. Regards, Jakew 21:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to apologize for not keeping you up to date; I moved Wikipedia:Relevance to Wikipedia:Relevance of content about a week ago to stop the proposal from being reverted so discussion could continue.
I moved the comment you just posted at Wikipedia talk:Relevance to Wikipedia talk:Relevance of content; I hope you don't mind. I'll add a note to Wikipedia talk:Relevance directing further comments to the new page.-- Father Goose 19:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Can I again ask you to self-revert, this time not because of policy but for discussion? I'm going to explain on Talk:Circumcision now. Jakew 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)