User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 6

I've had a soft spot for this article ever since I helped Jennavecia expand it sufficiently for DYK, ages ago now it seems. (What was it called then, the Bavarian Pigeon Corps?)

You've performed wonders with it since then, and I'd really love to see it get promoted at FAC, so I hope you don't mind my fiddling with it. It may be controversial, but I view FAC in much the same way as gladiatorial combat; fighting on your own is what you have to do sometimes, but it's much safer if you can gather the support of a few allies.

Thanks. I was extremely lucky that Uncle G drew my attention to the article. I am very happy about your help. So far FAC has been a purely cooperative experience for me, and I hope it's going to stay that way. As it's almost a year until next April Fools Day I am extremely relaxed about it. I wouldn't have minded if other commenters had become a little more active directly in the article, but I guess from their POV it's prudent not to do that.

I am slightly irritated that so far almost all the feedback has been on purely formal things – your style improvements were a very welcome change. At times the GA process, especially the one at the German Wikipedia, felt like a thesis defence. Coming to it with this expectation, the FAC feels like a thesis defence in which I must explain my choice of paper and the lack of capitalisation in chapter titles. Or is it just that the formalities are generally done first because they can lead to a quick fail?

By the way, I would really like to make the article mention the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps", but it's still not clear whether it ever existed. For a long time I thought it was all completely wrong, but recently I found this. This was the first clear evidence that pigeon photography was really used in the Second World War. Maybe those trucks were the Bavarian Pigeon Corps. In the light of this, it seems possible that the German army, and maybe even the French army, had superior pigeon cameras before Christian Adrian Michel. But so far that's all pure speculation.Hans Adler 21:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that you could (and perhaps should) shoehorn in the Bavarian Pigeon Corps, as it's mentioned by several apparently reliable sources, whether or not they were correct in what they claimed. It would need to be carefully written though. I had a similar problem with my own FAC on the Green children of Woolpit. The probability of those kids actually appearing as the result of a matter transporter malfunction on a distant planet is vanishingly small, but I suppose not actually zero. It rounds off the story nicely nevertheless and adds a bit of sparkle.

So far as FAC is concerned, yes, reviewers will pick the low-hanging fruit first, looking for reasons to fail: things like sourcing, image licensing, poor writing and the like. Once they're out the way then it's game on. I think that in many ways FAC (and even) GAN is similar to a thesis defence, with the obvious difference that you're allowed to recruit colleagues in the defence.

Fatuorum 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm not perfect after all. That was indeed what I intended.

Fatuorum

Is your "invisible template" supposed to do this. Or is it some sort of joke? Perhaps I am too thick to appreciate something. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a joke but a solution to the very real problem described on the template's documentation page. You are not the first editor who added an infobox to one of Giano's articles or to an opera composer article. Editors do this in good faith, but those who care for these articles and don't want infoboxes tend to get rather grumpy when it happens for the umpteenth time. Occasionally this leads to huge escalations, which I hope to prevent with this little trick. The template makes it absolutely clear when no infobox is desired. It may have been my own idea, but when I searched for it I saw that someone else had proposed it before. The idea can be extended to provide microformats, since in the past at least one editor vigorously pushed infoboxes just to get microformats into as many articles as possible. This is the context in which it came up previously. Hans Adler 12:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it normal that all that text appears in the article? Should it be in Template:Infobox_invisible/doc? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. It's not a frequently used template (yet), so I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't mind if you want to restructure it in this way, but for the moment it only seems to make things slightly more complicated. Hans Adler 13:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

separate question - have you considered the option of a collapsible infobox rather than a hidden one? a collapsible box can take up very little real estate but still provide the information for them what wants it. --Ludwigs2 22:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but I doubt it would be considered acceptable in the cases for which I have created it. Some editors reject infoboxes very, very strongly, probably in part due to many negative interactions with editors who tried to force them into articles. Perhaps after a few years without such conflicts they will be sufficiently relaxed to accept collapsed infoboxes... Hans Adler 22:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

lol - ok, well, flag me in a couple of years if you want help making one. --Ludwigs2 00:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(Warning removed on advice of Risker.  Sandstein  20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC))

Sandstein, since this is a case you are currently a party to, and since tens of other admins and arbitrators are watching the pages actively, and the ruling on the current case hasn't even been finalized...maybe this is one of those situations where it's better to drop the rulebook, or at least to let someone else administer it. I'm not saying Hans' language is ideal, but something doesn't look right about your warning either. Maybe you should get an uninvolved admin in the future. Also, this is a heated arbitration case not a content dispute; a simple request is often less officious and more productive than invoking formal procedures. I'm pretty sure you see these warnings as the very opposite of the Ludwigs-style declaration made at ANI, but I don't think all other editors do. They can appear as threats, in their own way, when they come from involved editors. They raise the tension as much as they seek to squash another problem. Ocaasi ^c 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

amazing. simply, truly, unabashedly amazing. I am simply shocked that anyone can see this and not conclude that Sandstein needs to be relieved of AE duties. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, you think you're the greatest thing ever? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So sorry for stating the obvious. Do you want me to dig up the links proving this pattern from before your 2-year absence? I would be prepared to do it for WP:Requests for comment/Orangemarlin. Hans Adler 18:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you are obsessed with me? I guess you do think you're the greatest thing around. You really should reword your personal attack. Note that I haven't bookmarked at least 5 personal attacks against me by you over the past 6 weeks. But see, I have balls, I don't go whining to anyone about these things. I pretty much ignore you, since I have so little respect for your "pseudo-skeptic" meme. I read what your pal Ludwigs2 wrote. It was highly POV. Not just a little bit. But continue your attacks Hans. They show your character. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if you are an impersonator who guessed the password correctly. The Orangemarlin I remember seemed to be slightly more mature. Hans Adler 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, back in the day OM tended to work in tandem with ScienceApologist. Whatever else you might think about SA, he's intelligent and communicative and that went a long way towards offsetting OM's (shall we say) terse style and mannerism. I don't think we need to go to the impersonator extreme - this is just who he is without backup.

I'm a little more curious about

talk · contribs), who showed up at the page after I reported OM for edit-warring and is looking a little meatpuppetish. I may need to look into that further if it keeps up. --Ludwigs2 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean about Gerardw, but I think he has simply followed you from WQA. He appears to be editing anonymously most of the time. Hans Adler 20:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was beginning to come to that conclusion myself. I'll go ahead and

AGF on that. --Ludwigs2 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not how BRD works. You can't just jump in supporting an edit warrior who just throws around policy abbrevations without being able to mention any proper concern, and base this on nothing but ABF-ing the editors who have been discussing and editing at that page. Hans Adler 18:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another personal attack. Ludwigs has NOT been editing that page, it's his hounding of me that got him involved is all. Kind of like what you're doing, but with a little more honesty that you despise my ass. BRD words precisely how I did it. You devalue me by making me prove that Ludwigs' edits were right or wrong. It is incumbent upon Ludwigs to show cause that his edits make sense. But he and you prefer the personal attack route. I do appreciate adding another diff to my pile of personal attacks from you and Ludwigs. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It is how

WP:BRD works, if there is a dispute, then you go back to the pre-dispute version while it is sorted out. Ideally you avoid taking a position (as you do above) while that takes place. --Snowded ^TALK 19:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

BRD is not the only relevant guideline here.

WP:OWN is much more relevant. As you can see on Talk:Acupuncture, OM has still not answered L2's question whether the first change is OK. That's typical. As soon as it gets too concrete, the claim that everything is a violation of NPOV, or some other 2-4 letters, becomes falsifiable. OM cannot deal with that situation because he is not used to discussing the changes he reverts. L2 is very good at explaining the things he does and the reasons for them, and reacting to objections. But by asking him to explain everything you are forcing him to do tedious work that is totally futile because it would be absolutely unprecedented for OM to do anything useful with a presentation of the changes and say precisely what he doesn't like about them. L2's approach of doing it piecewise is perfectly reasonable. It saves him the advance payment that would not be paid back. Hans Adler 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That first change was probably the least controversial, subsequent changes appear to have modified the text where it argued a more scientific approach. OM is a difficult character, but its not correct to say that either of the two protagonists are in the right. We need to address the content issues and that would be a lot easier if you had followed

WP:BRD rather than reverting. --Snowded ^TALK 06:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at L2's report at

WP:EW/N, where I have provided an overview over OM's activities at the article so far. 5 reverts in 24 hours, 10 reverts in a month. That's all his edits since he returned from his 2-year break. The previous 10 edits (counting consecutive edits as one) were 8 non-vandalism reverts, 1 removal of content, and 1 addition of a tag, all spread over a year (early 2008 to early 2009). I knew it was worth looking into because I have seen precisely the same pattern from OM at many other articles. On contentious articles he never does content work, he is completely focused on preventing any changes that come from editors he does not trust. He never explains what his concerns are, and after so many years of this disruptive behaviour it must be allowed to suspect that he doesn't have any legitimate concerns when he behaves like that. Hans Adler 06:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As usual, I come late to the party. I'm still trying to catch up with everything that happened in the case, but I was hoping you could explain to me why you thought that this was the right way to go in making the point you wanted to make. Surely there was a better way to do it? NW (Talk) 18:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I have the same problem that Ludwigs2 had right before Sandstein blocked him: I don't know what you mean. Could you please explain what was problematic about that comment. I have seen Sandstein's strange warning before he removed it, but it seemed to be based on the idea that (1) some of the things I said about QG were personal attacks as opposed to lucid factual descriptions, and (2) that an arbitration case is not one of those places where one can discuss the problematic behaviour of editors. Hans Adler 19:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: "predictable temper tantrums", "fails to see the full extent of his own incompetence", "disruptive

personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with the arbitration clerk work load by reading NW's mind. NW, can you confirm that this is precisely what you meant? Hans Adler 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not trying to say that you should not give your input, but surely you can see the distinction between stating that QuackGuru has "predictable temper tantrums" and stating something along the lines of "QuackGuru has behaved inappropriately in the past in circumstances like that of <date>.[1][2][3]"? NW (Talk) 04:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I will go through the 30 AN/ANI reports that I listed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence#QuackGuru's pattern of tendentious editing to see if I can come up with a more precise description of QG's reactions to opposition. Meanwhile I have rephrased the temper tantrums as predictable overreactions to opposition. Hans Adler 05:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a step in the right direction. "who fails to see the full extent of his own incompetence" was another phrase I thought that you might not want to use in the future—there's a way of saying these things and still not violating

WP:CIVIL.

And obviously you don't have to source everything, but you could have linked to it. NW (Talk) 13:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that "who fails to see the full extent of his own incompetence" is a violation of

WP:CIVIL. QG's incompetence in the collaborative editing environment is matched by few other editors who are still allowed to edit, and his failure to make any allowances for it is one of the root causes of the entire case. I don't think circumlocutions such as "His behaviour has consistently and over many years failed to meet the social and intellectual standards that the community expects of every editor" are appropriate. I would only use them for comic effect. Hans Adler 13:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Geez - I wish people had such a loving attention to detail when it came to incivilities directed at me. But alas, no... --Ludwigs2 14:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edit of your own post at

Thanks. I do that when it's a substantial change. In this case it was the addition of a missing word/link and of the source on which I based this. I doubt that this would have changed your response, and I did think about this when I got the edit conflict. Otherwise I would have left a little note. But in trivial cases such as this such notes are just irritating. Hans Adler 19:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Sergeant Cribb (talk)

Moving on, can I ask you to be careful when you use phrases like "I seem to see a distinct American, nationalist, bias" [15]. In whom do you seem to see this bias? I very much hope you are not accusing me of being American! Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I see that thou didst not actively contribute to that. The main problem was the way Fred Bauder started the section. Sorry I wasn't clear that I did not mean to address thee but you. (Sometimes I really wish English still worked this way...) Hans Adler 19:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I just reverted your hat notice on [Pippa's talk page]. While I totally agree that mentioning her butt in the article is nowhere near appropriate, I disagree that talking about that point violates BLP. In fact, it's good for showing consensus that it doesn't belong in the article. Should you put the hat notice back in, I won't revert it. I wanted you to be aware that it had been done and why. Thanks KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 11:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I made the reason very clear: BLP applies everywhere, including on talk pages. The very act of insisting on discussion of this "topic" for inclusion in an encyclopedia is offensive. I won't revert you directly but will ask at

WP:BLP/N for someone else to do it. Hans Adler 11:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Verifiability.2C_not_truth. I've seen your comments on this meme before, and your insight might be helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Puns are for children, not groan readers.[16]

Calling an editor disruptive and/or incompetent without solid grounds is highly uncivil, but surely a Wikipedia veteran such as yourself must know that. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you argue that this is a reliable source for this, then absent any special circumstances that the editor who reported this incident may have suppressed, there is only a choice between a

WP:COMPETENCE problem. Hans Adler 13:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a screenshot of the opening credits of season 5, episode 7. The fact that it was taken from Wikipedia is marginal; the main point is that if the makers of the series found it good enough for inclusion, we cannot assume that one is not connected to the other. It would be like claiming that a doctor was unaware of his own profession prior to his medical license being hung on the wall. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Hans Adler 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for listening. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hans Adler.  Sandstein  23:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don’t want to get into an edit war but you should have the decency to wait until the RM is completed before changing the lead listing. The articles name is Archduke Karl of Austria. - dwc lr (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

... which reflects royalist POV rather than reality. I might accept this if this was the British Wikipedia, but it is the English [language] Wikipedia. And so it gives the impression that he is actively using the title, which he is not allowed to do. Hans Adler 21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the title Archduke there are no issues here, no royalist POV’s, just what is in reliable sources. However you are right about one thing this is indeed the English Wikipedia, I’ll remember that and you remember that you are not on an Austrian Wikipedia that is subject to Austrian laws, maybe then it would be Karl Habsburg. Reliable sources use titles there is no issue using a title for Archduke Karl. What you need to do is accept reliable sources use titles, and that naming conventions also use them. - dwc lr (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Some reliable sources use the title, others don't. By filing him under the title we are making it official. We are escalating the situation. I guess the Habsburgs are following a long-term strategy to get back to power that is structurally very similar to the huge Nazi undercurrent in Austrian society: Pretending to be democratic/republican, but always sending out clear signals to their supporters. The planned candidacy for the presidency is a pretty blatant example. But this is all just my personal interpretation. The natural thing to do in this situation is to use the Habsburgs' actual names. If we do the escalation for them by using their titles here, and they are not responsible, then we are playing their game for them. We, as an encyclopedia, take political action. Using their actual names and reporting what royalists think is the way to stay neutral. Hans Adler 22:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The only natural thing is to follow naming conventions, nothing more, nothing less, and which do not support your view. - dwc lr (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

When the naming conventions disagree with

WP:NPOV, the policy wins. With highly technical guidelines for very specific topics there is always a strong self-selection bias in the drafters. In some cases the community mechanisms are sufficient to get enough outsiders involved. Here, apparently it didn't work. Hans Adler 22:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy wins this time with the current title. Archduke Karl is the neutral title, Emperor Karl II of Austria and Karl Habsburg, both extreme POV's. - dwc lr (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing neutral about an Archduke. If any of the Habsburgs wants to become an Archduke, they will have to find a monarch who gives them this title, or maybe start a revolution. Once they have done that, we can reflect the new reality on Wikipedia. Hans Adler 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Hans. (I'm commenting here so as to avoid fanning flames at AN/I.) Regarding my removal of Franklin's editorial from the lede of hebephilia, you might find my subsequent talkpage comment relevant as part of the full story.— James Cantor (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't consider that a very good explanation either. Looks like a conflict between theory and practice to me, or something very similar. As I am working in a field far removed from all applications it's easy for me to say this, but in my opinion practical concerns such as that expressed by Franklin are a priori very valid, and she seems competent enough to express them. They fall more under politics than in

WP:MEDRS territory, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be reported. Hans Adler 11:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you please quickly look over the article Metric system which I have effectively rewritten and let me know whether it is worth my requesting that it be formally reviewed by the Wikiproject Measurement group with view to it being rated as a "B" quality article.

Regards Martinvl (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! The article wasn't on my watchlist, so I had no idea. Good work – I would say it's a good B now. But let's ask for further input on the project talk page about what might be missing. Taking this to GA standard shouldn't be too hard now, and obviously FA would be great. Hans Adler 14:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Vielen dank Hans. Martinvl (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles has been protected to allow for discussion of its title. It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:

• British Isles
• British-Irish Council area
• Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
• British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between)

Hi! About this

He did suggest it.

• User_talk:Off2riorob "Why not cut out the middle man and add it direct to the The Situation Room (photograph) article and see what happens, personally I wouldn't have any objections to its addition there."

Would you mind posting an explanation about why this speculation is not appropriate? Off2riorob reasoned that there wasn't enough to say about the woman herself to have a BLP article on her, but that he had no objections discussing this stuff in relation to the photograph WhisperToMe (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it can be mentioned in some way or another, but then it must be properly framed as a silly media phenomenon. And the stupid speculations that a woman who appears in that kind of photo somehow must be ultra-secret (probably because her face was edited out somewhere, together with Hilary Clinton's) make no sense and are simply not noteworthy.

Maybe Off2riorob didn't read this so closely, or maybe we don't agree about this, or maybe he assumed that editors at that article would deal with the problem. In any case, in this form it makes no sense. Hans Adler 21:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've got a draft on my userspace at User:WhisperToMe/Tomason

Maybe a good way to solve this is to suggest another way of presenting the same info. How should I say it?

"probably because her face was edited out somewhere, together with Hilary Clinton's" - That editing had nothing to do with the people in particular and it had nothing to do with the speculation on Tomason herself - it was just an Ultra Orthodox Jewish practice of removing women from the photos.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW, found another article from The Atlantic, that explained that there were more young staffers, but she was the only one visible in the photo. I'll read the article and post more about it WhisperToMe (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting this trivial stuff into the encyclopedia. If you want to do it, you will have to find an acceptable way yourself. Sorry. Hans Adler 21:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested to contribute to developing this proposed policy further. The idea is that on Wikipedia you can have some entrenched positions on issues that then never get resolved. In some of these cases, there may actually be a big majority that would like to see the issue move forward, but the people are then divided on which direction to move in. In such a case, electing a committee could work. You can think of e.g the "not truth" issue, the dispute about hypens and dashes at the MoS, the discussions on reforming the RFA system etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans, could you please help with sourcing for

Sorry, I guess I misled you with my comment on the Abraham Reuel AfD? I thought that via the Deutsche Nationallizenz I had access to at least some newspapers, but there is nothing there at all. With a Google search I found nothing in German about the topic, and I am not surprised as this is not the kind of story that would be widely reported in Germany. Hans Adler 23:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: I was struck by a comment you made recently to the effect that certain kinds of editors may change community norms (I have used similar reasoning when arguing for the deletion of various joke user pages at MfD), and I quoted you at ANI. See ANI (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

It would be good to start updating the Nottingham Two page with the recent controversy that has begun again. http://www.scribd.com/doc/54150076/THE-ARTICLE-NOTTINGHAM-UNIVERSITY-DOESN-T-WANT-YOU-TO-READ-Radicalisation-at-Universities-or-Radicalisation-by-Universities-How-a-Students-Use-of-a

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/04/nottingham-university-row-after-lecturer-suspended —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.19.254 (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I will see what I can do, but it may take a few more days. Hans Adler 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans,

I've also been looking into this issue, but don't know enough about Wiki to make the changes myself, but i think the Nottingham 2 page needs updating pretty soon, along with a plug into the Rod Thornton page.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.88.74 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have been busy with a few other things, and then I simply forgot. I will look into it tomorrow. Hans Adler 20:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have finally updated the article a little bit. I guess I should also clean up the references later. Please let me know if I have missed anything important. Hans Adler 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The banning of this editor seems to me to be unreasonable in the circumstances. Is there some way that it can be reverted? Silent Billy (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell has made it clear that it's an ordinary admin action, so in principle any admin can unblock her. Of course this should only happen after discussion with HJ Mitchell, and ideally there should be a consensus for the unblock on ANI or AN. (If there were actually a consensus to keep her blocked, then I guess she would be quickly blocked again by another admin and we would have a

wheel war

.)

It's cumbersome to collect all the relevant facts, but my current picture of this situation is that Sarah777 behaved pretty badly, and that some of it but not all of it was in reaction to extreme provocation. I keep seeing English editors do the Wikipedia equivalent of unionist marches: Trampling over Irish territory with unnecessary and non-PC references to Ireland as "British" or part of something that is "British". The indef block was in reaction to her overreaction to extreme provocation of this form, so IMO it can't stand. Hans Adler 08:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Hans. I commend your regular efforts to bring some sense and rationality to this apparently endless dispute. I share your concern and view about the use of the flags. However, I think you are actually quite wrong in your comment on ANI that "the English/British nationalists generally win by their sheer number" - I think what we do see time and again is that the non-British identity nationalist editors are more effective and more co-ordinated, even team-tagging and gaming successfully. Many of the more extreme "unionists" in the debate are foolish and ill-prepared, so their ban/block rate is far higher. Both the recent behaviour and (looking back at it) the long-term behaviour of the editor in question have been outrageous and preposterous and any other editor acting in such provocative and insulting ways would long ago have been perma-blocked - the problem here, as we saw again at ANI, is lots of people calling "defend the Irish" when this bad behaviour is challenged. I think the admins are doing pretty well and I also thought so when they banned the insulting and provocative end of the unionist editors. Amongst active editors, the Irish nationalist view and its allies from "related" nationalisms like Scotland and Wales prevails, simply because they care about it a great deal. Most England-based editors of English origins simply do not care about it as much in my opinion. I would ask you to take another look at your view on this. I will be happy to discuss specific editing examples. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. In my mind I have always distinguished rather clearly between nationalist Irish editors and separatist editors from Wales or Scotland. I think this is mostly because Irish editors want something that is accepted in their culture, while the separatists from Britain want something that is fringe within theirs. It is much more reasonable to reject a Union Jack in connection with Ireland than to reject it in connection with Wales or Scotland: In one case this reflects reality, and in the other a political goal.

I do have the impression that there might be something going on with the British separatists. I did not mention it on ANI because to me it didn't seem relevant to the present case. While it makes sense that they should in some way be allied with Irish nationalists, I have so far not observed this in practice. But I haven't looked for this specifically, and as an outsider I guess I miss a lot of things, not least because I will often miss what to you must be obvious signs of membership of one of the parties.

One thing that I might have been clearer about on ANI: I have never been in Ireland, and I have no opinion about how mainstream, or even acceptable, the views of Sarah777 are in a domestic Irish context. (By vociferously rejecting the term "British Isles", do you out yourself as a sympathiser of a specific, tiny party? Or does everybody avoid the term? Maybe it's much more complicated?) But avoiding the term "British Isles" or the Union Jack on Ireland-related articles strikes me as an inherently sensible thing to do given the history of the countries and the reliable sources that I have seen which are actively avoiding the term and looking for others to replace it.

For me the important question isn't so much whether we do avoid the term and the flag, but that we take the concern very seriously. In my opionion using them on Irish articles against the protest of Irish editors is the equivalent of a unionist march through a Catholic area. Not doing that is the absolute minimum to get piece, and as far as I am concerned that's all that is required. But what I have seen in practice is certain British editors agreeing with each other that they are the voice of reason, common sense and correct, traditional use of the English language, and that Irish editors with national sensitivities are disruptive wiki-terrorists who must not be taken seriously lest it encourage them. This approach works because of the inequality in numbers, and it must be extremely humiliating for those at the receiving end. And later in the night, presumably after a few pints, we can observe the inevitable reactions that look like overreactions.

And then there is of course the overwhelming majority of English editors who just don't care much. If I can be considered a member of any of the parties myself then it is this one. I got involved because I wanted to contribute to the solution of a specific problem in Wikipedia. But most simply don't get involved at all, leaving only the extremists to fight it out among themselves. And among these the Irish extremists are a minority.

My impressions may be all wrong and may be tainted by what I have seen: Conflicts at Ireland-related articles and conflicts about subnational flags for constituent countries of Britain in non-sports contexts. If you have pointers to illuminating discussions elsewhere or want to discuss anything else in particular, just tell me where to look. Hans Adler 16:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment (1) separatists from Britain want something that is fringe within theirs - given the results in the recent Scottish Assembly elections the desire for "separatism" is hardly fringe. (2) I lived and worked in Ireland for a number of years and moved in educated professional and business circles. I soon learned to avoid using the term "Bitish Isles" when referring to geographic entities including Ireland. It often caused serious offence which for me as a non-Brit was overlooked - but only once. Silent Billy (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Silent Billy you read too much into the SNP's electoral victory. Many people who vote for the SNP aren't voting for seperatism and to say that anyone who does vote for them is a seperatist is highly dubious and wrong. Most simply vote SNP as it is a Scottish only party that stands up quite robustly for Scotland. When a referendum comes along don't be surprised when more people than those that voted for the SNP vote for the retention of the union. Its akin to saying that all nationalists in Northern Ireland who vote for Sinn Fein are IRA-terrorist supporters - which is bullshit, just some do.

In regards to James' comments, i highly agree, and Hans should rethink his view - especially in regards to Sarah777's behaviour. Sarah777 wasn't extremely provoked into her outbursts and in fact was the one doing the extreme provoking. She has been blocked before for such stuff and knew full well the consequences so she should of learnt her lesson - she didn't so she only has herself to blame. Also what articles the template was being put in was never made clear - Sarah777 doesn't see a distinction between Ireland the state and Ireland the island (which includes part of the UK thus rendering the flag applicable within NI articles).

Hans also seems to believe the nonsense about inequality of numbers. There are articles where Irish "republican" editors have overwhelmed others to enforce their viewpoint or to protect certain interests especially in regards to articles on Irish nationalism and republicanism where some have a clear bias in certain areas to make them look noble or whiter than white where possible. I gave up trying to make them more objective where i could as it was pointless. Not everything is one way.

I would also like Hans to explain these provocative and highly ill-informed statements: "Wikipedia equivalent of unionist marches: Trampling over Irish territory with unnecessary and non-PC references to Ireland as "British" or part of something that is "British"" and "In my opionion using them on Irish articles against the protest of Irish editors is the equivalent of a unionist march through a Catholic area." - do you have any knowledge on the actual issue of marches in Ireland, or even politics and religion in Ireland at all? In fact could you make clear the distinction between the island of Ireland the state of Ireland?

Mabuska ^(talk) 00:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look like it might be legit, according to this source. Favonian (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. Somehow I managed not to find this with my search. I am not sure we need a separate article about this man, but I guess it's not doing any harm either. Hans Adler 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability is indeed questionable, and it should probably be merged into an appropriate article—just not right now. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

OK this is a gentle (as I can) double warning. I realise you are not from the UK, but you have been repeatedly disagreed with (though I personally get the impression you are not spending enough time at all considering other people's arguments) - and I feel there are two lines you have crossed. One is to agree with Sarah's well-expressed view that there is a 'British POV' that is somehow-inherent in British editors on Wikipedia - which induces them to 'out-vote' Irish editors. That - actually totally unacceptable - idea is beset with problems, and look where it eventually landed Sarah.

Secondly, you are completely filling the Northern Ireland talk page with the same kind of examples to 'prove a point' that have been consistently argued against. You are not saying anything new, and seem to be working on a kind of 'war of attrition' level. Logic is important (you should now this being in the Logic task force), and the claim that you are making - that Northern Ireland is not really being called a "country" - even when "country" is used (as it so-often has been), is simply not standing up logically. Also, other terms (like "part") cannot logically automatically-preclude the term "country", like you suggest they do. They simply cannot simply be assumed do that, and example have been given to show you this. You also appear to be making internet searches on the things you want to see, and excluding the things you don't: that is not scientific I'm afraid.

I think there is a rule somewhere on Wikipedia that you have to make sense - please don't make me have to find it! The issue here is the time people are taking to correct you, contrasted against the countless hours that have been spent on the general issue in the past (not least on those usage lists - which will soon be added to, as they are now a couple of years old).

Regarding Sarah, I would be happy to join your support if she decides to appeal her block, but would strongly hope you do not support her on the 'British POV' notion if she decides to keep it up - believe me, you won't help her case at all. I didn't attend that Arbcom poll on ROI/IRE (I resigned from Wikipedia over related matters) but I know from leading up to it (where I did as much work as anyone, if not more) that a significant amount of Irish nationalists (like RA for example) wanted to keep ROI, and essentially maintain two Ireland articles both containing politics. And even so, being British and choosing to keep ROI does not make you biased in any way. Believe it or not: I am British, am no kind of nationalist at all - and yet I always supported using an 'Ireland' disambiguation page leading to 'Ireland (country)' and 'Ireland (island)' articles - along with sensible pipe-link use. There were lots of angles in that dispute, so please don't be drawn into generalising in any way. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please respect the fact that I am not agreeing with Sarah on this but have formed an independent opinion which doesn't even come close to being nearly as radical as Sarah's. The problem, by the way, is not British editors in general but the peculiar kind of British editors who tend to congregate around this kind of discussions.

Your second point is completely ridiculous. You seem to be intent on escalating this matter. If you do so, you will find that as more outside editors get drawn in, and especially as more experienced editors such as those who form Arbcom get drawn in, the level of reading comprehension and general ability to read and understand sources will increase. That will not work in your favour.

I have encountered your particular brand of stubbornness before. I believe it is generally associated with the first stage (unconscious incompetence) in the four stages of competence model as applied to some of the most basic skills required to write an encyclopedia. The main problem is that editors such as you can cause a lot of disruption initially – simply because they are so convinced that they are right and that the person they are arguing with is operating at a high level of stupidity and probably also with bad faith. Their moral outrage tends to sound convincing to those observers who don't have much time to look at the underlying facts, a problem that can perpetuate the division until a problem reaches Arbcom.

"I think there is a rule somewhere on Wikipedia that you have to make sense - please don't make me have to find it!" Unfortunately there is no such explicit rule, nor is there a rule on Wikipedia that to participate in disputes one has to be sober and fully awake. Especially in matters that touch British nationalism I feel that both rules would be very beneficial, assuming for the sake of the argument that they were both enforceable. Hans Adler 06:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You might want to strike part of that Hans, calling another editor unconsciously incompetent is a failure to

WP:NPA--Snowded ^TALK 09:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. AGF is not a suicide pact, and relevant factual observations on an editor's behaviour do not fall under

WP:IDHT

technique. I am not suggesting that this is the case here.

Apart from that, it is inappropriate to hold my response to a significantly higher standard than the message to which I was responding. Matt Lewis clearly assumed that my position is caused by sympathy with Sarah777, or with Irish nationalists in general, and the entire second paragraph of his attempt was a personal attack. Hans Adler 10:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no benefit to the article in you making such statements about another editor because they disagree with you. Its unnecessary and provocative and I strongly suggest you stop. --Snowded ^TALK 10:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit combined with comments above include unnecessary personal attacks on another editor. Please address content issues only. --Snowded ^TALK 10:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and you might want to remember their is a general warning on civility in respect of all articles to do with the Troubles. --Snowded ^TALK 10:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil. If you think otherwise, I suggest that you report me at

WP:AE. It has been 2 weeks since I was last reported there, so I guess it's about time. Hans Adler 11:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of a warning is request a change in behaviour, its your call where it goes next. --Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of an unjustified warning is usually escalation. If you want to escalate this situation I must ask you to take it directly to AE rather than spamming my talk page. Thank you. Hans Adler 11:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was unjustified, and I would prefer to see you lay off the personal comments so it won't need to be escalated. If you think this spamming fine, you are free to delete the comments. --Snowded ^TALK 11:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as uncivil and hans did raise good points in regards to indentation and the possible change of meaning due to it. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit uncomfortable reading that - could you read it again, Mabuska? First he created an official-looking 'violation' section (which I thought he disliked) for what was an obvious error by (myself) an experienced editor. That's a known, if rather minor incivility. Then he framed it in the hypothesis that a) I may have done it dileberately, or b) if it was accidental it was down to my 'general ignorance'!

The point he made on indenting is surely aside to how went about doing it. I didn't particularly want to make the warning I did to him above - but he got me quite exasperated on Northern Ireland, and (after a particular comment he made) I was genuinely worried about how he might interact with Sarah if she decided to return. Perhaps I was wrong about that, but I wanted to clear some things up regarding it. I don't always phrase things particularly well myself, but I do feel this is rather OTT retaliation.

As Snowded says, this kind of dialogue has to be specifically related to content: otherwise the civility rule can very-easily be breached. Snowded also knows that I have in the past been able to get myself perhaps a little too-easily wound-up at times too (for the sake of mentioning this: the couple of old blocks I have are all down exasperated reactions I've made, and never over content/editing indiscretions). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking back at Hans' comment i do see now the incivility, which i'm assuming is this exact bit: "Given your rustic approach to source interpretation, it seems entirely plausible that this was just an error done in good faith. Under this assumption I ask you not to refactor any of my posts at all, as I simply do not trust you to have the necessary judgement" - that is bad faith on Hans' part however the rest of what Hans says is good points on the indentation and you should have informed Hans you were going to do it as it is bad faith to change another editors comment, indentation or otherwise, without prior notification and permission. Failing to do so especially in a debate that is quite charged in parts as it is only leads to misinterpreting of an editors actions and over the top reactions like Hans'. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it was a total accident (or "obvious error", as I put it above): I had no idea that I did it after I did it! I probably explained it better underneath the violation warning on my talk page. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I advise both of you that you are currently making unnecessary, and in my opinion quite misguided, comments about my behaviour. By Snowded's standards that would justify "May 2011" section headings on your respective talk pages. Also, you may have missed that Snowded stopped posting here shortly after I complained about spamming my talk page with groundless complaints. Maybe you want to follow his example and either stop this discussion or look for a different venue where you won't create orange bars for me while I am previewing my substantial changes to an article on a complicated Russian card game. Thank you for your attention. Hans Adler 21:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of Snowded's actions you are guilty of incivility in regards to Matt no matter how you wish to dress it. End this discussion if you want it doesn't remove the fact you said what i highlighted above. I did try to defend the rest of your comments but won't do that again. I would like to point you however in the direction of comments i made way above where you were quite provactive with your seemingly misguided and ill-formed viewpoints on Irish affairs especially in regards to marches. There seems to be a growing list of incidents where you are either uncivil or provocative - intentional or not. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this for a DYK: ... that Edward VII reportedly once got stuck in a too-narrow bathtub with his lover at the Hôtel Ritz Paris? Or is this against guidelines not to have any hook which humiliates any individual even if not a BLP? I thought it quite amusing... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's against the guidelines, but personally I would never propose a hook if I wasn't convinced it was true. One sentence in "Frommer's Paris 2011" isn't really good sourcing for such a historical claim. It seems to be based on a claim by the Ritz itself, which you can find here, but you will have to click through the Flash nonsense until you get to "In memory of the Prince of Wales". It says: "César Ritz installed spacious bathtubs in every room. Etched in his memory was the day when the future Edward VII became stuck in his bath (in charming company, let it be said), and was only extricated with the greatest difficulty by his valets." That leaves the time from 1 June 1898 (Ritz opening) till 22 January 1901 (Edward's ascension to the throne) for this incident.

An appropriate source would be a biography of the king or a reliable source centred on the hotel which mentions and dates the incident. If that cannot be found, I might personally still consider putting this to DYK if I could find a source that said explicitly that the Ritz bathtubs were replaced by César Ritz at some point. Otherwise it seems at least as likely that the incident actually happened at the Savoy Hotel while César Ritz was its manager ("The Savoy under Ritz and his partners was an immediate success, attracting a distinguished and moneyed clientele, headed by the Prince of Wales."), and that he wanted to make sure that he wouldn't have a similar experience at his own hotel.

I tried to check this further. The only thing I found was a source from 2011 which actually gave a lot more details, though none that would permit to check its credibility. It's "Exciting Stories of My Personal Brushes with Greatness: Memoirs of Another Time", and as it appeared with a vanity publisher, it's not even a formally reliable source. I would think it's barely good enough to shoot down your hook: It claims that Edward got stuck with two lovers and that's entirely consistent with the other two sources. Hans Adler 11:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the sockpuppet investigation into the users violating BLP at Lars von Trier, and for your insightful comments on the talk page. Your efforts are much appreciated! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 20:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of the bright line you pointed out here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerome_Corsi&action=historysubmit&diff=431192968&oldid=431189683 I was just trying to accommodate those who wanted three sources and may not have liked the mainstream academic sources and instead wanted a like-minded source using the same term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. We can't all of us know all the rules. Thanks for helping with the sourcing! Hans Adler 16:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans. My name is Sanjay, and I'm a 1st-year PhD student working on a project aimed at improving the quality of scientific articles on Wikipedia by providing easier access to relevant published refereed articles. I found you on the list of Wikipedians with access to Web of Science and I noticed that you edited a variety of pages pertaining to Logic. If you are interested in lending your expertise and advice to this research effort, I have posted a set of questions on my talk page - I would greatly appreciate your taking the time to answer any or all of them. The answers will help inform the design of a tool which I believe will benefit the Wikipedia community. Thanks! Sanjaykairam (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have missed all the excitement at NORAD Tracks Santa (or at least I hope I have). I did say we hadn't seen the last of that particular pupetmaster. So, now you and I are a "'British-German' clique". I wonder when I'll get promoted to the cabal? --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What I find interesting about this case is that I have seen very much the same kind of lunacy before from someone who is clearly a different person. Compare this (further information here – first I had his school secretary on the phone, who immediately put me through to the worried school director, and when I tried to call his parents he answered the phone himself and claimed to be someone else; at that point he seems to have realised that matters were leaving cyberspace and that he had better stop) to this. Hans Adler 16:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I think that "Albert z chan" tried to cloud the issue by making out that he had been accused of working for NORAD, when in fact he had been accused of being a sock of a banned user. What I find strange is that his attempts to prove he wasn't someone else merely confirned that he was. He even cited an e-mail sent to him that was exactly the same as one that "Patric.covey" previously said had been sent to him. As I said before, he isn't very difficult to spot.

At least he seems to have given up pushing the idea that Santa Claus is a real person. --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did he push that idea? I thought it was Jack Sebastian, but maybe I am misremembering things. Hans Adler 16:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

They both did and I'm sure Jack Sebastian will do the same thing again in six months time. The reason I started editing the NORAD Tracks Santa article was because when I first saw it the entire thing was written from an "in-universe" perspective from beginning to end. Of course, my attempts to change it only encouraged the puppetmaster to add more fancruft and the article became the huge mess that you first saw a few weeks later. He seemed to stop pushing the "Santa is real" idea so much when he took on the persona of "Patric.covey".

I think I feel brave enough to edit the Santa Claus article this weekend to remove some of the undue weight and "peacock terms" applied to NORAD Tracks Santa that are still on it. Jack Sebastian seems to have temporarily relinquished ownership of the article. By Decmeber it will probably become all "pseudo-history" and "pseudo-science" again, and you know how difficult those articles are to clean up! --Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

This is some kind of German or Austrian academic title. Can you tell me what it means? Thanks. 67.119.3.55 (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's explained at de:Professur#Außerordentliche Universitätsprofessoren as an Austrian title (in some cases) or (more often) mere description of a function, usually spelled "Ao. Univ. Prof.". The normal way to get it is to be employed by a university before you get the habilitation that would enable you to be employed as a professor. Once you get your habilitation, you are promoted and are addressed as a professor, while still doing the same work as before and still being part of the de:akademischer Mittelbau (academic university employees who are not professors, ranking in the university hierarchy between professors and students; this matters mostly for university-internal democracy as there are fixed quotas for the three classes on the various boards and for some purposes only professors may vote). Literally it means "extraordinary university professor", but the closest equivalent in English would be "associate professor" or "adjunct professor", although neither really seems to fit well. "University" is added to the title/description because in Austria, even the teachers at a Gymnasium (Germany) are usually addressed as "professors". (In Germany that's definitely not the case, although it was general practice a long time ago.) Hans Adler 04:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation. 67.119.3.55 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is inexplicable why the IP has taken you to Wikiquette alerts over Talk: Pound (mass). There is a smell of troll about this affair and I have given the IP a warning. SpinningSpark 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a troll, actually, just a very annoying person. Hans Adler 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just responded at

WP:Wikiquette alerts#Talk: Pound (mass) and had to fight myself to avoid putting a link to "troll" into my comment. In the end I decided such a link would not be helpful, and probably the problem is ignorance (both technical and social) rather than trolling, however from the point of view of other editors, there is no difference between what the problem user is doing and what a sophisticated troll would do, so the nonsense needs to be stopped. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed your comment and it is imminently reasonable. You're right that I expected a bit of a reaction upon making the comment. I somewhat naïvely expected it to just stay in the Talk page at the article, in order to stir debate about the impropriety of the term. I'm glad the AN/I debate has remained fairly civil, since most of the time I see AN/I's breaking down into "off with their head" a lot. I'd be fine with striking out the comments, but honestly I would have liked to see a response from Macwhiz, who was the initial person saying the term isn't offensive (which baffles me). Anyway, I appreciate the cordial response you made. -- Avanu (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You appear to be involved in an

This is ridiculous. The guideline makes an incorrect claim about German usage, and of course it doesn't give a source for it. Restoring unsourced demonstrable untruths is vandalism, whether it happens on a guideline page or elsewhere. Hans Adler 06:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are likely to be blocked now for edit-warring. You appear to be disrupting wikipedia to make a point. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Very funny. The only person disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at the moment is you. [17] It is a simple fact that "Göthe" is totally wrong as a spelling of the historical person in modern German. Restoring a guideline version that implies otherwise after this has been made clear is disruptive and looks like an attempt to bait me into reverting you. Hans Adler 06:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

??? Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler, you seemed to have blindly restored OR after it was discussed on the talk page and in my edit summary. Your possible controversial edit is being discussed on the pseudoscience talk page. Is there a reason you are deleting a relevant source despite you claiming the text is only tangentially relevant material? Your previous reasons for deleting the source does not make any sense. How could a source covering pseudoscience not be relevant to an article about pseudoscience? I want to understand your reason you think deleting sourced text from a

These diffs are all from 4 March 2011, i.e. more than 3 months old. In the meantime, they formed part of the background of this Arbcom case in which you were named as an "involved party" but never showed up. Which was a good strategy, because that way you escaped the inevitable sanctions against you. (You should be interested in my evidence on you in that case, as I will reuse it as soon as you get into the focus again, and I don't see how it can take much longer for you to get fully site banned.)

More specifically, I responded to this particular accusation when it was fresh. If you really want me to respond again,

take it to a noticeboard. Hans Adler 07:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please try to collabrate. You repeatedly deleted a peer-reviewed sourced on the topic of pseudoscience and replaced it with OR. Do you understand you violated core Wikipedia policy. I think you can restore and sumarise the source or at least agree to the source you deleted must be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, QG. Your timing is brilliant, but I see from your usual editing times that that's most likely an accident. I am not willing to discuss an edit of mine from 3 months ago which we already discussed on ANI at the time. However, as a gesture of good will here is, again, what I said on ANI on 8 March: "QG, I don't think it's a good strategy for you to ignore my detailed explanation after you responded to it." And as an extra service, this is the [double] diff in which I answered your question. Hans Adler 15:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not explained why you deleted a source on pseudoscience and blindly replaced it with a source on quackery with OR.

The peer-reviewed sources states pseudoscience issues "are a serious matter of public health." There are many examples of the pseudoscience issues. Do you agree the peer-reviewed source must be restored and summarised at the pseudoscience article.

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol.

PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is getting too tiresome. I do not wish to continue this discussion. Go away. Hans Adler 16:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This note is to inform you that Pseudoscience articles are subject to editing restrictions, as outlined by the Arbitration Committee. Please read and familiarize yourself with this remedy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of this. Care to let me know what prompts you to mention this, in this way and at this time? I do not recall any recent interactions with you, nor do I believe that I have done anything recently that would normally be occasion for such a message. I have not found anything relevant on your talk page or in your recent contribution history – except that you seem to be leaving this canned message to a lot of users, many of them unknown to me. I ran WikiStalk over all affected users, but got no further insight from it. Hans Adler 14:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

We have had no interactions of which I am aware, that would place me in the infamous "uninvolved administrator" category, of which you are probably also aware. Regardless of whether you were aware before, you had not been notified, nor had notification been logged, as is required by the remedy, as you would have found has you actually familiarized yourself with the remedy as you were requested above. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you have taken an arbitrary decision to notify four users of that old case at a random point in time? And it is just an accident that three of these users recently got slightly aggressive messages from QuackGuru? In my case and that of Becritical, the message by QuackGuru was late by 3 months, in another case it was 5 days late. To me, this suggests very strongly that these messages were prompted by off-wiki activity such as a mailing list. More on your talk page. Hans Adler 15:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not "in other words". Please cease from your attempts at mind-reading, you are failing rather miserably at guessing my thinking and motivation. I have already responded to your

accusation on my talk page; please refrain from any further such pointless attacks. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't begin to actually communicate rather soon, I will go elsewhere to ask for help. Maybe ANI, unless you have a better idea. Hans Adler 15:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Striking a few things after KC explained that they were following QG, apparently without noticing how stale QG's messages were. Hans Adler 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any point in continuing this, Hans. When I've notified several people about sanctions, I'm often not really concerned about all of the editors I notify, but notify them all to be fair.

talk) 15:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I, now that KC has explained the situation. It did not occur to me that an admin might (1) be following QG and notifiy everybody QG leaves a pseudoscience-related message to, and (2) not notice how extremely stale these messages were. Hans Adler 16:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, stale had no bearing at all - only whether editors are still active on Wikipedia. If QG is stirring the pot and opening old discussions, there is a strong likelihood that the article itself will become heated. Add to that the current activity, and my concerns are based on lots of experience, and are very well-founded. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing much current activity in the area at the moment, but I suppose you know what you are talking about. QG's stale notifications are a QG problem that could just as well occur in his other areas of interest. Treating them as such would be more constructive than presenting them as a pseudoscience problem, which tends to give him cover. Hans Adler 16:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are more familiar with universal algebra than I am. Do you know if there are different meanings of "satisfiability" used in that context? — Carl (

Thanks :) I probably looked at the Deutsch article.. thanks again :) Ofekalef (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a page on wikipedia which describes exactly how to add templates to sockpuppet accounts that have been blocked by a checkuser: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Sock puppets (registered accounts) You have used the template for a sockmaster: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Administrators instructions#Sockmaster (if not already blocked) Mathsci (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I self-reverted. I guess at some point the template must be fixed to account for the case that a sock is blocked by a checkuser but not mentioned on the sockmaster's SPI page. Hans Adler 13:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. It confused me too. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans, screen readers actually handle diacritics quite well. My screen reader, JAWS, can distinguish the different forms of letters, and in certain cases, it'll change the pronunciation based on the diacritic (with mixed results). It'll read é as "e acute but read "Č" as simply "C" (but this behaviour can be customised if necessary). I only know of one diacritic from a European variant of the Latin alphabet that doesn't get read at all: "Ž". The vietnamese alphabet is a bit more problematic, however. Unfortunately screen readers do not use diacritics to determine the language of the text; they only use lang tags for that purpose. Many modern screen readers have support for diacritics that is similar to that of JAWS. Graham87 14:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very good news. So the demarcation for screen readers seems to run roughly along the same line as Britannica's. Just to be clear because I am not sure that Fangs simulates diacritics correctly: What does JAWS do with François, Schröder and Łoś? Does it read the letters separately because of the diacritic, or does it do something more reasonable? Hans Adler 16:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, JAWS reads "François" with a short a sound (as in "batter") while it reads "Francois" with a long a sound as in "father". That must be because the

speech synthesiser that I use, Eloquence, has a pronunciation rule for "Francois" but none for "François". With your other two examples, JAWS reads them in the same way that it would if the diacritic was not there. However it reads Þór Akureyri as "Thorn ór Akureyri" and "verþa" as "ver thorn a"; the "þ" is the only diacritic I know of with this problem ... which is easy to get used to. Graham87 01:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The a in "François" is actually short in French and would be pronounced the same that "batter" is pronounced in British English (similar to "butter"), only nasalised. So I am not sure what's going on. I think we are generally not using thorn and eth in Icelandic words so far, and neither is Britannica. This makes sense in that they were once also English letters and were replaced by th when the printing presses imported from Germany didn't come with them. Hans Adler 07:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

On the portal talk page you discussed German-style portals. The new

Hi Hans. I'm trying to employ my limited skills to create a new proposal based on this comment of mine. It is discussed

• I was going to write you a message to the effect, but notice you already have the one above. Your comments would be most welcome. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Your input was most helpful. Be sure to keep an eye on my 'squigglies' page. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There's a lot of activity at present, and I'm wondering if the time is now ripe... We may have to launch the RfC shortly, so any help in getting the above page ready would be appreciated. Feedback on timing is also appreciated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry for not being very responsive. It's the last week of semester for me, so lot's of real world stuff. I really like
        User:Prolog/Diacritical marks
        – this clean presentation could play a core role in explaining why our common practice is different from the guideline. Not sure about the timing, but I think there is still enough time to get things right. I think we should have one proposal that mostly just describes what happens in practice and ask to make it official.
      • I think it's also worth mentioning that Britannica 1911 used French, German and Scandinavian diacritics as a matter of course, although inconsistently. E.g. the article for Anders Jonas Ångström was titled "ANGSTRÖM, ANDERS JONAS" but called his son "Knut Johan Ångstrom". (There may have been dots on the o in Ångstrom – these were often lost in the copy I am using. A technical problem with traditional printing technology.) They clearly tried to do the same with Polish, but ran into difficulties. Łódź is spelled as Lódż and Łęczyca more or less as Lęczyca. "More or less" because they didn't have a proper ę and replaced it by a normal e with what looks like a grave accent and a rotated comma assembled to make up a caron that was placed under the letter. Nowadays Britannica doesn't have these difficulties any more, and uses the correct diacritics. A good question for the RfC could be: Other reference sources use the diacritics. Wikipedia in practice does the same, but the guideline doesn't really say so. Do we really want to part with general practice in reference works? Is the potential effect desirable? Hans Adler 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (

Hi. Thanks for the show of support at the talkpage. Why not keep an eye open in case anyone tries to restore nonsense or propaganda, either text or categories, and I don't catch it in time. Two heads are usually better than one, especially when dealing with the hydra of revisionists and apologists. Yours, [email protected] (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hans, it really is possible to have served in Vietnam, and been given various honors for that service, without killing anyone. More importantly, I really think you're unintentionally leading the conversation in a direction that is going to result in nothing productive happening. You've been around long enough to be as jaded as me, right? There's now an 85% chance the thread is going to degenerate into a discussion among 20 people, half of them under 15, about whether your comment was fair or not.

Anyway, if I've learned anything it's that an ANI thread that isn't resolved in a half an hour is never going to be resolved, so I'm out of here. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of grounds for post-traumatic stress disorder, and an extreme obsession with the military, make a death threat more credible, not less. He might be just mad enough to carry if out if someone really hurts his ego. Some people try to enforce a zero-tolerance approach to bad words, now you are trying to downplay this incident. I don't know if this is just another example of typical Wikipedia madness or whether it reflects American attitudes, in which fighting in a war is noble and honourable, and saying "fuck" or "shit" is corrupt and wicked. In either case it's not healthy. Hans Adler 20:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh in here (I have watchlisted Hans' page from back in the Climate Change Arb era, in case anyone's wondering) to point out that I think he is making a valid point. I was disturbed by this comment he made in an exchange with me on his talk page[18]: "Look, for some reason to unknown me, you seem to hate me, you have been on my case for a long time..." I shrugged off this bizarre remark, but after seeing my initial on a tombstone yes, I think it needs to be taken seriously, whether its posturing or a sign of something worse. He has repeated his "he hates me" remark in comments on other pages, without naming me. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Good one. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

That one went right over my head. What does it mean? Keep in mind this is coming from someone who chose

talk) 02:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think Hans believes I look at the world in black and white. And I may have categorized Hans as part of the "black" as opposed to my "white". I stated that I was gobsmacked that he was slapping Cla69 down for frivolity. I would interpret Hans' "technicolor" comment in the edit summary to be...that I should view the world as technicolor. However, I might have been reading way too much into it. Who knows. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. And a very good observation on Hans's part. I usually think in terms of "shades of gray" but Technicolor is much better. (Hans, sorry for polluting your talk page with this.)

talk) 03:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Shit! I just wrote a long response, then I saw the ANI thread, and only then I went to your talk page. I see you understood my comment exactly as I meant it, but I guess that in your situation there might be an additional dimension to it. Whereas I was thinking of 0:43 in this, I now fancy seeing a connection to the final scene in the Life of Brian as well. But I am afraid everything I can say now is going to sound superficial. Hans Adler 10:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I assumed it was

Technicolor yawn William M. Connolley (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Groan. The boy leaves

talk) 14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the ANI thread in which you participated concerning User:Marine 69-71 has reopened. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a spare moment, could you take a look at Victor Kolyvagin? I expanded it slightly and added references. I would say Math is like Greek to me, but I have a small smattering of Greek, and I would like someone who understands Math to take a look to make sure my edits were accurate. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not my branch of mathematics. Just leave a note at

WT:WPM. Hans Adler 18:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Since (I think) you've opined on something like this issue before, particularly the notion of original research, you might be interested in this thread [19], though it's pretty late in the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to nit pick something here: Obviously fertility has (almost) nothing to do with the size of a country, but a lot with wealth - it's not "wealth" it's "income". Wealth = net value of your assets at a point in time (could be negative if you owe money). Income = payment received per a unit (hour, day, month, year) of time (by definition cannot be negative). One can be "wealthy" and have zero income (say, inheritance which is in the process of being squandered) and one can be "unwealthy" (owe a lot of money) and have a high income. In fact, "interest income" is the return on wealth, which is one of types of possible incomes. At the country level the corresponding concepts are

National wealth (not a very good article) and GDP per capita. As far as I know there isn't any relationship between national wealth (per capita or otherwise) and fertility.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, we borrowed a list you compiled for an admin request here. I don't want it to go unappreciated or unacknowledged. Thank you! Jojalozzo 01:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you proof read this from German wiki. It seems a bit awkward in places.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by July 8, 2011.

• You may be interested in a discussion here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.

...aber I am working on the article, and I'd like to improve it, maybe even bring it up to GA status. I see you've been active (on the talk page as well--thank you), and if you feel like doing anything to help improve it even more, please feel free. For instance, a talk page comment alerted me to an important matter that I need to get to work on. Thanks in advance, Hans. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please see the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Is "happy anniversary" totally out of order today? I still find it hard to believe it ever came down. All the best, Drmies (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure what that last comment refers to. Did you post on the wrong talk page or is it somehow related to the Berliner article? I am not aware of any "happy anniversary" that could be "down", so I'm a bit puzzled. Hans Adler 11:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Construction on the Berlin Wall started on 13 August 1961. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • How can that fact be "down"? Does it have to do with the main page? Hans Adler 15:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Let me rephrase: 13 August was a strange day to be working on Ich bin ein Berliner, an article about a speech given in Berlin in 1963, not long after construction started on the Berlin Wall. It was strange and ironic given that 13 August 2011 was the sixtieth anniversary of the construction of the Berlin Wall. I, Drmies, having grown up with the Berlin Wall as present and seemingly permanent as the Moon, still find it hard to believe this wall ever came down. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. I totally misread an "it" that was referring to the wall. Sorry for that. It was quite an incisive event. A few months earlier friends of my parents' had still considered fleeing via Hungary, because it was rather easy at the time and there was reason to fear it would be their only chance. But then the two parts of the country were merged with amazing speed. There are still differences between east and west, but not more than the historical differences between noth and south. Hans Adler 10:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • It's already like we're talking about ancient history, isn't it. Very strange. I remember seeing the footage of so many people going through Czechoslovakia in those days. And maybe Germany vs. Czech/Slovakia suggests that merging is better than splitting, but the latter split doesn't strike me as likely to be reversed. Best, Drmies (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's weird how people insist on merging or splitting countries and even languages all the time. I am not sure that merging is better than splitting. I think it often leads to national hubris, and may be responsible for as many wars as is splitting. Hans Adler 19:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Peace for our time? Things seem peaceful now, but who would have thunk of the consequences of the Breakup of Yugoslavia? My apologies for these late-night, old-world musings. They fill me with sadness. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Sorry to butt in, but I would add I think it a remarkable coincidence that the beginning of the end of the wall fell on the same date as The night of the broken glass, and this conversation reminds me of glad times, as ich war dabei. I remember the second night, most of Berlin ran out of beer, and luckily I, a literature student, and an air force buddy had brought a flask of whiskey, which we wound up sharing in a bathroom with a west german policeman and some east germans. I also remember a large Berliner showing up out of the dark with a large wreaking bar and driving a hole through the wall on the third night, and the sound of hammers and chisels for weeks. Merging or splitting, it really depends on what we want to do together, and I am often fearful of what our fears drive us to do, but sometimes we overcome those. Forgive my early morning musings, but the conversation triggered strong memories and a nostalgic mood. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, since you speak both math and German, thought I'd ask this and make sure. I'm working on expanding the article on

I am not familiar with Steinhaus or the topic of his thesis. The only way in which your translation could be problematic would be if the title were referring to a different principle by Dirichlet. I have no reason to believe that's the case, but I wouldn't necessarily know. Kac's paper [21] suggests that the thesis was about differential and integral equations and calculus of variations. That's fully consistent with our article Dirichlet's principle, so I think everything is fine.

But I suggest changing it to "New applications to Dirichlet's principle". That's a more literal translation that would be correct even if the link were not. Hans Adler 04:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

for, I should think; one applies a principle to a problem, not the other way around. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

So I find unsuspecting victims at individual talk pages? Do you have an example of this nefarious conduct? A diff or two? Why didn't you mention it to me before me? Or are you complaining (as it seems to mean) that I suggest - occasionally successfully - that we follow the sources?

And are my "idiosyncratic" views this page, on which I am one of 47 opposes, including Jimbo?

But let me take the opportunity to join in

My !vote has nothing to do with the recent diacritics nonsense. (It seems to have escaped your notice that I didn't !vote for that particular diacritics RfC and even made it clear that I didn't agree with the proposal. It's interesting how a rash proposal can hurt a reasonable cause.) As I am not a mind reader, I simply don't understand your last paragraph.

Over the years I have come to the conclusion that it makes no sense to discuss things with you because you are always 100% correct about everything, just not able to convince others of the fact. I don't think I did anything to hide my opinion of you from you. I am surprised that you seem bothered by it. Following sources is OK so long as it is done intelligently (i.e. sources are not abused as random number generators), honestly, and without fundamentalism. Hans Adler 21:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph links to a section which ends with Angus Mclellan leading the meeting in a round of applause for you; I thought you'd seen it.

I have frequently been convinced and informed by people using policy, reason, and sources. I am less frequently convinced by those with none of those things; apparently a character flaw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution at Dispute Resolution but I am not satisfied with the outcome. It is not satisfactory that a party that was involved in the original dispute has the power to close the dispute with their preferred outcome. Do you think it is reasonable that Fut Perf has made the final resolution and closed the dispute? What about the conflict of interest? Is there anything that I can do about it without being hung, drawn, and quartered by the dictator called Fut Perf.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid all the text that I am going to write will be wasted because it's not what you want to hear. But I will try it anyway.

There is way too much nationalism going on in the entire Balkans area. People keep reacting to perceived threats or slights from their neighbours, and their own reactions are then perceived by their neighbours as threats or slights. This is a vicious circle. When seen from outside, it's just a lot of people who have very much the same culture, stressing the tiniest differences and always looking for fights. In this situation it's hard for outsiders to have respect for those most involved in the fighting.

I am not familiar with the history of your long-term conflict with Future Perfect, but I guess he may have lost his respect for you -- something very hard to cope with because it hurts. This, together with most people's natural inclination to perceive neutral parties as biased in favour of their opponents, is my explanation why you think Future Perfect is biased. Because he appears pretty neutral to me. He must be, as he is a German academic and we are on his professional ground. Whereas many find their ultimate motivation in their religion, nation, ethnicity etc., every good academic is motivated by the search for objective truth. (I stressed "German" because I am aware that in the Balkans many academic subjects are distorted in favour of political goals in the same way that they were further north a hundred years ago.) Even if Future Perfect were biased -- and I have never seen him do anything that made me suspect he is biased, or that would even indicate which way he would be leaning --, then his professional integrity would likely override it.

What is true is that Future Perfect is an admin of the type that gave rise to the page WP:Rouge admin. He does what he believes is right without much regard for forms. Because the community at large is convinced that he is fair, effective, and not overdoing it with the breaking of norms, they let him. You can hold this against him, but that doesn't really help. You can of course complain that Future Perfect closed the discussion improperly. But no matter how right you may be on this technically, it will be overshadowed by some of your weaknesses in the discussion.

Some editors from your region have learned to make use of him instead of fighting him. You won't be able to manipulate him, or at least not permanently or more than once. But there are editors who want precisely the opposite things of what you want, and in the same way that Future Perfect opposes you he will oppose them if they step over some line. If I were you I would try to get into a more constructive relationship with Future Perfect in which you can alert him whenever you think your opponents are objectively wrong. While Future Perfect is active in the area you will never be able to make articles reflect your POV, but at least he will help you to make sure that they also won't reflect the opposite POV. Hans Adler 19:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that he is up to the standard of a

WP:RS.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 20:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not want you to miss this reply in that very active page. I want a clear and direct answer about how you think these POV pushers should deal with "lies" on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose although I would support a 1-month ban of Cerejota from this policy to contain the disruption.

RfCs are not disruptive (it is an attempt to resolve an outstanding issue, even if you don't agree with it), and this kind of commentary following your opposition to Cerejota's proposal was unnecessarily unkind.

bot!) 02:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all RfCs are disruptive, but some are. And I was not just referring to the RfC but to a pattern of behaviour by Cerejota, such as [22] (edit warring to restore his disruptive illustration). Hans Adler 06:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"there are people anywhere who make a point of obnoxiously reminding them" I do not understand why it is a problem if Hungarians have cultural ties with the Turks. It is fact. I have no problem with this (I am Hungarian). I really do not understand your statement. Moreover, I think Hungarians are (usually) proud of this. I mean for the Turkic-Hungarian connection. I have used what the primary sources state. We need to demonstrate it in reference to Principality of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please accept my apology. It appears I need a little refresher of

WP:AGF. Hans Adler 13:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I got a lesson as well. I have annotated my offending post accordingly. Please let me know if you are not happy with what I am saying there, or how I am saying it. It's not meant as the start of another such conversation, or as an attempt to have the last word. Hans Adler 09:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, your annotation is great, an excellent and peaceful last word..... :)

Dreadstar ☥ 09:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

this edit confused me, [23]. Are you challenging the RS? are you arguing the text is not relevant to the article? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. I sort of responded on the article talk page. Hans Adler 09:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

i read it, quote-mining and tealeaf-reading of sources by uninformed editors. i think quote mining means searching a book for a term, then copying the quote. what i was purposing was to add material expressing the ideas in the 5 passages i pulled from the lone rs all parties could agree. it did not seek to hide context, rather discuss my changes, get input and introduce material from the lone agreed rs on the discussion. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

As I (hope I) said on the talk page, I no longer think it's applicable in this situation. Please apologise for my having brought it up this line of thought in the first place. I have seen so much POV pushing by quote-miners who insist understanding a source is against policy that I saw red when I saw a structurally similar argument used here. Hans Adler 11:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

no offense taken, i am thrilled to have an extra set of eyes on this article. you make great arguments and help sort out the logjam. is there any material in the payne book you would like to see added to the article, or do you consider the current edit complete? i would also like your opinion on renaming the page to nazi, as it would appear to be more well known term. i hope we can still have spirited exchanges, i appreciate your viewpoint and did not want to make an issue out of the remarks, rather try to better explain myself, something i do often, hehe. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I haven't spent much time on the article and currently don't have this time to spend, either. I am not thrilled by the idea of a rename Nazism -> Nazi, as it's pretty well established that we usually tend to name articles by nouns, not adjectives, and Nazi as a noun is less suitable as the 'official' article topic than Nazism. Hans Adler 12:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

understood, i hope we cross paths again on other articles, until then, consider my idea of consolidating,

nazi germany into one or 2 articles. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I simply don't understand where you are coming from. Maybe you missed that this guy, who is pretending to be a stereotypically stupid and xenophobic American, is actually posting from a German IP address? Here is a typical example of his past activities on Wikipedia: [24] (read the first sentence). Those in real life have so far led to only one, relatively short prison sentence, but it could easily have been more than that. In Spyro02's deleted contribution you will even find a Wikipedia article on the Canadian 'internet terrorist'.

If you don't believe what I am writing, you can simply ask me to send you the supporting evidence.

WP:GER#Schraplau is not in Ohio

.) If you don't agree with my approach to dealing with a vandal who I have had on the phone last year, who clearly has a health problem, and whose criminal proceedings documents I have read, then this post of yours is not an appropriate way of saying so.

I am convinced that it would be counterproductive to reward Chris.usnames' continued lies with an unblock, even a temporary one, as he seems unable to react to negative feedback, while feasting on even the tiniest amount of what he can interpret as positive feedback. Sending diffs and links to off-wiki evidence to an admin after a hasty unblock is not a solution. Hans Adler 13:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you have completely misread/misinterpreted what I said. Your continued appearance on his talkpage was merely inflaming the situation. If you had additional things to add, send them to someone, don't keep poking him. If the guy's a dick, then he's a dick. If he's prone to self-combust, then poking and prodding will merely set off fireworks. If he has some of the problems that are claimed, then your continued presence would have fed his needs ... and made him more dangerous. (

BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree, obviously. What feeds his needs is taking his role-playing at face value. My approach, based on what I have seen so far, is to make it perfectly plain to him how transparent everything is. If he returns, I will ask his parents whether they agree with this approach. Maybe they have a better idea. But I am pretty sure that playing along with his game is not the best approach. Hans Adler 11:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I posted a link on Jimbo's page to roughly what I'd call the west, although, in retrospect I'd agree with you and withdraw a lot of the more sophisticated civilizations, mostly in Europe. The US is considerably different and allows children to be beaten and put to death.

"complete rejection of social responsibility" I can't help but ask, do you mean me ? That's not what I am suggesting. I'd address the problem in a place and manner that it has a snowflakes chance in hell of having an effect, rather than describe myself as an idiot by suggesting patently unworkable, reactionary measures which would serve to tease and titillate further. Can you see asking people to click here and there to say they are over a certain age as being a serious workable solution ? Penyulap _talk 06:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I actually believe that people clicking that they are above a certain age does make sense. Most children understand quite well that they are not adults and that there are things they should not be exposed to. They learn this from their parents' behaviour. They will not usually agree with where to draw the lines, and will gladly stretch things, maybe even by a lot. But I am sure that a lot of 8-year-olds will not claim that they are 18, even if it's as simple as pushing a button. Obviously not all, but I see nothing wrong with protecting those children who cooperate with being protected.

But I confess when I first saw that badly written RfC, I read it only cursorily and interpreted as a rather vague statement of intent not to allow children to join WikiProject Pornography, rather than the concrete, overly rigid proposal that it turned out to be under closer inspection. In my defence, many of those who opposed the proposal did so with words that appear to imply that they also very strongly reject what I thought the RfC was, and this is where my moral outrage came from.

If nobody else does it, I am going to start a better RfC in few weeks' time, that should be about the following:

• That there are areas of Wikipedia which are not really suitable for children to read. – I don't think we want to do anything much about this, although a little bit of caution (such as no image on the goatse.cx article) doesn't hurt and generally gets consensus once the wider community has been alerted to a really blatant case.
• That there are areas of Wikipedia where children are unlikely to have anything valuable to contribute, and where younger children could be exposed to disturbing material in the form of short-lived vandalism or in the course of discussions or their own research for an article. – Here I think it's feasible to create clear policy statements that: (1) Although editors or their parents are ultimately responsible for compliance with local child protection laws, Wikipedia disapproves of breaking them. (2) Young editors active in such areas are unlikely to be a net benefit there, and their age, if known, may legitimately factor into a block or ban.
• That the community, while unable to guarantee the physical protection of children active on Wikipedia, will nevertheless take effective measures whenever a child engages in particularly dangerous activity such as publishing an age below 16 and interacting with others on WikiProject Porn.

It's annoying that the failed RfC has poisoned the well for a reasonable one, but I hope it has a chance of passing anyway. Hans Adler 10:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the child who knows they shouldn't be looking at things meant for sleazy adults will click No, and the curious kid who wants to look it up will click yes. Either way, they have already typed in PORN and clicking above X age is going to be comparable to pressing the return key. The good kid simply won't type porn in the first place.

I do think however, a graphic content warning would serve pretty much the same purpose, plus the wider purpose. I haven't myself seen many of the articles mentioned. I'll take your word for it that the goat article has graphic content. I know there are things you can't un-see. Now there are more people than just children who would benefit from a graphic content warning. A great many more. It's useful, workable, not controversial, and would suit the people you point out would co-operate with the measure. Protecting kids on the internet is an advertising gimmick to sell software that barely if ever works, and every kid gets around when they really want to. Having graphic images sprung upon you is par for the course when it comes to using the internet, any part of it, including a sanitized version of wikipedia. It wouldn't happen as often, but things would still slip through the barrier. To protect kids from the dangers of the net, the best way is to unplug the blasted thing. Send them back to their books, or hold social events for them and their friends instead of the idiot facebook. Go for a graphic warning proposal, you may do it earlier, plus have more success. Although, I think it would still fail, because, just like before, you need to type porn first. Penyulap _talk 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans, I have mentioned you by name in a draft of an RfC for Talk:Nazism that I've made, so I thought you would probably want to have a look before I actually file it. I'll be happy to write in any changes you suggest, etc. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The way you quoted me is fine. My personal opinion on all of this is currently as follows:

• The distinction between Nationalsozialismus and nationaler Sozialismus is important. It can and should be reflected in Wikipedia by a distinction between Nazism and national socialism. While Nazism is more or less the direct equivalent of Nationalsozialismus, national socialism, due to its similarity with National Socialism, does not implicitly exclude Nazism in the same way that nationaler Sozialismus implicitly excludes it.
• Nevertheless, we can have an article
  right-wing socialism
  , which I believe is basically the same thing.
• Most of the general material on national socialism should be in the
  right-wing socialism article. But it is appropriate to summarise some of it at Nazism
  .
• The summary of right-wing socialism at Nazism must not misleed readers into thinking an ideology was Nazism just because it had an influence on Nazism and called itself "national socialism". It must be clear that even some things called that way, which are mentioned in the Nazism article, are not Nazism. (Except of course in the loose, non-encyclopedic sense in which almost everything can also be called "fascist".) Hans Adler 10:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler, like so many editors you seem to have misunderstood my position. All I wanted to do was show "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates from 1909" referenced a statement by Knight was inaccurate and THAT WAS ALL. Instead of what should have been a nice WP:NPOV talk about how to handle the mess we got crazy OR claims thrown about demonstrating prime examples of editors reading things into comments that are simple NOT THERE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hans Adler, I believe that you are interested in the way opinion polls are dealt with in articles. There is a discussion taking place in

I thank you for your honesty. I apologize you have a dim view of my behavior. But, honestly, I am getting tired of (what are we at now?) five RfC attempts being sidetracked. 'tis not I who is doing that. I've tried restarting the process multiple times. In exchange, I've gotten promises that Ludwigs2 will continue to derail them until he gets his way. It has to stop sometime. You have concerns worth hearing. So do others. But that will not happen if the current behavior continues. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference between my behaviour and Ludwigs2's behaviour is marginal except that Ludwigs2 is a natural mobbing victim. You are part of the mob. Your behaviour is despicable.

You are welcome to remove this section now that I have responded. If you leave any further response first, I will read it in the page history. Hans Adler 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Your behavior has been very different. Ludwigs2 has promised (more than once, diffs provided on that talk page and elsewhere) to continue to push his point of view until everyone agrees. That's

WP:POV

(not to mention tendentious and disruptive). You have engaged in none of that behavior. He's mis-stated things at his ArbCom case (doesnt want all the images removed) when he's clearly, on multiple occasions indicated that is exactly what he wants. You've done no such thing. He's tried bypassing attempts at forming an RfC by (1) attempting to remove Tarc from it, (2) trying an end run to ArbCom for something not even in their remit. You've done none of those things.

And, in case you haven't guessed, I am not at odds with you. I've done my best to suggest a proposal that will address your (and others') concerns as best as possible and have the highest chance of success (for your point of view). "Remove all or keep all" will end the same way as always. Evaluating each image may create a scenario where some at least get removed, which (in support of your views) at least makes the article less offensive. And there is the sad irony... my method at least gains you (and others with your views) some compromise - while his is doomed to fail (as every other attempt of his has, such as the one at Village Pump a few months back that failed abysmally).

I hope you see the irony there. I'm doing my best to give your views (and others) a chance - his route (remove all or remove all) on the other hand will fail miserably - again. And the other proposals (remove all or keep all) get you nothing, because it will once again end up being "keep all". Odd and ironic isn't it?

Well, regardless of your feelings towards me, I will still push towards forming a less biased RfC that at least has a chance of addressing your issues. I don't have to agree with those issues to be willing to ensure you get the best and fairest chance of them being heard in the RfC. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 16:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have nothing to add to my earlier statements. Hans Adler 17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, if there is a way I can help to make the RfC more balanced and less biased (as opposed to "all or none" or "none or none"), you know where my talk page is. I'm against either, because they will not address yours and others' concerns, but alas, I'm in the minority and it seems the RfC isn't going to address anything - and the results will be the same yet again. Won't bug you here anymore - as I said, you know where my talk page is if you come up with an idea that may help. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A talk page discussion is definitely required. Cuasa sui made this change - I made a much smaller counter change to continue that cleanup. If you object to my change lets go back to the more wordy version - which had an extremely strong consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So you are claiming that incivility always, or even usually, falls under "intentional undermining of a collegial collaborative writing environment"? I disagree. And in fact, overreactions to incivility may fit this description more often than does incivility itself. Hans Adler 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In case it matters, note that I am interpreting the word "incivility" in the way in which it appears to be used normally on Wikipedia. I am not a native speaker of English and not very familiar with American English, and I cannot rule out that the word does have these implications when used in ordinary language. But on Wikipedia the word is often used when referring to harmless cases of what might otherwise be called rough or coarse language, sometimes even when there are no combative or only defensive overtones. Hans Adler 19:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I felt that the words meant basically the same thing, and I'm sorry if I was aggressive about it here.

If the word "incivility" doesn't clearly mean the same thing to you then lets not use it - if we are making it more wordy and less clear that's definitely counter-productive. As an alternative what about "including intentional non-collegiate editing"? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the right location for this discussion, but here is my opinion anyway: Still not good enough. If

Randy from Boise cannot be persuaded to edit collegially, then a regular, intelligent, educated editor should not usually be blocked for likewise editing in a non-collegiate way w.r.t. that user. The earlier language ("undermining of a collegiate editing environment") gets this case right because it's Randy who undermines the environment, not the editor who reacts. Hans Adler 20:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well two wrongs don't make a right, but fair enough, we should discuss it on talk. For now I've reverted the original change by Cuasa sui. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a courtesy note. I mentioned you here --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you want to participate, but you should be aware of this - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_talk:Ludwigs2_on_Talk:Muhammad.2Fimages --Ludwigs2 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Told you so…" [25]. I love it; mind if I steal that sometime? good post as well, but the header's a winner. --Ludwigs2 16:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All my contributions to Wikipedia are available under an open content licence. Not sure which one it is this week, but I am sure you can find out if it ever becomes relevant. Hans Adler 18:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Possible_improvement_to_NOTCENSORED (and also another time further down on that page). Just a courtesy note; I am referring to an example you brought up a while ago in a related discussion that struck a chord with me. Cheers. --JN466 08:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In case you're interested, I've just disagreed with you about who and whom.—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My bad I must have looked at the wrong line in the history. I apologize for that. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Hans Adler 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pregnancy#RfC: Which photo should we use in the lead?. You participated in the previous RFC on the lead image, Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You refused last year, but I'm going to try again this year. You should go for it. Volunteer Marek  22:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry. While it would no doubt be instructive to run and see how people react, did you see the announcement when the Arbcom recently removed Iridescent for extreme inactivity? It's quite likely that would happen in my case as well. It's a full-time job, and while I am wasting too much time on Wikipedia, it's not that much, I can do it at my own pace, and I only do what interests me at the moment. In fact, for similar reasons I don't even want to become an admin, and last year several functionaries have made it quite clear on the occasion of Giano's candidacy that they consider that an essential condition. But thanks for your trust anyway. Hans Adler 22:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I think you've made the right decision, the role does seem to be too much of a time sink. But it would have been nice to see someone attempting to break the administrators' stranglehold on ArbCom nevertheless.

Fatuorum 22:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Hans. I replied to your comment on Wilhelm Busch. I certainly didn't mean any offense, so I'm sorry if you picked up any combative tone in my reply. As I explained there, my comments regarding the article were not directed at you. I also had not read your user page, so I was not aware you were a native speaker of German. I'm not sure how that ties into your comment, but again, no offense intended. I do appreciate the information you've been able to provide given your skillset, which is why I was willing to change my vote. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, would you pls. help me with this sentence taken from BEKANNTE MITGLIEDER DER CVJM/YMCA BEWEGUNG INTERNATIONAL? "1929/30 bis 1962 Jugendpfarrer in dem von seinem Vorgänger, Pfarrer Wilhelm Weigle, 1912 eingerichteten Weigle-Haus (CVJM) in Essen." Everything is quite clear to me except "1912 eingerichteten Weigle-Haus", does it mean his predecessor furnished some House for usage by YMCA in 1912 that then was named after him or what's the possible meaning of Weigle-Haus? Pls.advise. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If taken absolutely literally, it would mean that in 1912, his predecessor (in what office?) installed, instituted, established or indeed furnished the house, which was from the start called the "Weigle-Haus". The only reasonable reading that I can see is this: The person referred to as his predecessor was his predecessor in the office of youth pastor in Essen. (The only way this could be wrong is if the sentence was lifted from a longer text without the necessary adaptation to its new context.) The predecessor had established a house for youth work (which may have been built for the purpose or may have been bought; and it's also not clear whether his predecessor was the first youth pastor in Essen or not and whether the youth work had previously been done elsewhere or not at all) which later became known as the "Weigle-Haus", for obvious reasons.

Your link doesn't work for me, but a Google search on the site did. Here is a literal translation of the sentence: "1929/30 to 1962 youth pastor in CVJM's Weigle Haus in Essen, which had been established by his predecessor, pastor Wilhelm Weigle."

I was previously under the impression that he was president of the CVJM, but it seems I read the German Wikipedia article too hastily, which was actually referring to Gustav Heinemann. Hans Adler 08:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to consensus reached, somebody renamed Wilhelm Busch priest to clergymen instead of pastor, my you pls. comment on article discussion page? Thanks.--Stephfo (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You ultimately caused that with your copy-and-paste move. Once there has been something under a name, non-admins cannot move any article to that name any more. There is no need to discuss this further. Just wait until the AfD is officially closed, then we can ask an admin to move the article again. Hans Adler 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you misconstrued what I wrote on AN/I? I hope you take it to heart when I say (as I just did there) that I WILL NOT support a block (or other sanctions) of Ludwigs2 at this time. I've never been opposed to him having a different opinion - perhaps others were, but that was never my point of contention. It's tough to get an understanding on someone's motives and meanings online via text, so all I can say is I sincerely hope you gain a better understanding of mine through this ongoing saga - and I hope the fact that I will vehemently oppose sanctions (if this thing fully re-opens) is something that will help you gain that understanding. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I decided to make it "official" (my !revote)[26] - perhaps that and Nil Einne's comments will help end things. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am sure that I did not misconstrue anything. His conduct was perfectly normal given the way in which your camp regularly abuses a policy to prevent necessary discussions that are otherwise likely to end in a strong consensus that you don't like. It was also better than yours. His conduct was also better than yours. Therefore it was completely inappropriate for you to defend the reopening of the thread with the words you used. Hans Adler 08:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I guess you did misconstrue something. I wasn't defending reopening the thread. I've even suggested it be closed. I was pointing out that Mathsci's second reason wasn't addressed - nothing more or less. My apologies you misconstrued that, as that is likely my fault due to not making that clear until later. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter how many hairs you split, and how finely, to rationalise your behaviour. Hans Adler 15:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or

Frivolous warnings to win a POV dispute are not acceptable. Hans Adler 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to this living person is an opinionated manner - You have done it at the BLP noticeboard as well - I suggest you retract your comments and cease the behavior. Other edits have objected also.

Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans: The BLP warnings are a little excessive, I think. But at the same time the DISAMBIG people usually remove entries that don't actually link anywhere, even if the entries are well known, under the byzantine style guide for disambiguation pages. — Carl (

CBM · talk) 20:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look into that. I believe there was a redirect that was also removed for bogus BLP reasons. The spike in views of the John Pike disambiguation [27] is hardly an accident, so removing this entry just doesn't make sense. Hans Adler 20:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what you mean is the following from

Flag terminology.)" Given that John Pike is mentioned in the article and even appears with a photo, the link is clearly legitimate. Hans Adler 21:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of "An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation.", but I see that perhaps the section on "Items appearing in other articles" would apply (

MOS:DABMENTION

) if he is actually mentioned by name in the OWS article.

FWIW I am not planning to get involved in any of the discussions but my thoughts are that the way BLP policies are normally interpreted, especially

CBM · talk) 21:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E prevents an article on the person, I agree. I don't think it prevents the naming of criminals before they are prosecuted, or in fact even if they are acquitted. The article on the demonstration doesn't just name him, it also has a photo of John Pike pepperspraying the students. It is of course iconic for the demonstrations, but Off2riorob is moving it down from the lead, claiming it has nothing to do with the demonstrations/movement themselves. I don't think that's at all tenable, and he seems to realise this, as he also addedn an obviously nonsensical argument about image size. Hans Adler 21:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy

I'm stunned. That article has been a cess pool for too long and with an attempt to provide a cooling off period and remove all images so no one "wins" anything., so it become even, its gaming? I did what I did in good faith to try and clean up a mess.Your reasoning escapes me.(olive (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ... I misunderstood where your comment was directed.(olive (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC))

Yeah, I was puzzled even after searching around in the page history. Of course the "gaming" referred to Hipocrite's pledge to "shun anyone" who dares to do something about the status quo. Hans Adler 22:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

it's such an odd thought too; there are days I would pay money to be shunned by people like hypocrite. It would make my like so much nicer… --Ludwigs2 23:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. For now I have watchlisted this project to see how it goes. Hans Adler 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Another sock

Greenfernglade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another sock/meatpuppet commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashay Dharwadker. It seems likely to me that this actually is Mr. Dharwadker, given that his only other contributions to the project were way back in 2009, where he removed some links to Steven Cullinane's homepage. (Cullinane is the guy that originally commented on Dharwadker's alleged "proof" of the four-color theorem (see [28]), and was subsequently the target of a smear campaign by Dharwadker and his socks on usenet [29].) It seems like there is no way that this could possibly pass the duck test, but I don't know how such things are handled nor if it is worth doing so in this case. What do you think? Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I got the orange bar for this post while finishing the new SPI. I filed it under WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Канеюку, because that's where I had erroneously put the SPI for the previous account, White Gay Man. (Apparently that was also from India, not Estonia.) Hans Adler 14:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Accusing living people of torture

You are continuing on with your attacking accusatory comments , please take this as a last warning - if you continue I will be forced to report you to the noticeboard - I suggest, as others have requested that you cease the torture allegations and strike the multiple ones you have made already.

Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I notice another user has removed them from the BLPn - I sincerely hope you won't replace them and that you remove them from the article talkpage before someone else has to.

Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous. I am currently watching the videos posted by an IP to the talk page with claims that they somehow justify the behaviour. So far it appears that that was a hoax. I will respond to you when I am finished with them. Hans Adler 23:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just stop it with your posting torture allegations against this person.

Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Going to bed now. Just stop defending the honour of an obvious criminal. Hans Adler 01:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You will stop, or you will be blocked. That is all. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, although our articles cannot say "torture" until that is the consensus of many reliable sources, there is no reason for editors commenting on talk pages from limiting themselves in that way. Although reasonable people can disagree, it is not in any way unreasonable for some to describe Pike's actions as torture. Whether that would help convince anyone else about anything is more questionable. — Carl (

CBM · talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For comparison, we do not require editors to say "allegedly" when they say on a talk page that

CBM · talk) 03:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

CBM - read this: [30] Rklawton (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." The material wasn't unsourced or poorly sourced. It was all over television everywhere and can be watched at leisure on YouTube from many angles, even if you just use the videos uploaded by official news sources and ignore the private uploads. It was clearly related to a content choice. And, frankly, the mere fact that a number of editors here appear to consider the question contentious was absolutely shocking to me. Although of course as a German, familiar with the concept of

banality of evil, it should not have been. Hans Adler 08:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to Hans' assertions that a crime was committed, there are no sources that indicate the officers committed a crime, and we won't see any unless and until they are convicted. Thus we simply can't say they have committed a crime - not in main space, not on talk pages, not anywhere on Wikipedia. This isn't about indifference, this is about protecting people's legal rights to due process. As a result, it should be no surprise that many editors here take this position, and that violating these rights is an offense that will result in blocking. Given your history here, simple words of warning, advice, and a pointer to policy should suffice. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course we can't say in article space that a crime was committed. Did anyone claim otherwise? And of course it's fair comment to say in talk and project spaces that a crime was committed, and perfectly appropriate to do so when related to editorial decisions about placement, prominence etc. Hans Adler 19:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not ok, and if you do it, you will be blocked. Please read policy here: [31] Rklawton (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read texts in context. Can you? The key words are: "that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices". These words make it clear that the (absurd) interpretation of "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages", according to which the rules of BLP are the same on talk pages as in articles, is not the intended one. Hans Adler 19:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think blocking me is a good idea given that it's pretty clear on ANI how divided the community is on this matter. There is an on-going discussion, and it does not look at all as I am about to lose it. I don't think Arbcom will be particularly happy if they are bothered with yet another case of an admin knowingly making an untenable block. Hans Adler 19:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

When policy is clear and when there is a clear violation of policy, I will block you. Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you are not, after all, planning to block me. Hans Adler 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If I was planning to block you, you would be blocked. I am, however, prepared to block you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Your second sentence is ungrammatical. It is not clear from it whether, as you seemed to imply in your previous post, you intend to only block me in case I clearly violate BLP (which has not happened and will not happen), or whether you are going to block me based on your faulty interpretation of it. Hans Adler 19:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Revised: I am, however, prepared to block you if you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of warnings: I was not previously familiar with you and so had a quick look at your editing history. A sudden but persistent drop in your activity on first glance suggested to me the creation of a (presumably legitimate) sock account and led me to your talk page of the time. Now I cannot help noticing a common theme connecting your impertinence in this case and your only passive block experience so far: Overreactions in the attempt to protect the honour of uniformed Americans. Maybe you can somehow manage to reign in your personal feelings. Hans Adler 17:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, after some further research: The above was in no way meant as a threat, but you are welcome to interpret it as such in case it helps you to focus your attention in a way that reason cannot. [32] Hans Adler 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You can be blocked for incivility, too. Rklawton (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Unlike you? Hans Adler 18:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can be blocked for incivility. But you'll have a hard time making a case against an admin doing his best to explain policy and warn against inappropriate behavior. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rklawton, you appear to by trying to redefine or dispute policy. You object to the terms "criminal" and "torture" on the grounds that in some societies such actions are apparently legal. From a report today I note the term "brutality". That seems both reasonable and incontestable. Less threats and more collegiate agreement will improve the editing environment, and I hope we can agree on this as a way forward. I look forward to getting your full support the next time I notice accusations of criminality before a trial has concluded, and redact the offending terms. Thanks, dave souza, talk 20:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how I'm redefining what is spelled out in simple English on the BLP policy page. We can not label people or their actions as criminal without qualification unless they have been convicted. We can certainly refer to other people's (or media's) accusations, but we can not make the accusation or apply the label ourselves. Hans has done this, and I have taken great pains to explain the problem to him and the consequences for failing to follow policy. Rklawton (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that these discussions are sourced and are related to improving articles, they comply with BLP. Interestingly, the grammar of

banality of evil would arise, but that does not override the normal requirement for good quality sources. There are clearly strong opinions about this, which should be considered in careful accordance with policies. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not seen the current skirmish (just the drama at ANI), but I can imagine the progression that has led to this situation. The first thing I noticed was the attempt by others to argue that something associated with ghosts was a pseudoscience. Then there were attempts by others to use NOTCENSORED and other dubious logic to justify possibly undue images. Now we have what looks like a pretty clear cut case of an out-of-control cop, and attempts to stifle associated discussion—discussion that would be standard in many other locations. Nevertheless, no page at Wikipedia should be used to call a particular individual a criminal unless certain legal processes have been completed (and even then, editors do not have a right to use Wikipedia to vent about anything). Our opinions on what someone did are not relevant, and to express them is violating NOTFORUM—and that's before any consideration of BLP, and the beauty of BLP is that it protects morons as well as saints because Wikipedia should not be used for any noble cause (other than writing an encyclopedia). Hans and Carl each have excellent reputations that are well deserved—however this case shows that no one is correct all the time. No doubt the merits of the situation will be debated for some time to come, but the simple statements made by Rklawton above are an accurate representation of how this sort of incident is handled. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans's initial comments were possibly of some use in article development (deciding how to interpret sources etc.) but after a few repetitions they became not-very-helpful and perhaps pointy editorialization/

FORUM-like discussion. O2RR's posts here though were ridiculously hostile and seemed to indicate battleground editing on his part. Not having kept a scorecard during the ghost thing, I wasn't aware of a previous dispute between O2RR and Hans; if there was one, I guess it explains things somewhat. I'm glad Hans is getting some sleep, since waking up refreshed is a good way to regain perspective in this type of conflict. 67.117.144.140 (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. I certainly mentioned certain verifiable facts more often than I would have done without Off2riorob's behaviour. You can safely put that down to reactance. Regarding my previous interactions with Off2riorob, they have usually been constructive and we have often agreed, as in this case. I do not have any recollection of an involvement of Off2riorob in the ghosts thing, generally do not hold grudges and was not aware that Off2riorob does so. (Which is why I am not actually taking this seriously.) I think that's a red herring. Hans Adler 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, please cool it with the word "criminal" since it's causing more drama than it's accomplishing anything useful, even if you're right. FWIW, I see that some (not all) news outlets are reporting Pike as having "allegedly" pepper-sprayed those people (even though his role in the actual spraying is not under any dispute at all), so that's the type of environment we're operating in. FWIW, the Yolo County district attorney has a "not criminal" investigation open that "may" result in criminal charges, whatever that means. [33] 67.117.144.140 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to jump through the "allegedly pepper-sprayed" rabbit hole of American media's pseudo-neutrality just because I am debating with Americans on an American topic. These editors will have to get used to discussing with people who have a functioning moral compass and live in countries where free speech has narrow legal bounds but conversely is burdened with few implicit taboos that protect the power structure. As you may have noticed, I have significantly reduced the frequency of my use of the words criminal and torture. That's about as far as I can go without defeating the purpose of the discussion. Hans Adler 01:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the constable concerned clearly and very casually inflicted pain on helpless individuals who were kneeling passively in front of him. That certainly looks like torture, perhaps those defending this officer's reputation could propose their preferred terminology, taking care to avoid weasel wording? I'm inclined to accept that editors should not use the term "criminal" for someone who has not been convicted, and will be bolder about redacting such comments in future. While "climategate 2.0" appears to have flopped, no doubt someone will fling such accusations about sooner or later. . dave souza, talk 04:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think zero tolerance for such comments in any area is a good idea, except perhaps as a somewhat pointy tool to expedite the swinging of the pendula in the opposite direction. I am not saying it's not legitimate to think that way. I have the impression that the current talk space BLP extremists are applying a double standard (in the same way that the NOTCENSORED are applying a double standard and are happily censoring whatever they personally don't like), so this could theoretically go on forever with a sizable group just asymmetrically censoring what they don't like and the others getting more and more angry but unable to get a sufficiently strong consensus to fix the problem. Hans Adler 09:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

When I say "should not use the term" that's an ideal rather than an absolute, as discussed at ANI there's always been some leeway in talk page discussions and deleting the comments of other editors tends to cause disruption. However, it was very striking during the initial CRU email arguments that slurs were being cast by accusing eminent scientists of being criminals. My recollection is that the BLP implications were raised with the editors, though in a less heavy-handed way. So, in summary, zero tolerance is a bad idea, but it's worthwhile trying to get editors to avoid such slurs where accusations are unproven. There is still the opportunity to discuss sources making the accusations.. . dave souza, talk 12:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to turn this drama into something constructive

Rklawton has not been editing much since he chose to got involved in the dispute with me [34], so it's easy to list all his relevant edits so far:

• "I feel it's important that we refrain from characterizing any living person's behavior as criminal or as a crime. It's fine to state facts regarding the criminal justice process such as "suspected", "suspended", "indicted", "charged", "on trial", "convicted", "found guilty", etc. But it's not OK to call someone a rapist, torturer, or child molester, etc, who hasn't been convicted. This applies to any page in Wikipedia. While we tend to think of our articles as our "public face" - the reality is everything we write anywhere on Wikipedia is every bit as public as our articles, as a result BLP (or liable) applies in every wiki-space. Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- Personal opinion, and marked as such. Clear failure to understand the difference between article space (Wikipedia says with its authority that things are so) and an internet discussion. Failure to understand that a conviction is an unreasonable standard for an international project, due to huge variety of jurisdictions.

• "You will stop, or you will be blocked. That is all. Rklawton (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- No comment.

• "CBM - read this: [35] Rklawton (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- Points to the part of policy that shows he is wrong. To wit: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages [...] Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." (my italics) I immediately pointed this out to him, but he ignored the fact.

• "Contrary to Hans' assertions that a crime was committed, there are no sources that indicate the officers committed a crime, and we won't see any unless and until they are convicted. Thus we simply can't say they have committed a crime - not in main space, not on talk pages, not anywhere on Wikipedia. This isn't about indifference, this is about protecting people's legal rights to due process. As a result, it should be no surprise that many editors here take this position, and that violating these rights is an offense that will result in blocking. Given your history here, simple words of warning, advice, and a pointer to policy should suffice. Rklawton (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- This is of course ludicrous in several respects. (1) The sources indicating that John Pike committed a crime have been broadcast on television all over the world and are readily available on YouTube for inspection. (Lundgren vs. Humboldt County established that police applying pepper spray to the eyes of protesters with Q-tips is torture and awarded nominal damages to the victims. So far there has been no similar case on behaviour exactly like that of John Pike's, simply because there have been no other similarly clear cases before. That does not make it any less obvious that this was a crime, although of course the laws in California may be so fucked up that it is technically legal and the power structures may be such that prosecution is not desired.) (2) I never talked about more than one officer. Only John Pike can be seen in the video committing the crime in question. The others did not prevent him. I am in no position to judge whether that was criminal and did not try. (3) I never claimed that we can say in main space that John Pike committed a crime, and he has not given any reason other than his opinion why I can't say it in talk space. (4) Discussions in an internet forum have nothing to do with due process unless they disseminate secret information. What John Pike did can hardly be called secret at this point.

• "It is not ok, and if you do it, you will be blocked. Please read policy here: [36] Rklawton (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- See comment above about his posting of the same link.

• "Hans has been duly warned several times. I've posted the link to policy on his talk page twice. Hans' reply to this directly contradicted policy stating it was OK to state people committed crimes on talk pages as part of the editorial process even though policy says it isn't. There's nothing more we can do at this point. If Hans violates BLP again, I will immediately block him from editing. Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

  -- Claims without evidence that my interpretation of policy is incorrect.

• "When policy is clear and when there is a clear violation of policy, I will block you. Rklawton (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "If I was planning to block you, you would be blocked. I am, however, prepared to block you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "Revised: I am, however, prepared to block you if you violate BLP after having been duly warned. Rklawton (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "You can be blocked for incivility, too. Rklawton (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"
• "Anyone can be blocked for incivility. But you'll have a hard time making a case against an admin doing his best to explain policy and warn against inappropriate behavior. Rklawton (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)"

I doubt that Rklawton is open to any form of voluntary recall, and he has made it abundantly clear that the following are his idea of "an admin doing his best to explain policy and warn against inappropriate behavior":

• coming up with an eccentric interpretation of policy that is not concordant with our common practice, is far removed from both its purpose and its clear wording, and is bound to cause massive disruption if implemented;
• based on that faulty interpretation, attacking another user and threatening blocks while a discussion on that interpretation is underway at ANI;
• authoritarian posturing in lieu of any serious attempts at defending his interpretation.

This behaviour is the Wikipedia equivalent to the people who can sometimes be seen harassing travelers at airport security because they are totally unqualified for their jobs and are struggling to follow rules they don't understand to the letter, under constant supervision of superiors who have the same problem. Seen from a different angle, it is an example of the

Peter Principle

.

I think the best way forward would be Rklawton blocking me for calling him an incompetent legacy admin, so that we can go to Arbcom together for a quick bitectomy. But of course I cannot force him to cooperate. Any other constructive ideas from talk page watchers? Hans Adler 21:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Or we ("we" being a fellow admin) simply block you for incivility. Rklawton (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

We note your appeal to civil POV pushing, as Hans points out discussions based on sources and related to improving articles comply with

WP:BLPTALK. Your heavy handed approach is disruptive, please be more collegiate and try to work towards article improvement rather than raising an unnecessary dispute. . dave souza, talk 21:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP does not support this [37] or this [38] or this [39] and a warning by me, an uninvolved administrator, was fully appropriate pretty much exactly how we do things here. Hans' responses, however, have ranged from unhelpful to uncivil. Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You got the chronology wrong. You came here to support Off2riorob. Then CBM, another admin, told you that you were wrong. Then you pointed to

WP:IDHT mode and continued the threats. And then I got increasingly irritated. If you have now lost your face it's entirely your own fault. Don't behave like a fool and you won't look like one. Hans Adler 22:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your chronology is more detailed, but it doesn't make my chronology wrong. Your edits linked above violated BLP. I pointed out the relevant section, and though you claimed they meant the opposite, you're clearly mistaken, and I warned you again accordingly. While I haven't checked all your subsequent edits, my warnings appear have had the desired effect and you seem to be taking appropriate care not to repeat your mistake. As for the incivility issue, since I'm the victim, the best I can do is promise to report you should it continue. Rklawton (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you say one more time without credible evidence that any of my edits violated BLP, then I will open a new ANI report. You have had ample warning by now. Stop your personal attacks. From

WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." What is not said there because it is understood is that you must in good faith believe that the diffs support the accusations. At this point this is impossible unless you are completely incompetent. Incompetence is not a valid excuse, and especially not for an admin. Hans Adler 22:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have provided links to your edits and a link to the relevant BLP section - Res ipsa loquitur. Take it to ANI if you think you've got a case. Just keep in mind that many of your edits contain personal attacks against me, and they'll be available for review as well. Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See, that's what I mean by IDHT. Nobody denies that you provided links, and nobody denies that you pointed to the relevant BLP section. But the relevant BLP section does not imply that anything about the links is wrong. In fact, it says the opposite. You keep repeating what everybody agrees on and do not address the core of the matter, no matter how often I try to get you on topic.

You started with the personal attacks and never stopped (except in this last post, which you have formulated so as to avoid an explicit repetition), so it's no wonder I got irritated. If you point me to any comments I made about you that are not fair criticism, or that are fair criticism phrased inappropriately, then I will of course redact them. Hans Adler 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The core of the matter is that you are not permitted to say on a talk page that "this person is a criminal" unless they have been convicted. You can discuss the views of various sources and authorities on the matter - that's not a problem, but you can not decide for yourself (by watching YouTube videos) and then use Wikipedia's talk pages to announce your opinion that someone is a criminal. Wikipedia is not a forum, and we respect individual's rights to due process. As far as incivility goes, I'm not interested in redaction - simply discontinue it. Rklawton (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You just keep repeating yourself. "Look, this is not an argument. It's just contradiction." [40] The fact that John Pike is a criminal is obvious to every normal member of a modern society, just from watching the videos. (I am saying "normal" here to exclude certain unusual circumstances such as someone having undergone a dehumanisation process during military service in a foreign country, or psychological deformations due to being beaten by a parent. The former may actually well account for John Pike's odd behaviour, which he clearly thought he could get away with.) Asking for anything beyond that is completely ridiculous and not grounded in policy. You are not even making an earnest effort to make a policy-based argument that it is. "This is futile. I came here for a good argument. An argument is not the same as contradiction. [...] Arguing is an intellectual process, contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of everything the other person says." And once more, what people say in discussions has nothing whatsoever to do with due process. Hans Adler 23:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

...and yet most editors on ANI have opposed your edits in this matter. When faced with such a consensus, your really should reevaluate your position. Also note that I've started a new thread regarding your lack of civility. Rklawton (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Voting is evil, and consensus isn't a simple head count of the few editors contributing to a discussion. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

A nuance here: while the action of applying torture to sitting peaceful protestors may be viewed as criminal in a broad sense by international opinion or even by international legal standards, that action may be legal under certain jurisdictions. Indeed, where I live people have been tortured for refusing to comply with the state religion. If John Pike has been trained and authorised to do what he did, which cited sources describe as torture, blame for this rests with those who gave that instruction. In that case his action would only be criminal in terms of internationally agreed obligations, which are unlikely to reach court. So, I'll agree it's premature to call him a criminal. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that voting is evil. The reason I raised the point was Hans' insinuation while back that there was somehow not a consensus. I also wanted to point out the experience level of those opposing his edits v. the one editor who supported it also serve as a strong indication that Hans needs to change his approach. Rklawton (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Put a banner on your talk page making a Wiki-politically incorrect statement, similar to what I did. I made a statement for which I was blocked for a short time, Sandstein overturned the block. I decided to put that statement prominently on my talk page to ensure that this won't happen again. You could try to find a better example than John Pike, maybe someone involved in the Kent State shootings would be better. Count Iblis (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I am looking for ways to solve the Rklawton problem. I have found in my quick research that this is not the first time that he has misbehaved on an epic scale. He is approaching the editing of an encyclopedia as if it were some kind of military organisation, and he quite clearly believes that he can give commands to others based on his eccentric interpretation of policy. This might even be something we can live with, if he had reached stage 3 of the four stages of competence regarding policy interpretation. But he is quite obiously stuck at stage 1. Hans Adler 22:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I closed the AN/I thread; I mean, nothing much productive seemed to be going on there - except for circular argument... perhaps everyone could disengage and find something else to do for a bit... Hans; on the specifics of the BLP issue, when I read your comments my first feeling was that you were overstepping the bounds of what could be construed as reasonable comment - taking every opportunity to attack the actions of the individual rather than dispassionately discussing that topic. (I'm not threatening to block you for it, or anything silly, just offering you a viewpoint from the perspective of someone who views the actual act in much the same way) With that said - the others in the conversation did much the same thing, arguing the semantics of the act based on their own views. Unfortunately your "side" was the one with the contentious terminology... I think the takeaway for everyone involved should be; step away from those personal grievances/views and the BLP issue goes away :) As I read it, very little of the BLP/N discussion thread seemed to be about "what to do with the material" as much as about arguing with each other. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain who "the last person to go on such a crusade was indeffed, for example" refers to in your closing comment? If I have judged the community's position on such matters fundamentally wrong, then I need to know it. And if the comparison is unfair I will ask you to remove it. But it's impossible to say when a statement is so vague. Hans Adler 00:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was just to highlight the example; Mindbunny was the person I had in mind. They were otherwise disruptive (which is largely why the block has stuck) but the block originated from them trying to press the issue that they could comment widely about living people when discussing the article. The community view at that time was that there was a certain point at which you go from simply discussing sourced material to throwing around one's own opinion. I'd suggest you probably crossed that line at some point in the BLP/N thread. I tweaked my close notice just to clarify that I meant MB went on a crusade to prove they could do such things, not that you were similar to them (sorry, late night :)) --Errant ^(chat!) 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(I'm going to bed; if there is still an issue [hopefully I cleared the late-at-night-can't-type wording up] then I'll be happy to fix it later :)) --Errant ^(chat!) 01:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just like clockwork! . . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unwanted decorations

See notice at top of my page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Special Barnstar This is just because, reading your comments here and elsewhere, I realize that you are just a very special person, and Wikipedia is very fortunate to have you here. 74.178.230.234 (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Image use

Hi Hans. I'm trying to get a feel for what is the problem with our curation of controversial images. Would you mind giving me a very brief summary of what you think is the problem here? We can discuss solutions later, if you want. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the french throne

Is there anyway that you would stop deleting the article?????

talk) 21:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Hans Adler 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

WP: No Personal Attacks

Under

talk) 14:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

fundementalism

This is excellent. A similar analysis should be done for some of the other policies/guidelines. WP:CANVASS is worth looking into, though you have start at WP:SPAM since that's all that that guideline originally was - a prohibition against UNWANTED mass notifications, rather than informing others of discussions of interest. Volunteer Marek  16:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

re Horasis wiki

I have just managed to get/find to your site and now wish to search for a solution to this odd mess - if mess is what one might call it.

Basically I am the author of the ‘Horasis’ Wiki… Global [Arab, China, India, Russia] Business Meetings and the Horasis [at Home] meeting. I am guided by the CEO as he lacks time to make these edits. Both I and the CEO of Horasis have wondered who Dewritech was but I did not investigate deeply as his/her changes to these Wiki were benevolent. However a more serious conflict has arisen – Deletion, as well as Sockpuppetry.

I have pleaded against deletion elsewhere (UKexpat); and the Sock xxx I am guilty of. Sorry.

But what now can I do to rescue these entries that are not under any paid regime, but merely reflect on-going meetings that ought to have been seen as factual reporting, not advertising? Johnbkidd (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on people and organisations are not normally supposed to be written by those who are related to them in real life. They almost always lack the required neutrality and wider perspective. (See

notable

, i.e. do not deserve an article. As you have seen, editing alternatingly under several accounts is also not a good idea. We consider this the wiki equivalent of faking a signature, or of severe plagiarism in academia: Both are relatively easy to do and one may get away with them for quite some time, but they undermine the very foundations on which a society is built.

It seems entirely possible that the articles you created really should not exist, simply because independent third-party sources have had nothing, or nothing interesting, to say about the topics. It is also quite possible that they are borderline cases. In that case, they have a chance, but only if you tread very carefully after having seriously broken some of our norms. It's not supposed to make a difference for the notability of any article, but you can imagine that in any discussion that must come to a consensus it does make a difference what the participants think of you. Don't expect immediate results and be open to compromise. Before you try something that you think might cause a backlash, ask someone clueful if it's a good idea. Hans Adler 19:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I deleted those articles, and the user left me a note on my talk page as well. I had earlier left a note on User talk:Alexandria, but Alexandria hasn't responded yet. A cursory glance suggests that an SPI is proper, if only to get some objective evidence, but I will leave that to the three of you, since you apparently have prior experience with this account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For the SPI, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dundswk. Checkuser has already been endorsed. Hans Adler 20:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Integrating portals and Wikiprojects

Please see the retitled section Integrate portals with WikiProjects at your convenience. Tabs between portals and Wikiprojects is functional, useful and is an improvement to the Wikipedia project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. I tend to make up my mind independently and usually don't change it unless someone finds the right words to convince me. That's why I sometimes swim against a huge stream. And sometimes the stream is right and I am wrong. I am looking forward to learning that this is one such case. Hans Adler 22:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ADB

I saw your comment at the Germany wikiproject. It made me wonder whether you'd looked at letter A, which is more complete than the rest of the alphabet for well-known reasons! Just searching quickly on deWS, I saw for example that Karl Heinrich Gräffe of Graeffe's method is in the ADB but not here. In any case my current reasons for being interested are mainly not mathematical. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"Coincidental" IP edits after Saturnian block

Hi! Can I run this by you before I consider doing anything about it? Just after Saturnian got his block, the article

Talk:Protochronism

, and note, beyond the cherry-picking and BLP issues, the IP's immediate labeling of me as a "fan" of "another side". Nothing of what he "cites" is about Protochronism, but his is merely a (quite serious) vendetta-like denigration attempt against the professional historians whose works were used in sourcing the article (mainly Boia and Verdery). One of the "sources" he uses is, interestingly enough, a blog post in which the author quarrels with Boia about... Cuza.

Is it just too coincidental, or am I getting paranoid? I'm taking the precaution of asking because the guy edits with his raw IP, and I don't really know how to elegantly approach possible sockpuppets that expose themselves in this way. Just because they expose their personal details, I don't actually want to publicize them any further. If you think there's grounds for an investigation, could you perhaps add to the existing sockpuppetry case? Dahn (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about getting paranoid. I think it's a pretty good case. The material was previously added to the article by 79.116.208.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 79.116.236.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on 30th July. The editing times and weekdays for all three accounts are consistent with, though not strongly suggestive of, Saturnian. (Given Saturnian's low edit count this doesn't tell us much, though.) As to dates: 30th July was a day on which Saturnian did not edit, but which falls between 28th July (when he started editing after a long absence) and 31st July - 9th August, his most active period so far. The IP appears to have roughly the same IQ as Saturnian, and in connection with the Cuza thing this pushes me to reporting it. I will do so publicly, as the IP range is from Bucarest and so really doesn't give much information on Saturnian even if connected to him. Hans Adler 00:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hans_Adler/Archive_6&oldid=1136182712"