User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Hilfe

Hallo Hans, I am stuck on a couple of words--please help me translate on Judith Beheading Holofernes... Drmies (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Funny sentence, and quoted from my former local newspaper... Hans Adler 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work--thank you! Yeah, that was a bit more than I could handle..."the epitome of depraved seduction"...I want her! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans, I could do with some more German advice. I don't buy this edit, for instance--it strikes me as a particularly North-American POV. Also, I created a terrible stub, for the hell of it: Ordnung Muss Sein. Your advice is, as always, appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Hindenburg edit looks wrong. When I hear the word, I see a specific face before me, and the airship was named after the owner of that face. North-American POV sounds about right. I think this should simply be reverted.

Ordnung muss sein is a fantastic idea for an article topic. This has even more potential than egg slicer! Hans Adler 18:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to link to Kehrwoche, but we don't have an article on that yet. Hans Adler 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:V

Could you please explain why you think "gaming the system" was going on? Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Because you cannot possibly have done what you did in good faith. Hans Adler 22:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you see any evidence of bad faith in the page I drafted? If so, could you point it out? If I'm acting in bad faith, then you need to show some evidence, otherwise it's just a personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in the page, because I have never examined the page beyond the list of people allowed to edit it. The evidence of bad faith is in the way in which you jumped on the opportunity to grab this position of honour despite your obvious lack of qualification. The page was obviously an attempt to create a fait accompli. Hans Adler 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You nominated the page for deletion and made personal, disparaging remarks about me without even reading the page? That sounds like the definition of prejudice. If I understand correctly, you are asserting that I jumped in, not with the intention of helping get things moving, but in pursuit of personal glory? Could you please point to the evidence of how you know what my motivation was? If you can't point to any evidence, then all it is is a personal attack based on prejudice. If isn't, then please, show us the evidence. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, you said that I committed "a BLP violation" in 2007. Could you please point to the violation? If you can't, then I'm going to have to ask you to withdraw that accusation. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. You see, the audacity of this comment is the best proof that you are not fit to take up any position requiring honour, anywhere, ever. You must know at least as well as I do (now) that I cannot point to the original of the violation because Jimbo has deleted the page, and that I cannot link to the offline copy of the page, which someone has put up on a hate site, because that would be a BLP violation itself. But I made an earlier comment based on my earlier, incomplete knowledge, and that made you believe you could corner me. That was a miscalculation. Hans Adler 23:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, so you can't back up the accusation of a BLP violation. So, could you at least back up your accusation that I was acting in pursuit of personal glory? If you can't, then would you admit that it was a personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I can back up the accusation of a BLP violation, only I can't put it on-wiki, and for part of it I will require the assistance of someone with advanced permissions or a very good memory. I was perfectly clear and there is no chance that you misunderstood me. If you think you will have any luck with some bizarre wikilawyering about accusations being personal attacks when the evidence has been oversighted, then I invite you to report me and expect a nasty surprise. Hans Adler 23:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring my request that you back up your knowledge of my motivation with evidence. Can you point to your evidence that my motivation for getting involved was vainglorious? If you can't, then why wouldn't it be accurate for me to characterize your statement as a personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I take it you are aware that you have just moved the goalpost. Let's continue this discussion when you are interested in proper communication. Hans Adler 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Why you don't you, then, just answer my original question? Here is what you said, "The evidence of bad faith is in the way in which you jumped on the opportunity to grab this position of honour despite your obvious lack of qualification. The page was obviously an attempt to create a fait accompli." Now, can you show evidence as to how you knew that this is what I was doing? How did you know that my motivation was to "grab this position of honor" and that I wanted to "create a fait accompli"? Please link to the evidence or otherwise explain why this is not a simple personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your (1) demonstrably dishonourable character, (2) lack of adminship, (3) previous participation in an RfC on precisely the same sentence, (4) active Arbcom sanctions for battlefield conduct, (5) relatively recent Arbcom finding of inappropriate use of sources, and (6) recent open agitation against Wikimedia UK, when taken together, left absolutely no doubt that you are completely and totally unfit for the job of determining consensus in a contentious RfC in such a way as to minimise disruption. Which of these points were you not aware of? Hans Adler 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to myself in case this comes up again later. It appears my opinion is not unique. [1] Hans Adler

Talk:Evolution

Just so you know, the Talk:Evolutionary biology is now a soft redirect to the Talk:Evolution page. If you have comments about the merger that you would like to share, please feel free to post them at Talk:Evolution. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I responded there and reverted the 'merge'. There is clearly no consensus for it. Temporary votestacking by creationists can't delete an academic subject. Hans Adler 01:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are trying to prove with your recent reversions. There was already a consensus and the issue appears to be resolved. If you want to start a discussion, please take it to Talk:Evolution.

Accusing me and/or others of "votestacking," "vandalism," or being "creationists" is outlandish. You have not basis for making those statements. I have reverted your reversions. I suggest you read WP:AGF before making such ridiculous and insulting comments again. danielkueh (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Evolutionary biology

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. danielkueh (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll on fate of Evolutionary Biology article

Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I still don't like you but....

You are honorable. Your comments in the ANI thread were spot on. Captain Occam and Jmclemens comments were off-the-chart uncivil, way beyond a scatological reference or ten. I never forget these things. Otherwise, hope all is well with you. While sitting in a hospital bed in the USA, made me wish I were European, our health care system borders on barbaric. Got to read a lot about WWII history, though I doubt I'll edit any of those articles. Of course, they have got to be easier.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad you are back and appear to be in a much better mood than before. When I first became aware of you I honestly thought you were stupid, but I later understood that it must have been stress or lack of time or something, as I have now seen your other side.

The articles about WWII aren't as easy as one would think, although the typical battle lines don't run where one might naively expect them, i.e. not between Germans/Austrians/Italians and the rest of the world, but mostly between the various East European nationalists and to a limited extent also Jews and Sinti and Roma. (In case you have missed the "Eastern European Mailing List" thing, I believe that was mostly a battle between Polish and Russian editors. The Poles lost, because the archive of the mailing list which they used for inappropriate offline coordination was leaked to Arbcom.) You may be interested in my article on Hans Schwerte. I promise you it's not boring at all, and it's just as typical for a generation as it is surprising. American post-war propaganda in Germany was extremely effective. I stumbled over similar things while working on Schieder commission, an (unfinished) article that I started improving after a group of Polish editors were somewhat unfairly accused of giving it an anti-German slant. Hans Adler 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Stupid? I saw the mailing list Arbcom thing. Honestly, I read only part of it, because it was kind of funny how many individuals were involved. I tried to edit some minor battle in Estonia, years ago, and it was so frustrating. Everyone had an opinion, and of course, RS were few and far between. I gave up. I actually removed it from my watch list.

I'm annoyed by Captain Occam right now. Accusing me of not understanding a source or something is one thing. I try not to get wound up by that now. But he called me a liar, and that sets off a matter of pride. I know that's bad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Cite WP policy preventing my posting an RFC at central dicussion thx

Much obliged ...talknic (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted you based on common sense and WP:BRD. However, I have now found WP:CD#Cautions: "Please don't add new policy ideas indiscriminately; trial balloons are better floated at Village pump (proposals)."

Your RfC is the worst prepared RfC that I have seen in a long time, and probably the worst I have seen linked from CD. The attention of editors is a valid resource. It's unfair to waste it on this. Hans Adler 03:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension was addressed on the RFC discussion. In fact, every point you raised was addressed in it. Say, can you show me where the other RFC notices on CD were discussed before being added to the list Thx ... talknic (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Your reading comprehension was addressed on the RFC discussion." – My reading comprehension has been trained for over a decade on highly technical (mathematical) texts, and I often read original legal documents from countries with a legal system completely different from my own – for fun. I am obviously not keeping a statistic, but I am sure that in the 4 years and 25,000 edits that I have been on this site, there have been less remarks on my reading than there were people blocked for severe personal attacks against me. Once that ratio gets reversed I may start to worry.

"In fact, every point you raised was addressed in it." – That is not the problem. The problem is that your RfC is not getting the usual input that a proper RfC gets, but is instead attracting meta-comments on your failure to put the question comprehensibly:

[rephrase] "Could you rephrase this without the aggression [...] " (Fifelfoo)

[incomprehensible] "I... honestly don't understand what's being asked here, either." (Shimgray)

[incomprehensible] "Me neither, it appears unclear and confused to me." (Kmhkmh)

[rephrase] "Based on the lengthy prior discussions, I'd summarize the question like this" (WhatamIdoing)

[rephrase] rephrases your lengthy question as short 'Question 1' and 'Question 2' (DonaldRichardSands)

[question] "Technical question" (Guy Macon)

[incomprehensible] "RfC is confusing - I cannot figure out exactly what the RfC is asking." (Noleander)

[answers] "No online sources are not required." (Gerardw)

[answers] "Re: Question 2, the answer is 'no'." (Maolmhuire)

[answers] "In regard to the two questions, no and no." (Nuujinn)

[incomprehensible] "Confusing and Adversarial." (The Gnome)

[claims to understand] "I understand the proposal, I think." (Smalljim)

[inappropriate] "Reject RfC as inappropriate." (Hans Adler)

• Of 13 editors who commented on your RfC, 4 said in their first sentence that it's incomprehensible, 3 said it needs rephrasing (one did so implicitly by rephrasing it but never commenting otherwise) and 1 said it's inappropriate. I.e. 62% of editors commenting so far commented primarily about the poor phrasing.
• Of the other 5 editors, 3 (23%) answered one or both of Nuujinn's questions instead of yours. Only 2 editors (15%) claimed to understand your proposal or asked a technical question related to it.

The breakdown of first responses is therefore as follows:

• 62% meta-comments on poor phrasing
• 23% responses to questions other than the RfC statement
• 15% actual RfC responses.

Your RfC is clearly and obviously a waste of editor attention.

"can you show me where the other RFC notices on CD were discussed before being added to the list" – I will instead answer the more general question for evidence that it is appropriate to remove inappropriate entries from {{Centralized discussion}}. For this, see WT:Centralized discussion#time to update listing standards?: "It seems like lately there are 10 or more things in {{Centralized discussion}} all the time. This may be actually lessening its effectiveness. Can there really be 10+ discussions that are important enough that the entire site needs to be notified of them going on all the time, or is it maybe time to tighten the standards for inclusion in the template a bit?" – "Sometimes it feels that Cent is being regarded as just another way of announcing every RfC, though on the whole people do select carefully which discussions are most important, and I have found over the years that I am removing fewer and fewer items. What may also be useful, is having more people willing to keep an eye on Cent and to remove inappropriate or questionable listings, especially when it gets bloated. My time on Wikipedia varies at the moment, and when I do log on my attention may be pulled in other directions so I don't always get around to maintaining the listings."

If you disagree with my decision to remove your RfC, nothing prevents you from opening a discussion at WT:Centralized discussion, following the protocol proposed in WP:BRD. I could do it for you, but I personally think that you have already wasted enough editor attention and should instead work on making your RfC clearer. But I must warn you that if you try to do this on your own, then in my opinion you are likely going to fail again. Hans Adler 10:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler - Cheeky .. You should be looking at the rationales behind the objections and registering them accordingly

[formatting/non existant WP policy] "Could you rephrase this without the aggression (such as ALL CAPS and atypical punctuation ... and ask other editors involved in the discussion above to edit the text of the proposed RFC, before opening an RFC. Doing this is the normal practice in RFCs where the aim is to solicit wider community interest in a topic and thus solidify a broad consensus." (Fifelfoo) 'Formatting' is not 'rephrasing', nor is it a valid objection to a notion and; there is no WP policy requiring editors to first discuss the wording of an RFC or get consensus in the relevant Talk page before posting an RFC

[burdensome]"Is this RFC saying that we should add deep-search links to Google Books, or include explicitly quoted text, for references made to books? Either one seems quite burdensome." (Shimgray) Laziness is a valid objection? The burden of proof is already on an editor under current WP policy.

[personal abuse] "Based on the lengthy prior discussions, I'd summarize the question like this" (WhatamIdoing)" An off topic, rant, peppered with false accusations is a valid objection? It was a reportable, personal, attack.

[question] "Question 1: Is it necessary to provide an online source for the citation to be verifiable? Question 2: Is the google quote mechanism a verifiable source for a citation?" (DonaldRichardSands) They're questions for clarification. Not rephrasing. The first being a general question on citing sources. Bizarrely, the answer given by Fifelfoo shows us Fifelfoo knows exactly what the RFC is about: "The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not instant or easy verification, see WP:Reliable sources/cost"

[question] "Technical question" (Guy Macon) Uh? Hardly unusual for an RFC to have a technical question. Not a criticism of the RFC at all

[Confusing/rephrase] "The two questions I can glean ask (1) if online sources are required, and the answer is No, of course not ... paper sources are just fine; and (2) is quoting from Google acceptable as a source, and the answer to that is Yes, provided that the underlying source is accurately represented and that the editor actually read the source in some format (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). But those are obvious, so I must be missing something. " (Noleander) What was missing was already in the RFC: " affording readers easy, immediate access to verification of existence where the edit fulfills the other editorial criteria, context, RS, NPOV etc, without the reader (or an editor checking content) having to source hard copy" Had Noleander carefully read the RFC...

[answers to DonaldRichardSands] "No online sources are not required." (Gerardw) Not a critique of the RFC

[answers to DonaldRichardSands] "Re: Question 2, the answer is 'no'." (Maolmhuire) Not a critique of the RFC

[answers to DonaldRichardSands] "In regard to the two questions, no and no." (Nuujinn) Not a critique of the RFC

[claims to understand] "I understand the proposal, I think." (Smalljim) Both Smalljim and Maolmhuire point to a weakness in Google source code. They don't register any complaint about the RFC being incomprehensible or asked that it be rephrased

[inappropriate] "Reject RfC as inappropriate." (Hans Adler)

Based on wonky categorization, your hard worked statistical analysis is not much more than cute

"Of 13 editors who commented on your RfC, 4 said in their first sentence that it's incomprehensible" One actually ... you!

"3 said it needs rephrasing" 1 of those rephrasings was actually 'formatting'.

"Only 2 editors (15%) claimed to understand " 2 'said' as much and; by the answer to DonaldRichardSands, Fifelfoo understood completely. Others asking questions might have understood, only needing clarification on points, which is common to RFCs

"I will instead answer the more general question for evidence that it is appropriate to remove inappropriate entries.. " Of course justify your revert, without answering the question. 'inappropriateness' pertains to the subject matter BTW. In what way is the subject matter inappropriate, when it is about a change in WP policy regarding the proof of existence? ... talknic (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. You have reached your goal of wasting my time with you. I am not going to make the same mistake again. Go and troll someone else. Hans Adler 15:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler - Attempting to fluff up statistics and refusing to answer a reasonable question, then calling me a troll, is bizarre ... talknic (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to add User:RobertMfromLI as a party go ahead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Its been requested by Mathsci that further parties are added - including Robert so I'm going to go and do that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Hans Adler 13:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The massive amount of DR (I thought there was at least one arb case, but I can't find it) over the related Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy edit war should be added to the prior DR section, imho. The talk page notices for that article are informative.66.127.55.52 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As I filed the request let me know on my talk page about what you've found and I'll try and take a look and add it if appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have much to add. The article I linked had approx the same battle as the Muhammad article, and has 30+ pages of talk archives, so this thing has been going on forever. I simply thought it was worth mentioning that in the arb request. 66.127.55.52 (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad to FA

I think that's a really good idea, but you have to sort out the image situation first - at least temporarily to meet the stability requirement. You can't argue that the current situation is stable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Like all good ideas this one is of course not original. I was thinking of Evolution, where this strategy seems to have been very successful. I think once we all stop discussing the images and start thinking about what else needs to be done before FAC, things will calm down anyway. Then we can ask a few FA experts what they think needs to be done about the pictures before the nomination. Hans Adler 10:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a brief look through the history of that article from the FAQ and you're right that there was a lot of controversy, however most of that controversy appeared to end in around December 2006, which was a good six months before Evolution became an FA in May 2007, giving six months of stability to start with - which is a starting point we don't currently have. That its an FA probably has helped going forward, but the stability was reached first (at least temporarily)

Secondly the other difference with evolution is that it isn't scientifically controversial, nor is it socially controversial among our editors from outside the United States. This means if you frame the discussion in a scientific fashion it becomes much more difficult to argue against and any attempt to twist the debate will be considered ridiculous by our non-US editors.

Alan makes a strong point here - which I'm not sure I agree with as I think that a religious figures illustration should largely follow that religion as they have the most interest in them. However it is a strong point, and the difference between our positions is merely shades of grey. On evolution it would be near impossible to construct a coherent argument on that article's bias without some kind of mass scientific conspiracy theory which is patently absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think if we simply start working on the topic of the article itself and get some kind of moratorium on the image question, this will sort itself. Preparing an article for FAC is a group experience that removes a lot of tensions. The resulting core group then has a strong socially stabilising effect. I have observed this in the case of homeopathy. The nomination failed, but the atmosphere was vastly improved anyway. There is a huge and excellent German scholarly book on the history of the Arabic world. I think that armed with that I can easily start serious improvements towards FA quality. Over Christmas I am meeting someone who has the book and almost certainly doesn't need it. I will try to borrow it. Hans Adler 13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But I think that to get the moratorium on the image question we need to take a case to the arbitration committee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

• The FAC idea has merit, Hans. I'd be on board. By the way, have you seen de:Diskussion:Mohammed? Your most recent post mentioning Jesus reminded me of it. The German article's text is quite well researched, and I've been meaning to do a comparison between ours and theirs, to discover differences and similarities, as well as get an overview of anything that might be missing in either of them. --JN466 18:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  I have seen that talk page – 20 months ago. See de:Diskussion:Mohammed/Archiv/2010#Illustration. The article's owner seems to be pretty hopeless. It appears that none of the severe problems with the article that I mentioned has been adressed, and I doubt rather strongly that he would let anyone do so. If you want to do anything there, I propose that you start with one of these things that are not related to images, as that will avoid conflicts along the usual lines, and he will be obviously wrong if he tries to completely prevent content related to Muhammad reception in Islam and 20th century Muhammad reception in the rest of the world. Hans Adler 18:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, just found that as you were writing. And you're spot-on. --JN466 18:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  This gives further information, and at least according to en standards, it's even a reliable source on Wikipedia (though not for BLP purposes). After reading de:Diskussion:Ignaz Goldziher, I am even more strongly reminded of Ottava Rima. Hans Adler 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link. --JN466 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Er, what?

I am not sure what your comment (the one referring to a finger grave dancer - whatever that actually is) was supposed to mean. Could you elaborate a bit? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you really misread what I wrote in this way. Just try again. Hans Adler 10:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid the comment was obscure enough to be lost on me - thus the impetus for me to ask. Enlighten me? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not write "finger grave dancer". If you compare the words letter by letter it should not be so hard to find your two mistakes. Hans Adler 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops - autocorrect changed 'fringer' to 'finger'. However, I am guessing you probably could have figured out the typo. Are you for some reason hesitant to explain yourself, Hans? If you need to lapse into German, I could probably follow, though I only had high school German language classes. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a perfectly grammatical, though slightly long, sentence about a grave dancing fringer. Admittedly, 'grave' was a bit of an exaggeration under the circumstances. By the way, have you heard of the Simple English Wikipedia? Hans Adler 17:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have little problems understanding English, Hans. I have a bit of difficulty in understanding cross-cultural sniping (though I picked up that last one just fine). Perhaps, instead of trying to be clever, you might want to use hand puppets or simply stick to the German form of humor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please help yourself to the last word: Hans Adler 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, that German humor again -borrowed as always from either the French or the Polish. Thanks for the oddest conversation I've had all day. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rewriting policies

Probably time for a complete rewrite of everything from scratch.

Support. I've been saying that for three years. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I see, from [2]. I wonder if you noticed how WP:ENC was overthrown recently. I don't have the stomach to go look for the actual diff, but welcome to Facebookpedia. 67.117.147.33 (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re "complete rewrite of everything from scratch" — Why wouldn't you get the same dysfunctional result? For policy pages, editors need guidance from good writers with real-life resumes. Policy pages are different from articles because editors of articles have the benefit of reliable sources, whereas editors of policy pages don't. Policy pages are one area of Wikipedia where the editors are doing original research. People invoke "not a democracy" when it comes to polls, but otherwise Wikipedia is somewhat of a democracy because of open editing and the consensus system. Overall, such a system works well. But for writing clear policies, as Borat would say, "not so much". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I am one such good writer, or at least I regularly get compliments for the way I present extremely difficult advanced mathematics so that it suddenly becomes clear to my colleagues. This requires refactoring a huge amount of information so that it becomes easy to process. I have a very good idea of how our policies and guidelines should be rewritten so that they are easier to use for finding out what is the right thing to do and harder to use as weapons against opponents. For most policies or guidelines there is at least one other policy or guideline with which it stands in opposition. Typically both have started very reasonably, but have been subject to creep until they started contradicting each other. In such a case the two opposite policies/guidelines must be merged. Also, each time someone misunderstands or misapplies a document, there is a chance that they will then add this misunderstanding to the document. Much of the resulting cruft makes sense and should not be nuked completely, but really belongs somewhere entirely else. And we need a hierarchical structure where you can start with something like the five pillars and then drill down until you find your case settled as nearly as possible.

Democracies aren't bad at writing clear policies. Crowds are bad at it. That's why in democracies we elect a parliament, and why that parliament (which is still too big of a crowd) has small committees for designing new laws. Maybe we do need a policy keeper committee which follows the community's directions on what to include in policy, but decides where to place it. Hans Adler 18:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bismarck (card game)

Yes it's a hoax. Vought109 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Can you direct me to an admin who will help with reliable sources for the Mediumship article? Tom Butler (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want an admin to do there: find additional sources or assess existing ones. Neither is a job for an admin. You are curently in a dispute about a quotation from Michael Shermer. It appears to be from Scientific American [3], although for convenience there is a link to the full text on Shermer's homepage.

I am pretty sure that Shermer's criticism is by no means an unusual opinion, and I expect that similar statements can be found in scholarly (philosophical) literature, although I wouldn't know how to search for them. The reference to a "ballroom-dance-instructor" in the last sentence seems to be an attack against a specific person notable in just one country. I think it makes the cited statement weaker, not stronger, and I think it's better to drop it even though BLP rules don't absolutely require it. Hans Adler 07:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not about the opinion. It is about using a reference that is making unsubstantiated claims. For instance, Shermer is making blanket statements in that article such as "As grief counselors know" without citation or any reference to show it is anything more than his opinion. In fact, I know a dozen or so grief counselors who know differently.

I think you are familiar with the recent argument in the Pseudoscience article in which QuackGuru was pushing to include a source which, in itself was reliable, but which did not support the point. For instance

Looking at references in other articles, I see that it is common to misapply references. That tends to degrade the credibility of Wikipedia. To me, this is the case here and I was hoping to have a second opinion.

Thanks for the input. Tom Butler (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

oops

Re: [4] I used the 13:47 timestamp as my marker when I restored it, and didn't notice the exact same timestamp had occurred on two different days.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I admit I was a bit irritated, but this makes sense. And thanks for dealing with this problem in the first place. Hans Adler 02:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence submission for "Muhammad images" case

Do you require more time for your evidence submission? The evidence phase was already extended from two to three weeks, to accommodate the busyness of our editors over the festive period and the transition in the Arbitration Committee from last year's to the new committee. However, if you indicate how much evidence you intend to submit and when you can make the submission, I think we can make provision for a late entry. Regards, AGK [•] 16:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. The evidence that I have collected so far is mostly on Tarc's roughly 300 contributions to the images debate. At the moment I just have a list of >300 diffs plus edit summaries. Many of the edit summaries give a good indication of the problem exhibited in the diff, but I doubt this is an acceptable format.

In addition I would have liked to present evidence that Ludwigs2 is being mobbed. But this is a very delicate matter, given that there are likely some arbitrators involved in the mobbing, or at least sympathetic with it. (I am of course not saying that he is completely innocent. Mobbing victims rarely are.) I doubt that I would be able to present this as convincingly as it would have to be done, even with an extension. Most likely we will need a separate case on this at some point.

Apparently I should also collect a little bit of evidence supporting my contention that Noformation reported Ludwigs2 to ANI with unclean hands.

I will try to stay within the deadline. I would prefer not to get an extension because I am busy in real life and it's a good thing if I don't waste even more time on this case. Maybe Tarc wants one once I have presented my evidence against him. It's bad form to present extensive evidence in the last minute, but for some reason nobody else seems to have seen this problem clearly. Much of the bad behaviour on the anti-image side must be seen in the context of desperate attempts to get the discussion on track against the seriously disruptive tactics used by Tarc and others. Hans Adler 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hans, while additional evidence is helpful, 3300 words is simply far too much. The limit is 500 words and 50 diffs. If you could work on reducing it, asking for an limit raising (perhaps 2x) if necessary, that would be useful. NW (Talk) 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Hans Adler. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Muhammad images Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 311 words and 68 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 03:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Hans Adler,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Content and talk edits

It's a well known fact that content-focused editors have more edits in talk space and less edits article space than average, whereas the typical vandalism fighters have most of their edits in article space and user talk space.

This is an interesting observation, as it is something I've thought about for a while. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is entirely true. We do have lots of content-focused editors who rarely use the talk page. I know, because I used to be one of them a long time ago. I also monitor the namespace distribution of edits from other users and I've found that there are a large number of users who focus on obscure or singular topics and rarely use the talk page. I don't mean to use anyone as an example, but one that sticks in my craw is User:History2007 whose talk page contributions have only increased in recent months.[5] He's an editor who focuses mostly on Christianity articles and until recently, rarely used the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree. I think what you are describing is just a special case of content-focused editor: The one who works on a sufficiently obscure topic to basically have a monopoly. I think I also started very much like that and it took me some time to get drawn into the social part of the site. That has two consequences: More disputes and more content production in user space in order to prevent distractions before the new content is finished.

I occasionally have episodes in which I fully concentrate on a single, relatively obscure article that nobody is sufficiently interested in to get in my way. But this can easily change, as in the case of Apothecaries' system of weights. In March 2008, when the article looked like this, the talk page was almost empty. The next edit, in April 2008, basically turned it into its present condition, and in March 2009 I put it through GA. I have been doing a little bit of maintenance work over the years. My total number of edits on the article is 90. Almost all the real work happened in a sandbox in my user space, and I think I even had that deleted when I was finished.

The article first attracted some talk page attention in October 2010, and more recently in December 2011/January 2012. So far I have only 18 edits there (including the GA subpage), but no doubt the number is going to increase as people will start using the talk page to ask questions about specific points. Of course I also had a number of related edits in project space (peer review, discussions at WikiProject Metrology).

I guess my point is really that what I described is the eventual ratio as both articles and editors mature. For editors who start with developed or contentious articles this ratio will be there from the start. By the way, I didn't invent all this. I have read some of the academic research on Wikipedia, and though I can't find a pointer right now I am sure I have seen my original observation made there. Hans Adler 12:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fwiw, there is a meta page, namespace shift, noting the process that you mention. 67.119.12.141 (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but I don't find it very accurate. In my case, I only started using the user and article talk pages because other editors were complaining that I focused too much on main space. Looking back, I should not have listened to them. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi Hans, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments on this article?

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have enough intrinsic motivation to even skim that article, and for at least the next 10 days I won't have much time for Wikipedia anyway. Just one observation: It loads extremely slow for logged-in readers. No doubt that's because of the huge number of references, which use templates. But I am afraid there is no easy solution for that problem. Hans Adler 13:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

maybe it's time to organize

Please have a look at this and let me know (there) what you think. --Ludwigs2 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed

An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
2. Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
3. Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
4. Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
5. FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
6. Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
8. The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

I pointed out at the discussion page that remedy 6 ("Hans Adler reminded ...") didn't actually pass. If they ignore my comment, I'll leave it up to you as to whether to press the point.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So John Vandenberg voted after the case was closed? I don't like nitpickery, and I would prefer if nobody pressed this particular point. If Arbcom want to correct the case, they should do it for the right reasons, not because of technicalities. Hans Adler 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec with Kww) I strongly disagree with several of the outcomes of this case and will draw consequences accordingly. I am not willing to continue spending a large amount of energy, time and good will on a project whose highest body is malfunctioning to the extent that Arbcom is obviously doing. It is all very understandable and apart from Jclemens, whose outrageous behaviour and general lack of manners and good sense do not require my comment at this point, I am not blaming anyone personally. However, Arbcom collectively is ultimately responsible for the results of its poor procedures.

E.g., finding of fact 5 passed with 2 net support votes in favour of finding of fact 5.1, which had 5 net support votes. Arbcom has thus declared that "[r]eligious fundamentalism is never going to be a concern to take into account when making editorial decisions in this project" (my italics) is a "sensible [...] interpretation of policy", and in fact is so laudible an interpretation of policy that it could conceivably excuse otherwise disruptive behaviour.

Given the poor overall choice of candidates at the last Arbcom elections, I have no confidence that the situation is going to improve any time soon, and I am worried about the impact on the community.

It is also remarkable how Arbcom collectively found it appropriate to engage in severe incivility against several established editors while the Mediawiki Foundation is trying to improve editor retention and a case on civility 'enforcement' is ongoing:

• Unfounded and unexplained 1-year site ban against Ludwigs2, a mobbing victim.
• Accusation of unprofessional behaviour against myself (not in the final decision, but during the case), which is a severe one given the overall cult of stupidity and immaturity that is rampant on this site and the fact that even actual professional Wikipedians easily get away with severely unprofessional behaviour such as an overzealous block accompanied by a completely unfounded personal attack and not followed by an apology. [6] Several editors tried to draw attention to this problem on a case talk page, but to no effect. Apparently, 'professionalism' at all times is the standard to which people wishing to work on this encyclopedia as a hobby are held, even as they are dealing with an outrageous lack of not just professionalism but in fact common sense.

I am not willing to adapt to the puritan standards of behaviour that are apparently required for participating here. I think I have never encountered such standards in real life, and I am only familiar with them from reports about American society and what I have seen on this project. I am also not keen on getting trapped in a vicious circle similar to those in which Giano and Malleus find themselves. Severely reducing my activity at this site seems the only reasonable option. Hans Adler 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[rude nonsense removed by talk page owner]

See thread below. No retirement party here, and that includes grave dancing as well as taunting. If you wanted to comment here you should have responded to something I said or my actual opinion, not to what you conveniently hallucinate my opinion to be.

We have a small number of excellent arbitrators, a tiny number of blatant miscasts (not sure if it's more than one at the moment), and a lot of middling arbitrators who are likely struggling to do their duty as well as they can given that they also have more important duties such as a family or a day job to take care of. The community can only try to choose the best among the candidates and cannot be held responsible when there are not enough good candidates. I never claimed that adding another poor candidate such as Ludwigs2 would have helped.

In case it's not clear: No further response from you is required here. Anything further you say here will likely be removed without comment. Hans Adler 23:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly relate to that Hans, and fully understand your position. Once you're labelled as some kind of toxic personality you find the vultures constantly circling overhead, waiting for their chance to pounce at the slightest sign of weakness. Not good. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, while I don't have any particular issue with the word cunt it is a term that you'd use down the pub, and not one that you'd use in a professional environment. Its actually probably more of a damning criticism of people's behaviour to describe it as unprofessional or inappropriate than it is to use the word cunt to describe them. Additionally it isn't a personal attack and no-one will start an ANI thread against you, or block you, for your use of those terms. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's excellent advice. I wouldn't mind being called a cunt as it's so obviously inappropriate and over the top. Being called unprofessional on Wikipedia is also ridiculous, but much less obviously so and is therfore much ruder.

Malleus, I guess you can't go wrong if you switch from your own, humane, style of communication to Arbcom's style of cold, ruthless, officious rudeness. If you can do that in good conscience. Hans Adler 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're back!

Good to see your talk page restored, thought we'd have to communicate by email! Have a recuperative break if you're taking it easy for a bit, thanks for the work you've been doing. . . dave souza, talk 17:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved my talk page to an archive before having it deleted, and inadvertently kept the box for moving the talk page along with it checked. So I was never gone completely. I guess I won't be able to resist working to bring my favourite article to the main page on April Fools Day, and maybe the occasional work on obscure card games. So I am unlikely to leave completely.

In any case, may I ask everybody not to start one of those usual retirement parties on my talk page. Hans Adler 17:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: To make this as clear as it is to me at this point. I am not actually back any more than I was gone. Hans Adler 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hans. Do you specifically want your userpage as a redlink, or would you mind if I placed {{userpage}} on it? -- Avi (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you are asking -- I guess it's best to protect the redlink to make my intention clear. I feel that I have been stamped as yet another toxic personality and want to make it clear that I have no desire to continue forcing my presence on a community that operates on breath-taking double standards. Hans Adler 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you're ready to join the club of crusty old cynics along with User:MastCell and myself. Or crusty young cynics, as the case may be. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the it's "crusty middle-aged cynic" in my case. It's amazing how fast this happened. Hans Adler 02:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought that may be the case, which is why I asked. Per Wikipedia:User pages#Ownership and editing of user pages, no one "owns" their userpage, but I'm happy to honor your request and not drop the template on it. Thank you for the quick response. -- Avi (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. It didn't occur to me previously that you were just looking for an opportunity to be rude. (1) It's obvious that I moved my user page away before having it deleted, and that wouldn't have made much sense unless I wanted it to be a redlink. (2) You have no reason to believe that I am not capable myself of putting on my user page whatever content or templates I believe belong there.

At first I quite naturally assumed that you were just using a transparent pretext to say something nice while respecting the wish that I expressed in my response to Dave souza.

However, you have now clearly expressed a claim of non-exclusive ownership for my user page which you must know is completely inappropriate. This puts your behaviour here into a completely different light. For the benefit of those who are not fully aware of our customs and policies on this point (I am sure this does not include you), here is what WP:UP#OWN actually says about the ownership of user pages:

"[...] by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags [...] Finally, a small number of notices and tags, if placed, may not be moved to a less visible subpage or deleted without discussion."

As you know, this convention is universally respected, and breaking it is considered an unnecessary provocation and is typically not a good idea at all reputationwise. I am not aware of anything that can be legitimately placed on a user page against the owner's expressed wishes, other than information about blocks, bans or socking or clarifications of otherwise misleading content put there by the owner.

I am tempted to use very clear words for your behaviour that would express the fact that the loss of basic human respect is symmetric.

So to make this completely clear: Not putting a completely redundant {{userpage}} template on my user page was not a request, it was a demand that you will honour because otherwise you will find yourself in an edit war with the admins who will honour my {{db-u1}} templates. While under the mistaken impression that you were here as a nice person I have asked you for courtesy protection of the redlink. You are of course in no way obliged to follow that request. There are enough other admins, after all, and I am sure that more than one will understand that the likelihood of a legitimate reason to put a notice on my user page is vanishing and certainly does not outweigh the potential disruption which overeager page taggers may cause.

Your behaviour is seriously unbecoming of the advanced privileges that you hold. Hans Adler 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WOW!! I am deeply sorry if you took anything I said as rude. That was the absolute furthest thing from my mind!!! I noticed you went from bluelink to redlink, and was wondering if you cared, since it seemed as if you were going to be gone (forgive me, but I try not to follow ArbCom-based wikidrama unless I am called on as a witness or party, I find it interferes too much with the other work and editing I do here), if it was bluelinked. Call it a personal idiosyncrasy, but I tend to associate red-linked names (especially when I am checking my watchlist) with "wiki problem people". Maybe that is because I spend so much time dealing with vandals, spammers, and harassers who start their attacks without editing their userpages. I know you are nothing of the sort, so, I guess in my own selfishness I wanted to have you "blue-linked". In no way shape or form did I mean to 1) be rude 2) imply you lacked wikisense or common sense for that matter. The reason I dropped the USERPAGE link was that while I certainly would respect your desire for a redlinked userpage, I cannot control the rest of the project. I did not realize you were asking for official protection as in the page; I just thought you meant keep it redlinked. In that vein, since there has been no "vandalism" to your userpage, I'm not sure it fits the bill for protection; if you find people posting stuff against your will again and again, maybe then it would. Again, I'm sorry that 1) your experience here has made you assume bad faith about editors' purposes and 2) that I seem to somehow have contributed to that cynicism or disgust with my actions. You have my deepest apology. Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would let me know how I could have phrased my request in such a way as to have made my intent clear and free of misrepresentation. -- Avi (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooops! No need for an apology in that case. A clarification would have been enough. Obviously it's for me to apologise for so quickly jumping to an assumption of bad faith.

Misunderstandings happen and are often not anyone's fault. Only since you were asking explicitly in your last sentence: On re-reading your first post, there seems nothing wrong with it. Maybe I would have found it harder to misunderstand something like "I was shocked to see a redlink to your user page. Any chance I can sell you a {{userpage}} template?" But the real problem for me was the policy link and what can be read as a deliberate contrasting of the words "owns" and "honor your request". Hans Adler 03:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; I'll certainly do my best to keep this in mind and take more care in my tone (in non-warning situations, of course. If I'm about to drop ye olde bannehammer on a vandal, I may take a slightly more firm tone 8-) ). Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

User page

If you want me to create protect your userpage, just let me know. Won't stop an admin, but it does warn us and show the protection log (which would read something like "create protected by user request").—Kww(talk) 12:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that this won't cause the kind of disruption that I would like to avoid, then that would be nice. (I thought it was pretty standard, but Avi's reaction suggested to me that maybe I got this wrong.) Hans Adler 12:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Let's give it a try.—Kww(talk) 13:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To borrow an old D&D phrase (which many people would consider apropos, being how Wikipedia is often viewed by others) I tend towards Lawful Neutral when it comes to policy, (probably a result of too much time editing contentious articles :) ) so outside of protecting user privacy issues and BLP-type issues, I take a stricter tack when it comes to policy interpretation, which is why I didn't offer to protect it myself. Kww must be a nicer and less curmudgeonly person than I ! -- Avi (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

An RS/N discussion

I was thinking of some comments of yours when I wrote this. Does it seem correct to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, as I am not active at the moment I looked only very briefly at this discussion and decided there is more to read than I am willing to invest at the moment. Hans Adler 13:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

The wording for the proposed RfC is under discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 February 2012/Muhammad-images. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, as I am not willing to do professional work in my spare time, especially when US behavioural standards for such are expected from intelligent, productive editors whereas Wikipedia's cult of the idiot guarantees that anyone who appears sufficiently incompetent can essentially do as they please, I am currently in the process of re-evaluating my activity on this site. I am not anticipating any participation in community processes in the near future other than possibly related to the April Fools Day featured article. (In case anyone is wondering: I am deliberately staying logged in to prevent myself from being sucked back in through minor editing while logged out. I am not going to edit as an IP or under a new account.) Hans Adler 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny. I was coming here to moan, and as I was waiting for this page to load I was thinking, "The idiots, the idiots, oh god, the idiots. They're running this asylum and the only hope of improving things is to get more rational people involved. But the idiots have set up an ecosystem in which they thrive and the sane wither." And then I find this comment. I'm just going to tend my little walled garden for a while. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Hans Adler: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No direct interest in the current WP:V mediation

Hi there user:Hans Adler (Please archive this unsolicited communication when and as convenient.) There will be an answer at the page, it is your prerogative. I did not join this page either (page history shows). Only those editors currently working at WP:V would retain a direct interest in this matter, I would think. Best wishes, if I may. NewbyG ( talk) 22:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Meanwhile I have been insulted by Arbcom (they "reminded" me to behave "professionally", which must of course be interpreted in the context of Wikipedia's cult of ignorance and rudeness although they likely did not mean it that way) and have decided to cease my participation in all community processes. Hans Adler 10:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Good for you. Getting beat up by Arbcom on the one side and WMF on the other isn't worth it. We're not being paid for this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images

I think the Rfc is nearly finalized, but only a few editors have commented recently, not including you. Could you take a look & let us know what you think at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images#Finalizing_Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FMuhammad_images. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. I am no longer active on Wikipedia. Arbcom managed to remove another troublesome user from the site who was hindering moron retention. (I will make an exception for the April Fools mainpage, but that's it.) Hans Adler 16:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We miss you!

Please come back! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Pigeon photography

This is a note to let the main editors of Pigeon photography know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 1, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Pigeon photography was an aerial photography technique invented in 1907 by Julius Neubronner, court apothecary of Empress Frederick, who also used pigeons for film special effects and to deliver medications. A homing pigeon was fitted with an aluminum breast harness to which a lightweight time-delayed miniature camera could be attached. The technique was publicized at the 1909 Dresden International Photographic Exhibition. It was successfully demonstrated at the first German Aviation Show and at the 1910 and 1911 Paris Air Shows. The lack of military or commercial interest in the technology after the First World War led Neubronner to abandon his experiments, but his idea was briefly resurrected in the 1930s by a Swiss clockmaker, and reportedly also by the German and French militaries. There was interest in the concept even during the Cold War, by the American Central Intelligence Agency. The construction of sufficiently small and light cameras with a timer mechanism, and the training and handling of the birds to carry the necessary loads, presented major challenges, as did the limited control over the pigeons' position, orientation and speed when the photographs were being taken. Today some researchers, enthusiasts, and artists similarly employ small digital photo or video cameras with various species of wild or domestic animals. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hans, congratulations to you and the other birds. Fantastic. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Great article! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 00:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, re "aluminium"

The relevant section of the MoS is here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't think the article qualifies as "primarily about chemistry", but as I normally prefer British English anyway this is enough to make me stop caring. Hans Adler 22:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hans Adler. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

poke

Just overtook you on the list - time for you to unretire :-) Missing your input. Agathoclea (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm doing a bit of driving so am listening to the spoken word version of The Authoritarians, read by the author. Very informative. Thanks for recommending it here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#A_German_court_has_ruled_that_parents_can't_have_their_sons_circumcised_on_religious_grounds.

Hi, maybe you can provide a more qualified view on this and Circumcision_and_law#Germany. Richiez (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper Straw Poll

There is currently a Straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Right- and left-hand traffic

Hi, Hans Adler. The title of the subject article is under discussion again. I am alerting you because you participated in a previous discussion on the matter. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No comment? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Ireland

• (Discuss) Should Republic of Ireland be moved to Ireland? Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia medicine

Hi Hans. Just in case you're looking this way, can I point you to the imminent formation of a new thematic organisation called Wikimedia Medicine. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Against my resolution I have made an edit on this wiki yesterday (for the first time since April), but due to the apparently infinite power of stupidity on this project I am still not going to participate in any community discussions while there is a climate in which brain surgeons such as Jclemens (yes, every few months I have a look at the current state of Wikipedia politics) can thrive. A consensus-based community in which a large proportion of members obviously take their main inspiration from the worst excesses of American politics is effective as a computer game or a torture instrument, but certainly not as as a tool for building an encyclopedia. Hans Adler 10:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the request. I respect your resolve. This site has lost far too many valuable contributors, and I consider your absence to be the highest magnitude of loss. I wish you the best future, and personally thank you for the many valuable improvements that came from you. I also commend you for setting a fine example in your manners, and conduct. You are one of the first Wikipedians I interacted with on this site, and you were reasonable and kind, even though I was less reasonable to you. Best regards, My76Strat (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, found it. We once had a conversation about Pasta. Actually, though we didn't entirely agree, I found you reasonable enough. If all disputes here were as constructive as that one, Wikipedia's information might be even better than it is now. On the other hand it would also be a lot better if we had less people obsessed with enforcing their purely formal notion of "civility", taking it as an excuse to be incredibly rude in all the ways that really matter. Hans Adler 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Miscellaneous card games

Category:Miscellaneous card games, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I Apologize

You are right, I was an ass (my words) when I posted this. I was attacking and shouldn't have posted that. I should have walked outside and took a walk or something. That is something I am working on. When I get that pissed, I vent at Drmies or Dennis. They listen, give me advice, they are like my Wikipedia therapists. I just hope they don't start charging by the hour. But that is something I have been trying to work on online and off. I shouldn't have taken it out on you that day and I should have stopped being stubborn and apologized before you said something on AN. I am sorry and I should have said it earlier. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's a bit unexpected. :-) I am sending the rest of my response by email. Hans Adler 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It needed to be said and should have been said back in 2009. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting, there's already a section here on you two. Anyway, Hans, I was going to say that we haven't run into each other often, besides some musings I shared with you a year or more ago, and so I don't know you very well. You have a tendency to come across as straightforward in the old way; I'm sure you have rubbed many people the wrong way, but not me. Your notes in the AN discussion on Homer's editing restrictions are very helpful and the last one struck a chord with me. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  From what I have seen of you recently I should return the compliment, though I have to keep it a bit more general for now: I have a really good impression of you. (It's a pity that Wikipedia is so big that it's hard to have a clear mental image of all important people. I am not the only one it took years to realise that dweller ≠ dougweller, for example.) And you seem to be doing some hard work off-stage for which you can expect to get very little public reward. Thanks! Hans Adler 09:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Now, what are the odds? Serendipity: two days ago I decided to finally check to see what the difference was between Dweller and Dougweller, both of whom I have worked with (mostly the latter, though). Dweller actually has a note on their user page about that possible confusion. You know, mostly this is a nice place. I have fun here in between classes. Once I expanded Tedder for DYK, and received a very nice note from tedder (talk · contribs). Less fun was reading the talk page of a guitar hero, of course. Hans, thanks for your kind words; pleasure seeing you again, and I'm sure we'll meet again in some esoteric article or other. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar hero

I would co-endorse a RfC/U about his conduct if you were to start one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I was sceptical that an RfC/U would have any results other than perhaps provoking the user to even more outrageous behaviour. They take a long time, and usually there just isn't enough participation. Fortunately, John's topic ban seems to stick and so your idea appears moot. Hans Adler 08:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Germans

There has been some progress made at the article - but after seeing that we endup writing a books worth of text on the talk page just to change 2 sentence I am discouraged. Having to fight to keep that overwhelming consensus of just 2 sentences has shown me that people will not work towards a single goal. I am here to help with articles not fight for ever change. So I will not be helping the article much anymore - but if you need my input just ask.Moxy (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on the experience I have just had at another article, that's a problem with that particular editor and has nothing to do with the article. I am not sure if this person is just experiencing the world in a non-standard way or is intentionally disruptive. Hans Adler 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gem

"I find it hard to believe that the editors who are supporting this move have actually looked at the article." I liked this phrase a lot given it came from a user encountering the subject only by backtracking another user. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist since at least January 2011. [7] Hans Adler 22:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering

I was reading through WP:RFAR mostly out of boredom – I'm in much more of a drama-watching than drama-engaging mood, so I assure you I'm not trying to stir anything up. But, anyways, I noticed the statement you made in the Sexology thread, and I was just wondering if you could clarify... are you saying that Wikipedia should treat transgender people the same way it treats pedophiles, or is there another group you're referring to in your comparison? Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that if a person is on record (in the New York Times and in a peer-reviewed publication in a Springer journal) as threatening other people with harm to their children for a political disagreement, and the same person then gets into conflicts about the same topic on Wikipedia and speculates on the identity of an anonymous editor -- then this person is dangerous to an extent that trumps all other considerations and the Wikimedia Foundation has a legal and ethical duty to protect its volunteers from that person. I was not willing to mention paedophiles explicitly in that context and would have preferred not to even allude to them, but the Foundation's categorical statement that self-confessed paedophiles are not allowed to edit is the only example I am aware of where the Foundation has given any indication that it is aware of this duty and wants to act accordingly. (I hope it wasn't just a publicity stunt.) It is the only precedent I could refer to. If there is any other, I will happily change my comment. But so far Arbcom seems to be ignoring it anyway. I am now waiting for NYB's position; as a lawyer he will definitely understand what I am talking about.

I think my comment was very clear in that respect and it was impossible to understand it in the way that you claim to have understood it. The idea that transgender people should not be allowed to edit is so absurd that the mere suggestion that I might have intended something like that would be an outrageous accusation. But maybe you were merely careless in the formulation of your last sentence. Hans Adler 15:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: I only just saw that userbox concerning your age. I would have responded in a slightly less angry way if I had seen it earlier. Let me just add one thing: AJ's behaviour may not look so outrageous to you simply because you are used to a typical school, but what happens in schools is not typical for society as a whole. By attacking someone's children, AJ stepped far outside the bounds of civilised society. She will have to live with the consequences. Hans Adler 15:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologize for the misunderstanding. But I think that if you make a comment comparing one unnamed group (pedophiles - which I was able to infer) to another unnamed group (individuals with histories of harrassing others and their families - which I was unable to infer), as part of a discussion that involves a highly discriminated-against minority, especially in a context tangential to the question of whether transgenderism is erotic in nature (which would therefore put it in the same category as pedophilia), it's not incredibly unreasonable for one to wonder if transgender people were, in fact, the group to whom you were alluding. I definitely wasn't trying to misrepresent your words or paint you as holding so discriminatory a view (which I'm glad you agree with me would be an utterly contemptible view to hold - though I'm sure there are some who do hold it, seeing as some people say that gays shouldn't be allowed to edit gay-related topics). So I apologize for anything that may have come across as an accusation of bigotry, but I hope that you can understand how that interpretation was in the realm of possibility, at least for someone who doesn't know anything about you or your views. Additionally, there were several statements in that thread that were somewhat inelegant in referencing the fact that Jokestress is transgender, so by the time that I got to your comment I was already in a rather cynical frame of mind. My apologies.

Disclaimers associated with this post: 1) I do not intend to pass any judgment on whether or not Jokestress's actions actually were or were not harrassment. 2) I do not believe that transgenderism is erotic in nature, nor do I believe that it has any association with pedophilia whatsoever. 3) Likewise, I am not suggesting that confessed pedophiles should be afforded any leniency by Wikipedia (in fact, I think you outlined the reasons they're forbidden from editing rather nicely), nor do I have any particular opinion as to whether or not pedophilia is similar in nature to other paraphilias. Whew. Maybe I should just put disclaimers on all my comments.

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Sometimes it's almost impossible to say anything because a topic is a veritable minefield, but we have to try anyway. Hans Adler 16:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've watched that mess from the sidelines for an extended period, and I would say something if I thought of anything useful. Thanks for your excellent statement. Probably a little too sensible for the WMF and the community who would prefer to waste weeks of time debating issues where there is obviously only one safe outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk:HiLo48. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. "Calling everything opinion and denying that there are objective facts is postmodernist nonsense": I take that personally, sirrah! Nonono Hans, please, don't blame (us) postmodernists for that. The fact (I'll call it that) that postmodernism (and not just them of course) deny that there are absolute guarantors for absolute truth doesn't mean that anything goes--far from it. It's rigorous analysis that reveals such truths about truth. The issue here is a fear to offend, "sure your opinion is valid", "we're all unique individuals", in a vein that more properly goes back to the tenets enshrined in the Constitution and other foundational documents. Americans, for the most part, are terrified of postmodernism since the first thing to be done away with would be American exceptionalism, not coincidentally linked on HiLo's talk page. Anyway, that's my rant. Ciao! Drmies (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) LOL. (And I mean it. I only ever type this after I have actually done it.) I first saw this template in an edit conflict, and I actually got angry for a moment. Hans Adler 18:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• And by the same token, this of course must be done away with as "opinion" or "editorial". There's another way in which this American quality is apparent, and that's in discourse--we love debate teams over here, and it's the format in which many English composition classes are taught in college. CQ Researcher is a database (geared toward students) by Congressional Quarterly specifically set up this way (pro-con--very boring of course), as is Gale Opposing Viewpoints, and then we have series of books like Opposing Viewpoints series. So, there are always two points of view, and no more, and since we're all valuable and unique they can't really be completely wrong, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  Yes. Especially the US press has been really amazing over the last few decades. "Scientists are now able to describe even more precisely how the Moon circles around Earth? And they really want me to write about that? It's not just boring, it's also almost impossible to find a balancing opinion. Ideally I need someone who says it's the other way round. Where did I put the list of crackpot scientists in accredited universities?" Some of this stuff even seems to be spreading to the UK. Hans Adler 18:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• "In many of her stories Marie de France has adulterous women and that's wrong." Drmies (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I still can't make sense of this. I read a bit about Marie de France and her literary output and position on adultery, but that doesn't seem to help. Hans Adler 10:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Lowering standards - Namecalling

Your argument that it's OK to refer to groups of editors and individuals that you disagree with using derogatory terms because you're correct flies in the face of every element of cooperative editing. You truly should be ashamed of yourself for promulgating such an absurd position.

I don't care if you're pro-gun or anti gun - or pro-German or anti-German. You can't go around calling other editors derogatory names. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have not called other editors names. I have called a dangerous anti-intellectual fundamentalist group a short name which accurately describes the problem with it. I have reliable sources to support this characterisation, and I have now added one of them to the section. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung has referred to the US arms lobby as "fools" who are now "even more foolish". Given that that's a very reputable conservative newspaper in country #3 on the list Number of guns per capita by country, I am sure that should satisfy your concern that my position might be "absurd".

Your unsubstantiated assertion that I have anything to be ashamed of is a personal attack. Do not repeat it. Hans Adler 17:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I just realised that you are actually the bloke who first blocked HiLo for 3 weeks for sacrilege, and you are the bloke who indeffed him for the same reason. Thanks for being so open about your political motivations. Hans Adler 18:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I'm being clear about, other than your deplorable behavior. It's not OK to namecall other editors and advocating such is deplorable. You should be ashamed.Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Factual descriptions are not name calling, especially when supported by reliable sources. The only person here who should be ashamed is you.

I have just finished reading Talk:Wayne LaPierre, and it is now clear to me that HiLo was working on the Wayne LaPierre article in a perfectly neutral, appropriate way and was in fact 'editing for the enemy' before a posse of editors tried to sanitise the article from a notable fact that undermines the subject's credibility, could not justify this with rational argument, and then transparently set him up to get rid of him. You have clearly been acting here as a tool for a political campaign, whether you were aware of that or not.

And you have just repeated a personal attack after I warned you informally for it. Normally I would not even have mentioned it, but I don't take such abuse from hypersensitive 'civility' enforcers. Hans Adler 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What an illuminating exchange. Thanks Hans Adler. FiachraByrne (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Similarly ... [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] FiachraByrne (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I considered pointing you to that exchange, but I see you found it on your own. We can be so proud of our civility police. Hans Adler 10:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

John, it occurs to me that you may not be American, and textual evidence indicates that you might even be German. As such, you're simply not equipped to understand the liberal democratic traditions that underly the American political experiment. Therefore I'm reluctant to admonish you again for the inappropriate use of the term "nutter" but I'd like to point out, as others have, that it is a term which is not within the norms of American discourse. I'm posting an extract from a newspaper article below for your, much needed, moral edification. God bless this user page and all who post on it. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Star Spangled Ice Cream Company, the conservative alternative to liberal Ben & Jerry's, announced today a partnership with celebrated Second Amendment advocate, author, sportsman and rock star Ted Nugent.

"Star Spangled Ice Cream, the ice cream with a conservative flavor, is proud that Ted Nugent had endorsed our newest politically incorrect flavor, Gun Nut," said company Vice President Richard Lessner. "Ted Nugent is a great defender of the people's right to bear arms. We believe Gun Nut is a perfect compliment to the wild game recipes in Ted's best-selling cookbook, Kill It and Grill It."

Star Spangled has partnered with Nugent and Gun Owners of America in the promotion of Gun Nut. The company is donating $1 from the sale of each quart of Gun Nut to the educational work of the Gun Owners Foundation Gun Safety Project. Nugent, who heads United Sportsmen of America, works closely with GOA.

"Gun Owners of America and Ted Nugent's United Sportsmen of America are staunch defenders of the Second Amendment and we're proud to support their patriotic work," Lessner said. Star Spangled Ice Cream, founded in March 2003, sells premium ice cream on its web site www.StarSpangledIceCream.com. It has been featured in Reader's Digest, The New York Times, Weekly Standard, and on CNN and Fox News.

PR Newswire, 6 October 2003

.

Sexology arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 22, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks for posting at WT:MED. I responded there. Might you be interested in finding a goal in the realm of WP:MEDGA2013? Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't exactly find a goal there, but I found a seriously POV article currently proposed for GA. Thanks for the link. Hans Adler 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll like my reply this time more. =) Thanks for your patience. Biosthmors (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks! Hans Adler 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. =) Biosthmors (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Civility

We at WPMED are generally civil and deal with the topic matter at hand by referring to sources rather than attack fellow editors. Comments such as the following are inappropriate:

• "either you have no sense of language at all, or you are playing that part"

• "Please help me with that by putting a few brain cells into this discussion."

• "Doesn't make you appear as intelligent or authoritative as reasonable responses would do"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I overreacted. Severely. It appears obvious to me that titles such as "epidemiology of pregnancy" are seriously offensive, and I got exasperated due to the surprising opposition. On re-reading the entire discussion, I now see that it suffered from miscommunication on several levels between various people, and that my angry post was due to a big misunderstanding on my side for which I am accepting the blame. Hans Adler 20:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Stonewalling

You might want to check the signatures in that discussion and modify your last comment at the MfD, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks, and my sincere apologies. Will fix immediately. Hans Adler 18:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello

For what it's worth, I'm surprised to see you're so anti-barnstar. I just see it as a highfalutin way to say thanks. But don't worry, I definitely won't be giving you one! Biosthmors (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I am against barnstars because I prefer personal messages. Thanks for this nice one! Hans Adler 18:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Biosthmors (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we try to talk things out at talk:circumcision and if that doesn't work then I guess you'll go for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment? Best. Biosthmors (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

Kiss kiss! Just because you don't fancy non-consensual wikilove! Bishonen | talk 11:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

Well, I never said there can't be consensual wikilove, or that everything that doesn't involve templates is automatically consensual. Fortunately I wasn't looking while this happened. I thought it was Darwinfish, so at first I wasn't shocked. That only happened when I opened my eyes. Hans Adler 14:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha. 'fish has nerdy pretensions, but he's actually a little too dumb to do templates, as well as too shy to kiss. Darwinbish is the one with templates. Sort of… hmm… barnstars… not really. More teach'em-a-lesson templates. I understand your objection to templates, but I use db's sometimes. They're more personal and handcrafted than the regular wikilove. Feel free to use! They're on her page. Oh, and hey! You see that she does requests? If she's in a good mood she might make you a teach'em-a-lesson template to shoot back at people in case they post barnstars or kittens on ya! Bishonen | talk 22:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

thanks for the fix at ANI

I did not yet track back exactly what happened there. I knew there was an edit conflict but thought I'd recovered. My own post seems to have still be lost, but I reinserted it now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the excellent addition to WP:Stonewalling [13]. I've seen that one before, more than a few times. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hans Adler. You have new messages at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.
Message added 15:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie zu Guttenberg

Merci pour la correction de Stephanie zu Guttenberg. Faut que j'améliore mon anglais ! --Juanes852 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Babes in the wood

Just one small thing I need help with on the talk page for that article. Please respond quickly...I...I...I think I feel the urge to give you a barnstar and some awards if I don't get some help soon. ;) MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox invisible

Hi, I closed this discussion as delete, but moved it to User:Hans Adler/Infobox invisible, in case you want to experiment with it. I can simply delete it as well you want. As I noted in the closer of the TfD, the judgement was not meant to be an endorsement of either side of the infobox debate. Some other ways to achieve the same thing, which appear to be more feasible, include: (1) adding a flag to templates like {{infobox person}}, {{infobox building}}, and {{infobox company}} to set "bodystyle = display:none" when "hidden=true", (2) creating {{buildingdata}} and {{companydata}}, or (3) simply wrapping the infobox in <div style="display:none"> ... </div>. Note that I don't have any strong opinion about infoboxes in articles, and I'm sure the infobox advocates would object to any method for hiding the infobox, even if third-party databases don't require the infobox to be visible (see for example this thread about DBpedia). Let me know if there is anything I can do, or if you want me to simply delete the userfied version, or if you want to send this to DRV. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that you had your own opinion on this template, and instead of !voting like everybody else, you converted it directly into the final outcome. Quite improper, and quite a surprise. I didn't expect that an admin would go rogue on something as inconsequential as this. Hans Adler 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Dame wish I saw that decision earlier - perfect solution to Wikipedia:Wikidata#Infoboxes (Phase 2)... But o well.Moxy (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Strasbourg

Re Talk:Louis XIV of France, FYI, I added "heretofore a Free Imperial City of the Holy Roman Empire." Previously there was no mention of HRE. Sca (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I see. [14] That edit was OK. Though I am not even completely sure the information is needed, it's probably a slight improvement over the even more redundant information that you simultaneously removed. Hans Adler 08:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

On Cla68

Rather than responding on Jimbo's talk, that section really had nothing to do with the issue anyway, I would like to address the point you made. First, I wasn't being misleading in how I described it. Outing refers to something very specific: revealing private information about someone's identity on Wikipedia. Since the only noteworthy revelations about the individual's identity can all be easily gleaned from on-wiki admissions it is not outing. That was the basis of the block. What you raise concerns about would more accurately be described as "opposition research", which is not the same as outing. In this case, the research was all done by someone else and compiled into a blog post by someone else so Cla68 would not be guilty of that. This means you are really invoking the policy on linking to external harassment. However, simply being critical is not sufficient. There are a few tongue-in-cheek remarks, but mostly it is little different in tone from any other exposé in the blogosphere. Poignant criticism in itself is not harassment, no matter how badly it may make someone feel. So really we get down to a question of its use. Linking to it in the context of getting a comment regarding someone named in the post is not indicative of using it for the purpose of harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"There are a few tongue-in-cheek remarks, but mostly it is little different in tone from any other exposé in the blogosphere. Poignant criticism in itself is not harassment, no matter how badly it may make someone feel." I strongly disagree with your characterisation of that piece, and I can see why you would not dare to make this ridiculous statement on Jimbo's talk page. It would have been rather dangerous.

"Since the only noteworthy revelations about the individual's identity can all be easily gleaned from on-wiki admissions it is not outing." Also totally wrong given the quantity of irrelevant personal information, correct or otherwise.

I had trouble finding the point that Cla68 supposedly tried to alert Sue Gardner about. It's quite concerning, and I guess can only be explained by editing under the influence. (Though I might be wrong, as I am totally unfamiliar with the editor in question.) It might have been justified to bring this up on-wiki without direct reference to the immediate source after letting a bit of grass grow over that, but one could even argue that it has become too tainted by the attack post even for that. It's not a contribution to a debate or to debates on Wikipedia. It's pure harassment.

Thanks for the link to WP:Linking to external harassment. I actually looked for it in this context, but couldn't find it. Hans Adler 06:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I would gladly state everything over there that I have stated here and be more than willing to defend it, because there is nothing ridiculous or wrong about it. It just wasn't a thread about Cla68 so I didn't want to fill it up with such stuff. I have seen mainstream news sources that we use frequently as "reliable sources" say plenty of unnecessarily ugly things about people that far outclass any of what this blog post said and I don't think I have to tell you about the kind of slimy lengths some reporters will go to for juicy gossip on far more trivial matters. Maybe we have a different understanding of "personal information", but I don't see much of that in there either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Kindly stop your trolling. Leave this talk page and never come back. Hans Adler 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A non-barnstar for you

I saw you make an eminently sensible comment recently and thought where have I seen that User name before? And then it struck me: here. It was your innocuous comment that triggered the first RM against Vietnamese titles. I somehow don't think that was your intention at all. Maybe you already knew this :), anyway, I mark it in passing. And award a non-barnstar for defending Gerhard Schröder from Anglicization. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that was an interesting discussion which did not exactly improve my opinion of Jimbo. Archived here. Hans Adler 10:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

More significantly forever enshrined at Talk:Đặng Hữu Phúc. I must admit that "Shall we move Japan to 日本?" wasn't the most typographically cognisant comment anyone has ever made, but perhaps expresses that one dot on Phạm Duy is more foreign to anglophones than two dots on Gerhard Schröder. Oh well. Can I ask how you even heard of Đặng Hữu Phúc? From The Season of Guavas? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that person at all. I don't remember if someone mentioned him in an earlier discussion in the context of Vietnamese diacritics or if I introduced him myself as an essentially random example of someone of little interest to people who don't speak at least a little Vietnamese. I am not happy with that move at all, but I guess the most we can hope for is that Wikipedia doesn't use significantly less diacritics than all the best reference works. Hans Adler 11:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Responds

Hello, would you mind responding to my comments on Germans:talk. I don't know if you've seen it yet, but I believe this topic should be discussed as it touches essential parts of the article as a whole. Greetings 195.169.209.53 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, help !

Salut,

Une IP qui a fait seulement 2 modifications sur Wikipédia anglais a révarté ma contribution faite sur Template:Howto sans se justifier. Pourrais-tu me dire si il s'agit d'un abus de sa part, comme j'en ai l'impression ? Pour plus de détails voir http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Howto&diff=next&oldid=540996150. Merci par avance pour la réponse,

--Juanes852 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

D'accord. Ça ne me semble pas une réversion abusive (peut-être l'IP ne sait pas que Wikivoyage est devenu un projet Wikimedia), mais à mon avis tu avais amélioré le modèle. J'ai restauré ta modification est amélioré la grammaire. Hans Adler 10:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup ! --Juanes852 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Hans Adler; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

RSN

As a regular contributor to RSN, whose opinions I respect, but don't always agree with, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Colombo.2C_Rose.2C_Fight_Back_Legal_Abuse:_How_to_Protect_Yourself_From_Your_Own_Attorney. At this point, one uninvolved person has commented, but I prefer to have more than one uninvolved person comment under the circumstances, so as to get a clear consensus one way or the other. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq

An article that you have been involved in editing, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello ! I just want to thank You for Your contibution at the talk page of the "Swedish language". It's always a good idea to try to calm down "angry combatants". And You did it well. Yesterday I was simply to tired and frustrated by thee other user's (from my point of view) stubbern position. Thanks again Boeing720 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

AFD - Legal abuse

Thanks for your comment at RSN related to the sole source for this article. I've gone ahead and filed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legal_abuse. Fladrif (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ac-cént-u-áte the pós-í-tíve

That's an excellent summary on the whole diacritics debate. You wrote "languag" somewhere in there, if you want to correct. pablo 12:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Þànks, fìxed. Hans Adler 12:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Þànks for the laugh

I just took a look at your article about the boy Jones, after seeing your link to it on Brad's talkpage. Very amusing. Obviously a true descendant of the famous In-I-Go Jones! Bishonen | talk 21:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

Maybe the Inigo Jones article should also say something about the famous catch inspired by the architect's first name. ("In I go, in I go, in I go Jones, flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones.") Well, I don't know how famous, but I have it on a CD full of catches (some of them not obscene) and it was how I first learned that "Inigo" is even a name. Hans Adler 13:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

circumcision is primarily cultural not medical

The speed and strength and support at all levels of WP for a pro circumcision tone to the main MC article in english is astounding. Your courage in reverting Heptor blanket edit was rewarded by a several day ban on all edits except by admins. something stinks. My efforts to at least reference forced circumcisions, societal shunning of the uncut, sale and use of cut off foreskins, et cetera has met similar blanket resistance. I really do not know how one addresses such obvious sustained bias.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's tricky but doable. But even when working on article that is extremely biased one way, it's important to set realistic goals and work towards a potential stable state rather than something that will be considered very biased the other way by a majority of editors.

When previously uninvolved editors come to the article to help settle disputes, they are supposed to look at the facts and the quality of the arguments. However, in practice they decide based on their own bias (which will often be a weak one) plus their impression of the behaviour of both sides. Therefore it is absolutely crucial not to come across as an extremist. In fact, even a single editor supporting one position who is too extreme can undo the effective work of several others supporting ultimately the same position, but in a less extreme way and setting realistic goals.

Another important point: Cutting through the "us vs. them" thinking. Occasionally there will be issues that everyone agrees about, or such that a dispute cuts through the usual lines. This is a chance to reduce polarisation and develop the trust across party lines that facilitates article improvement.

I am sure that the current owners of the article have a clean conscience and just want to do the right thing. So do we. We must get into a proper dialogue where each side is ready to accept the other's positions without necessarily adopting them. As it's us who are unhappy with the status quo, it's basically for us to get this dialogue started. There will be a temptation for the other side to block such dialogue, but in my experience that can be overcome through the good faith on both sides, demonstrations of such, and a lot of patience. Hans Adler 12:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not really interested in the micro-managing of this issue. I just feel that flooding DYK with a single topic, or just a few topics, is totally inappropriate because it hurts Wikipedia. Something like one Gibraltar-related DYK per month (on average) seems OK, though, and more than one per day certainly isn't. Hans Adler 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of questions, if I may: how do you see it "hurting Wikipedia", given that I've never seen complaints about other frequent topics (like mushrooms, Indonesian films or Olympic/Paralympic athletes, to mention a few recent examples)? Second, a reduction in frequency was in fact proposed and rejected in the previous discussion, so realistically that isn't going to happen. Given that, what changes, if any, would you wish to see before considering lifting the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF type arguments have never been considered valid. As I have consistently said before, there is a general problem with DYK. I am not interested in lifting any restrictions on mainpage appearance of a topic that has used up its share of the mainpage for the next couple of centuries and that nobody is going to miss. Hans Adler 07:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember Green Squares?

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SirIsaacBrock. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Statistics, articles géolocalisés

Bonjour Hans Alder,

Pourrais-tu s'il te plaît me dire si mon texte suivant est compréhensible ?

---

Hi,

As in Wikipedia in French, I would like change {{Coord/display/inline,title}} and {{Coord/display/title}}.

I would like add

{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}| {{ns:0}}|[[Catégory:Geolocalisated article]]}}

.

In the Catégory:Geolocalisated article, we can know the geolocalisated article number, as in fr:Catégorie:Article géolocalisé.

---

Merci par avance pour ta réponse

--Juanes852 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Je crois que c'est plus ou moins compréhensible (plus pour ceux qui connaissent le contexte, moins pour ceux qui l'ignorent, comme moi), mais j'ai essayé de l'améliorer :

---

As in the French Wikipedia, I would like to change {{Coord/display/inline,title}} and {{Coord/display/title}}.

I would like to add

{{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}}| {{ns:0}}|[[Category:Geolocated article]]}}

.

Then in Category:Geolocated article, we can see the number of geolocated articles, as in fr:Catégorie:Article géolocalisé.

---

(D'ailleurs, comme la Wikipédia anglaise est très active, en général on n'emploie pas de salutations ici. C'est considéré normal et pas du tout impoli de les omettre.) Hans Adler 17:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Merci pour ces corrections et ces ajouts ! Sans cela, je pense qu'on ne m'aurait pas compris.

Je note, on dit "geolocated". J'avais essayé de trouver la traduction dans plusieurs dictionnaires, mais je n'avais pas réussi !

J'ai placé ma demande sur la page suivante : Template_talk:Coord#Statistics.2C_Geolocated_article, c'est la page de discussion de tous les modèles {{coord}}.

Du coup si j'ai bien compris, j'attends 7 jours, et je place {{edit protected}} sur la PDD ? Je vois que le fonctionnement de Wikipédia en anglais est vraiment différent de Wikipédia en français.

Amicalement

--Juanes852 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Je vois qu'il ya déjà une discussion très active avec des éditeurs plus compétents que moi.

Pour les traductions de termes techniques, j'ai souvent un bon succès avec Wikipédia. Par exemple, l'article fr:Géolocalisation indique l'article Geolocation comme son équivalent anglais. Hans Adler 07:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

En tout cas, merci pour ton aide ! Bonne continuation --[[UserJuanes852|Juanes<small><span style="color:#ECECEC">852</span></small>]] <small>([[User talk:Juanes852|talk]])</small> (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Does this interest you at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion on a photo

Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you confused me with someone else. I have never heard of that man, nor can I think of any other reason why I should be particularly qualified to have an opinion about his photo. Hans Adler 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Zurich or Zürich

Hi Hans, this discussion might be of interest to you. Best Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case I would actually have been slightly in favour of Zurich. But no doubt Zürich is slowly becoming the more common and more 'correct' spelling in English, so I am happy with the outcome of the discussion. I guess I will have to stop using this as an example, though. Hans Adler 18:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to smoke the peace pipe?

Do you think we might call a truce between us? We don't have to be best buddies or anything, but I don't think our mutual sniping is doing anything beneficial for the project or the community, or maybe even each other. What do you say? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in pursuing this further. And so long as you don't trample on weaker editors again, I don't anticipate any serious future conflicts either. Hans Adler 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Can I get in on this too? I'd prefer it if we could just discuss the sources and the article content. Zad68 00:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to improve a fiercely protected super-biased article without discussing stonewalling techniques and the editors who apply them. Hans Adler 00:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some references to back up claims would help. I have requested some from you here [15] for "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation"" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This question, which you have actually asked at AN as well in the meantime, is not constructive. The claim that "male genital mutilation" is a more politically correct term than "circumcision" is a political claim and as such cannot be proved or stated as fact in the article. No doubt there are reliable sources making this claim (I am pretty sure I saw some when I last researched the non-medical literature on circumcision), but as these won't help us I am not going to invest the possibly significant time required to locate one through Google searches. (I do not own any printed literature related to circumcision.)

Given that removal of the clitoris foreskin is almost universally accepted as a form of genital mutilation, you would find it very hard to argue against removal of the homologous but larger penis foreskin being genital mutilation as well. Due to lack of time I cannot provide sufficiently high quality sources making this obvious connection right now. (The main problem for me is that the discussion is so much overshadowed by female genital mutilation. Most sources explicitly define only female genital mutilation -- presumably to avoid conflicts with male circumcision supporters.)

But such reliable sources are not even required for saying in the article: "The analogous surgical procedure for females, clitoral hood reduction, is known as type Ia female genital mutilation." This could easily be supported with references to the political debate, the extensive section "Female genital mutilation vs. NTC" in the KNMG paper, legal opinion in Germany, Scandinavian laws and ombudsman positions etc., all of which would show that this modest sentence is by no means making an original connection.

That is the real reason why it is so outrageous that FGM only appears in the head note for people looking for female circumcision. That and the fact that this is not an isolated omission. You are systematically downplaying everything that might make circumcision appear in a bad light, while relying way too much on an AAP position paper which asks for more research on circumcision benefits, but does not ask for research on circumcision risks. Hans Adler 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

So long story short is you have no reference to support the claim "more politically correct term male genital mutilation" And it is too much work to look for one. Best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Bullshit, Hans. There was no valid criticism of anything here, and I always thought that the term "censorship" (or, "censorship!") belonged to the less intelligent and the more zealous--I didn't think you fit that bill. You know I didn't censor anything, and you know that drivel like "Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs" is nothing but trolling. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. The Norwegian IP's first comment was totally constructive, helpful, intelligent, and represented the mainstream Scandinavian POV. It also exposed how extremely biased the article is, so it was related to improvement of the article. Hans Adler 14:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That's funny. (Funny also that you recognized the problem with the IPs rather stupid remarks.) You, the IP, and me are on the same side on this topic, but I'll stay far from it since I'd hate to be associated with trolls like that, or with established editors who are so gung-ho as to lose sight of other things, such as etiquette and common sense. And to think that I get yelled at for enabling abusers: you should know better. BTW, I have some serious issues with your "Drmies hid this commentary" remark, but you're a grownup so I don't have to tell you how wrong you were--you know. Kind of like the IP: there may be a valid point somewhere, but one can't really see it among the ranting and the insults ("censorship"--I take that as an insult). Fare you well, Hans Adler. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hatting is a technical term for hiding away in a specific way. I don't "know" that anything was wrong about using that word. I also disagree that the IP is a troll. Making a valid point forcefully is not trolling just because it's undiplomatic.

Infant circumcision is a form of child abuse with an uncanny similarity to the worst kinds of sexual abuse. It's hard to make that point without making proponents of the practice angry. Hans Adler 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Find pubmed indexed recent review articles that make this point. That is all you need to do. I have no personal opinion on this topic but am able to determine the best available literature. Reflect this literature is all we are here to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't need pubmed indexed sources for moral, legal etc. matters. As an admin you must know better; you can't possibly believe in good faith that MEDRS applies per-article and is applicable to non-medical aspects of a topic. Trying this strategy anyway is a pretty bold move. Are you sure you can get away with it? Hans Adler 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out this comment from the Norwegian IP where he reveals way too much information about himself. For some reason the circumcision topic attracts some deeply troubled individuals and I see this as another example. That gentleman appears to be in need of marital counseling and perhaps a visit to a divorce lawyer. I don't think he is helping himself by his participation here.89.204.137.112 (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I certainly don't see your point. As you are posting with a German IP, I find it hard to believe that you really believe talking openly about something like that with one's wife endangers a marriage. Sex isn't everything, you know, and nowadays it is not necessarily expected of women that they maintain the illusion that their current partner is the best they ever had, physically speaking. On top of that, I guess people talk even more openly about sex in Norway anyway.

It appears to me that when you describe the Norwegian IP as "deeply troubled" for such a reason, you might actually be exposing a great deal about yourself. See psychological projection. Hans Adler 19:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry Hans I think your personal feelings are getting in the way of productive discussion regarding circumcision, please see here. Zad68 21:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

You appear to be involved in an edit war. If you continue someone might block you. Not me of course. Just a friendly heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You might have mentioned your own involvement. You have removed a POV template because you don't consider an article which you passed as GA biased. Hans Adler 16:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am involved. I did state that it would not be me blocking you. There have been requests for evidence. Wikipedia is based on sources not editors opinions. If you do not provide high quality sources along with suggested changes nothing will change. Attempting to continue to add tags is disruptive.

On a professional level I do not nor would I ever perform this procedure. Personally I am against it except when medical indicated (and yes it sometimes is). The English article is not pro-circ. It states "No major medical organization recommends either universal circumcision for all infant males (aside from the recommendations of the World Health Organization for parts of Africa), or banning the procedure." Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet you seem to be insisting to write and organise the article based almost exclusively on Pubmed sources and according to MEDRS. As this is as much a cultural and political topic as it is a medical topic, the resulting American medical bias is inappropriate and makes the article seriously POV.

For comparison, here is a translation of the layout of the corresponding article in the second-largest Wikipedia, the German one:

• Circumcision in cultural history and religion (Origins and ritual significance of circumcision; Circumcision in Ancient Egypt; Judaism; Christianity; Islam; Modern Era; Present)
• Performance of circumcision (General; Gomco clamp; Plastibell; Coverage of the frenulum; Traditional circumcision)
• Styles and forms of circumcision
• Medical and aesthetic motives for circumcision (Indication; Contraindication; Hygienic and medically preventative motives; UTI; Balanitis; HIV infection risk; Transfer of other infectious diseases; HPV infections; Penis carcinome; Aesthetic and cosmetic motives; Female preference; Hirsuties papillaris penis)
• Impact on sexuality (Influence on penis sensibility; Masturbation; Intercourse [Sexual satisfaction and susceptibility to orgasm; Ejaculation control; Impact on female partner])
• Possible problems and complications of circumcision (Medical complications [Pain and postoperative troubles; Meatal stenosis; Formation of knots in venes; Adhesions; Herpes risk; Cases of death; Other risks and complications]; Subsequent psychological problems)
• Criticism of circumcision of minors (Historical controversies; Present criticism of circumcision; Subjects' lacking capacity to consent; Positions of German professional organisations; Religion and culture as justification of circumcision; Health consequences; Differentiation from female genital cutting)
• Regulation of circumcision of minors in various states (list of countries)
• Depiction in art
• Interpretation in psychoanalysis

And here the outline of the corresponding French article (top level only, for brevity):

• Ritual practice
• Circumcision in the anglo-saxon world
• The surgical procedure and its consequences
• Geographic distribution
• Legal aspects
• Intactivism
• Psychoanalytic perspectives and psychological consequences of circumcision
• Controversies

There are many aspects in which the English article is better than the German and French articles. But only the English article has the peculiar quality that an atheist could read it with a completely open mind and as a result decide that it's best for their newborn to be circumcised.

It appears that for years a British circumcision fetishist (not using the word as hyperbole but as a technical description of a specific sexual perversion) had control over the article. (If you didn't know this I will see if I still have the pointers and send them to you privately. May take a week or so, though.) Unfortunately the structure of the main circumcision article and the various related articles still carries much of that legacy. Hans Adler 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I encountered that person; his last edit was in 2012. A really extraordinary beyond-what-can-be-made-up case. If info is wanted, feel free to contact me. Johnuniq (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I misremembered an important detail, so I just had to correct my description. But given that the guy has been active so recently, I guess Jmh649 = Doc James was already aware of him anyway. Hans Adler 13:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion

The thread has been closed, please do not post into it for any reason. Let it go and move on. GiantSnowman 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The only one editing disruptively here is you. Given all your problems recently I would have thought you would have wanted to keep your nose clean. GiantSnowman 20:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Given all my problems recently? Would have wanted to keep my nose clean? And not even so much as a trout for Coffee for making this non-neutral closing comment? Interesting reaction. Congratulations for your first impression on me. I vaguely remember your name, but so far I had no opinion on you.

As I shouldn't be editing anyway, I am in fact not going to pursue this.

Just for the record: You misunderstood my edit comment, though I have trouble guessing how you understood it. "no, YOU are making the scene" doesn't seem to be a good response to "IAR is still policy. The alternative would be making a scene." Obviously, what I tried to express is that regardless of what the current fashion for closing AN threads may be, non-neutral and misleading closing comments must still be highly inappropriate and just appending a quick counterdeclaration is a milder alternative to starting a thread discussing the close or reopening a discussion that has run its course.

And last time I looked, edit warring on AN was still inappropriate. Hans Adler 20:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Who has edit warred? Other than yourself, I mean. If you have an issue with the close, you should have raised it with the individual directly or an uninvolved admin, rather than pettily trying to get the last word in. GiantSnowman 11:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It was a crap, biased close. Is that User:Coffee's usual style? Couldn't one of you admins correct it? Why do editors who take problems to your clubhouse have to put up with that kind of patronising, condescending, biased shit? You people wouldn't last one minute in anything but a monopoly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

...and the way to resolve that is by furthering the very 'us vs' them' mentality you complain about? Very good. GiantSnowman 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's resolved by admins being mature. To clarify, the problem with Coffee's close was "a select few individuals' opinions do not make a consensus, and to drop the pitchfork". Shallow and inflammatory. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong - I am not supporting the close. I am not opposing it either. My only issue here is an editor trying to comment in a closed discussion. If people feel the close is wrong, then I suggest they request it is re-opened. GiantSnowman 13:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And it doesn't occur to you that acting on incomplete information might be a problem? That commenting on a bad close in the only place where people can see it is less disruptive than making a scene, so long as nobody decides to jump in for the sake of process wonkery? Hans Adler 17:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You could/should have "commented on a bad close" in any way other than editing the closed discussion. It's really that simple. GiantSnowman 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You shouldn't have defended a bad close for the sake of process if you are unwilling to defend it on the merits. It's really that simple. Process is not the purpose of Wikipedia, it's a means to an end. Which is IAR is still policy. Hans Adler 19:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, where have I "defended a bad close" - cos I'm pretty sure I said "I am not supporting the close" earlier today... GiantSnowman 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. Hans Adler 21:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello?

Bishzilla mentioned you here. Welcome in pocket, bring all the bobsledding Adlers! bishzilla _ROARR!! 12:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC).

• Wer ist diese Bishzilla? Und wo ist der Bahnhof? Drmies (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I see you are aware of the infamous de:Kannitverstan trap and know how to avoid it. But I guess you are actually no more confused than I am. Sorry for the lack of proper, timely response. I am very busy recently and shouldn't be editing at all. Hans Adler 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Und wo ist dieser Kannitverstan? Anywhere near the snowy Långtbortistan? bishzilla _ROARR!! 00:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC).
      • Dear Hans, a highly belated response: I hope you are well, being busy elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Don't worry, I am in fact well and busy. And the few times that I tried to do something non-trivial here again, I was immediately discouraged by even more extreme behaviour than I had experienced earlier. I don't know if things are really getting worse or if the difference has to do with my long absence, or even with my grumpiness due to the extremely unsatisfactory working condiditions I had last year. But in any case this is not an environment in which I am willing to make any substantial contributions. For a while I tried to work on the Interlingua Wikipedia instead, but then I realised that a Spanish pedophilia advocate was the other most active user there, and there seemed to be no competent steward available to look into this. Currently my major online activity is learning Dutch and Scandinavian languages on Duolingo (while waiting for certain more interesting ones) and supporting other learners there. Hans Adler 09:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting

I didn't check any of this, but Craig Murray is usually a very reliable source: The Philip Cross Affair.

Fascinating. Thanks for pointing it out, Hans. (Good to see you.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Card games by mechanism or objective

A tag has been placed on Category:Card games by mechanism or objective requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Respite

This Italian bucket attached to New Holland is in need of German research.

• Bucket crusher (AfD discussion)

If you find that you want something entirely unrelated to controversy to work on, there's an article on German buckets that needs some research. Uncle G (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Good try, but I remember well how this (wow! more than 10 years ago!) led to this, and today I won't let you do this to me!

  Reminds me of egg slicer, by the way. Hans Adler 15:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Try Forehead. ☺ I had actually forgotten the pigeons, and wasn't aware of what happened after AFD. You are not the only person whose spirits I am keeping up in these trying times. See User talk:Drmies/Archive 122. Uncle G (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The best thing is that I now get to do this. Relaxen und watchen the Brieftaubefotografie!

• Hob, Dagmar (2014-11-28). "Als die Bilder fliegen lernten". Augsburger Allgemeine. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Redaktion (2018-04-09). "„Flieg Taube flieg" — Geflügelte Pioniere der Luftbild-Fotografie". Berliner Umschau. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "Diese Fotos zeigen, dass Brieftauben die cooleren Drohnen waren". Journal Frankfurt. 2018-03-15. {{cite magazine}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Deutsches Technikmuseum (2018-03-21). "Sonderausstellung: Die Brieftaube als Fotograf". YouTube. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• "Die Brieftaube als Fotograf". Stiftung Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin. 2018. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• https://www.webstagram.one/media/BibuURhHOuB
• https://analoguestories.wordpress.com/2018/10/05/book-the-pigeon-photographer/
• Degiorgis, Nicoló; Solomon, Audrey (2017). The Pigeon Photographer: By Julius Neubronner & His Pigeons. Rorhof. ISBN 9788894881073. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

German philosophy

• Agnes Taubert (AfD discussion)

It may all end in tears, but enjoy this in the meantime. Uncle G (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Court piece

Hi Hans Adler, according to this source court piece and troefcall are not exactly the same games. Troefcall has probably been derived form court piece. See also here: "It [troefcall] has some similarity to the Indian game Court Piece". I think you'd better change the article of court piece yourself, because you added it there. Thanks! Ymnes (talk) 12:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess you found my very old (2011) redirect from troefcall to court piece. As I remember it, at the time there were dozens of stubs and sub-stubs for various very similar games, many under several names, and often also under several spelling variants per name. None of them had a proper source. I will slightly rephrase the court piece article to make it clear that troefcall is a related game and likely derivative, not the same game. In the long run we should probably have a section on it that explains the difference, but I am not sure that I will find the time to write it myself. Depending on how substantial these differences are, a separate article might make sense, but I don't really expect that this will be necessary (or useful). Hans Adler 16:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your change in the article. Well it's expected to be a derivative, but also it has similarities with belote and hearts (which are very popular among Dutch). So it may after all be a mix of several worlds. It's quite a developed card game among Surinamese meanwhile. Since I have researched quite a lot in order to write the Dutch language article, I just decided to write an English version as well. See troefcall. Have a nice day! Ymnes (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, as you clearly know this game well I trust you know what you are doing. Of course you are free to correct the court piece article yourself if more is required. There is no article ownership. Hans Adler 09:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)