User talk:Hans Adler

I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.
I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.
I do not fancy non-consensual templated "WikiLove".

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Hans Adler! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Line of succession to the french throne

Is there anyway that you would stop deleting the article????? Lefairh (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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

WP: No Personal Attacks

Under WP: NPA, personal attacks like those could be removed. I have read the messages, and I shall attempt to follow them. However, the continued existence of those messages would hurt my reputation in the community. If you have any objections on this, tell me immediately. I shall delete them again soon.Emerson 07 (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

fundementalism

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

re Horasis wiki

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia articles on people and organisations are not normally supposed to be written by those who are related to them in real life. They almost always lack the required neutrality and wider perspective. (See here for the details.) Also, when persons or organisations must start their own articles rather than someone from the general public doing it, then it is typically an indication that they are not what we call notable, i.e. do not deserve an article. As you have seen, editing alternatingly under several accounts is also not a good idea. We consider this the wiki equivalent of faking a signature, or of severe plagiarism in academia: Both are relatively easy to do and one may get away with them for quite some time, but they undermine the very foundations on which a society is built.

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

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

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

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

Integrating portals and Wikiprojects

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

RFA thankspam

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

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

ADB

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

"Coincidental" IP edits after Saturnian block

Hi! Can I run this by you before I consider doing anything about it? Just after Saturnian got his block, the article Protochronism, which has been a subject of permanent irritation for the more active POV-pushers at WikiProject Dacia, came under attack from an IP. Please have a look over the recent comments on Talk:Protochronism, and note, beyond the cherry-picking and BLP issues, the IP's immediate labeling of me as a "fan" of "another side". Nothing of what he "cites" is about Protochronism, but his is merely a (quite serious) vendetta-like denigration attempt against the professional historians whose works were used in sourcing the article (mainly Boia and Verdery). One of the "sources" he uses is, interestingly enough, a blog post in which the author quarrels with Boia about... Cuza.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)