User talk:ZarlanTheGreen

Welcome!

Hello, ZarlanTheGreen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 19:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations

Please note that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is an essay, and one that many of us do not agree with (see the essays at Wikipedia:Common Sense and Wikipedia:Common sense is not common, for example). On the other hand, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Anything challenged or likely to be challenged is part of a policy, and therefore trumps any essay. -- Donald Albury 11:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the fact that "common sense" often isn't sensible and what's sensible is often rare. Either due to ignorance, irrationality or the sometimes counter-intuitive nature of the world. It is true, however, that simple facts known by everyone and unrefuted by any form of evidence, logic or reason, is in no need of citation. 1+1=2 needs no citations (and there are some rather extensive works, exclusively devoted to showing that 1+1=2). Look at any page on wikipedia: Where would you find citations for such simple statements like, "Being barefoot is as a human's natural state"? Or do you mean that we need citations on everything?

...but then again, you say that "Anything challenged or likely to be challenged", which is a phrase I see on many pages, relating to the issue of citations, should be followed. Thus you are clearly agreeing with me, in that there is no need for citations on barefoot being human's natural state. No one, including those who asked for citations, have challenged it. Indeed InTheRevolution2 explicitly stated agreement to the statement. Who would challenge that statement, unless they are lying or clinically insane? How could one possibly, genuinely, hold that position, unless insane or on mind altering drugs?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...oh, and if you do think everything needs citations, I take it you do not think the other "citation needed" tags, should be removed?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...and also, I read, and agree with, Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. I still consider Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue valid and correct. Both are correct, and have merit.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To address the title of the essay, the sky is not always blue. I believe it is much more useful to discuss (citing reliable sources) why the sky often appears blue. As for the "naturalness" of going barefoot, our article about "barefoot" seems to be about it being unconventional. Certainly, the habit of wearing shoes alters our feet, creating problems when we do go barefoot. I think it ironic that saying that going barefoot is "natural" is given as a justification for going barefoot. Yes, our ancestors had to walk on the bare skin of their soles, but people in most places have covered their feet to protect them as soon as they had the means to do so.

On the issue of you adding more "citation needed" templates, I hope you are not being pointy. I am conservative about adding such templates, doing so only when I feel that they are really needed, but I am also conservative about removing them, believing that they should only be removed after a citation has been supplied, an existing citation already covers the point, or a consensus has been reached on the appropriate talk page that a citation is not needed. -- Donald Albury 13:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• "the sky is not always blue."? .... Well I did mention that I have read Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. Please do not tell me things I am obviously aware of.
• "I think it ironic that saying that going barefoot is "natural" is given as a justification for going barefoot" Where? In what sentence, in the article, is the naturalness of being barefoot, mentioned as a justification? Things are not good because they are natural, nor are they bad because they are artificial, and nowhere in the article (well not in the lead anyway), is it used as justification, except possibly some mention that some consider it such.
• "but people in most places have covered their feet to protect them as soon as they had the means to do so." Oh really? As soon as they had the means to do so? I think not. Many societies had the means to do so, yet did not. Many still don't, despite having the means.
• "I hope you are not being pointy." I was, and wasn't hiding it. I'll stop doing so, seeing as it's against policy (and I had some doubts about it anyway). I guess I'll take it to the talk page in future.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

...and again I'd like to ask of you: What sane person could, honestly, challenge the statement that being barefoot is the natural state of a human? What evidence is there against it? What argument? What logic? What reason? What fantasy? Who has challenged that statement? InTheRevolution2 didn't, when he added the "citation needed" tag, and neither have you. No one has challenged the statement, and it's highly unlikely anyone ever will. The statement is everything that one is advised not to require citations of, and nothing of what one is advised to add citations to. Why do you think the tag should stay?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: What was it you did with the Fine motor skills page?

I history merged it to fix the cut and paste move that you did to the page. Please do not move pages by cut and paste; instead, if you find that you can't perform a page move yourself, ask an admin to do it using the {{db-move}} template. Graham87 07:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My undone revision in The Atheist Experience

I noticed you undid my revision in The Atheist Experience, but I failed to see why. My contribution was meant to orginize the awards in the order they were awarded. Because no specific reason was given, I in turn, undid your revision. Please let me know what your motivation was and we can sort this thing out. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I misread the quotation in the reference as being something included in the page, so it was just a misunderstanding. Sorry about that. You should however, have discussed it and then edited, rather than just reverting it back (see WP:BRD).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Kendo article and the use of 'waza'

Hi, Re your edit '0:42, 12 June 2012‎ ZarlanTheGreen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,667 bytes) (-60)‎ . . (→‎Waza: This is the English wikipedia, not the Japanese wikipedia. If you use the Japanese word for "technique", you might as well e.g. replace all instances of "Japan" in the article, with "Nihon".)'

The word 'waza' is the word that is commonly used amongst all kendo people in reference to oji and shikake techniques. The word 'technique' is used extensively in the article, so my reasoning was to use the word that we kendo people use, while referring to those techniques. It has as much relevance as many other romanised japanese words that are also in the article. Please re-consider. Cheers, Kendo 66 04:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why it would be relevant to use the word "waza", for "technique". Sure Kendo people may use it a lot (for no good reason), but that isn't relevant.

As to the other Japanese words, used in the article:

• Some words like Kendo, Mushin and Fudōshin aren't translated, but they are names. You don't translate names.
• Shinai is a specific training tool, which has no own word in English.
• Bōgu is the word for (personal) armour. In English, however, it is used as the word for the specific armour of Kendo, which has no own word in English. The words for the rest of the equipment, is pretty much the same.

...and there are a few more, but they clearly fall under the same reasons as I have already mentioned.

Waza, however, doesn't. There is no reason to include it (or use it amongst kendoka). It would be as silly as to use "Nihon" for "Japan", "keikaku" for "plan", or "kuroi" for "black". To refer to the other Japanese words in the article is thus, comparing apples to oranges.

If you wanna say "waza", speak Japanese. If your talking English, say "technique".

--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again,

Fudoshin and mushin are concepts, not names. However to put that aside, in english language kendo instruction manuals waza, such as shikake-waza nad oji-waza are referred to and named - waza.

Some of those instruction manual are ref's in the article, 16 and for example.

So, two points that I would ask you to consider are -

• For consistency with established english language kendo instruction materials, I suggest that 'waza' should be used.
• The name of the techniques are 'oji-waza' and 'shikake-waza', not 'attacking technique' or 'respond to an attack with an attack technique'.

Thank you for your interest and consideration and I look forward to your reply.

Cheers Kendo 66 03:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

Fudoshin and mushin are names. Names of concepts, but that is irrelevant. Faults in English language instruction manuals, and instructors, is also irrelevant. It could be valuable to note that techniques are (for no good reason) called waza, amongst kendoka, sure, but no more than that.

I have an interest in languages, I know four, and am learning a fifth (Japanese). I see no difference between using the word "waza" for "technique", and using "Nihon" for "Japan", "keikaku" for "plan", or "kuroi" for "black". If there is one, you'll have to explain it to me.

Also, 'oji-waza' and 'shikake-waza' fall under the same reasoning as for bōgu (they are names for specific sets of techniques in Kendo).

Waza does not.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop

Hey ZarlanTheGreen, pls stop edit warring and start discussing. --Trofobi (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed your WQA entry

I think you meant to use [[ ]], but instead you used {{ }}. The curly brackets cause the entire contents of the pages in question to be transcluded ... pretty sure that's not what you were trying dangerouspanda 19:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

DRN case

Hello. You recently filed a Broadsword DRN case. As DRN only deals with content disputes, could you please rewrite your opening statement so that it would become focused on content, not on others' conduct? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Trofobi (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Guy Macon (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ZarlanTheGreen. You have new messages at Discospinster's talk page.
Message added 04:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

... discospinster _talk 04:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 Sulaymaniyah protests

Hello! I see you've reverted my edits @ 2011 Sulaymaniyah protests. Would you mind starting the discussion then. Thanks. ~ Zirguezi 16:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As you have clearly not noticed, a discussion has already started. Charles Essie, who suggested the merger, has appropriately also started a discussion of the subject, which is also linked to in the merger-tag. A discussion that I have also commented in. Also, if you want a discussion to start, you do not ask the other party/parties to start it. You start it yourself. To do anything else, is to not really be serious about discussing the issue.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your answer :). Please see Talk:2011_Kurdish_protests_in_Iraq. Also about the this request: I wasn't aware of the merger policy that states we have to reach consensus to start a merger which is why I asked you to start the discussion so I can see how/what we need to discuss. Obviously if this was a very disputed topic and an article with a lot of activity I'd have waited. But considering the fact that the I added the merger template almost two years ago and nobody has given input since then I'd say I wasn't completely wrong to start the merger, rest assured it was done in good faith. Also I'm very serious about discussing obviously or I wouldn't have taken the time to start the discussion on the talk page in the first place :). ~ Zirguezi 19:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Charles Essie edited the merger tag. I clumsily mistook that for him making the tag. Sorry about that. I blame it the fact that I'm a bit tired from a recent trip...

So yeah... you weren't really wrong to merge the articles. You should have done the merger some time between two weeks to two months after you put the merger tag up there, seeing as no one commented on it (thus meaning that no one minded).

More importantly though... you did not start a discussion. You commented on the fact that I made a revert and asked me to start a discussion. To start the discussion, you would need to comment on the talk page of the relevant article. Not on a editors talk page.

The only comment you made on the talk page of the article, was one about how you were making the merger, not on whether or not it should be done, or how it should be done.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edit on Rebecca Watson

Hi. I saw that you twice reverted one of my edits on that article. The piece of information I added was supported by the citation I put in the second time. Here's the quote, if you missed it: "The audience was receptive, and afterward I spent many hours in the hotel bar discussing issues of gender, objectification, and misogyny with other thoughtful atheists. At around 4 a.m., I excused myself, announcing that I was exhausted and heading to bed in preparation for another day of talks. [New paragragh] As I got to the elevator, a man who I had not yet spoken with directly broke away from the group and joined me." I undid your revision, if that's alright. OldFishHouse (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not quite twice revert it. The second edit was different, in that it had a citation. I wouldn't quite count it as a revert of the same edit. I would not revert the same thing multiple times, as that would be edit warring.

Secondly... You assume that I missed what you quote above. Why? What reason do you have to assume that? Isn't that rather presumptuous of you? You could ask if I perhaps missed it, ask why I dismissed your citation. Instead, you declared that you know my reasons, despite not having any possible way of knowing that. Heck, you don't even know me. As a matter of fact, I did read that bit. I didn't read the whole article, but I did look for the part where the elevator incident was described in it (which is the bit you quote above, and some parts around it), and read that. Your claim that she had made her statements in front of him, is original research.

Furthermore, your re-reverting of my revert, is close to, if not straight out, edit warring. If someone reverts your edit, just re-reverting it is pretty much the same behaviour as kindergarten children going "yes it is" "no it isn't". That is not acceptable behaviour. The proper way to respond is to discuss.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read, and follow, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is not really a policy or guideline, but it is a good principle on how to behave, so as to avoid problems.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I assumed you had missed it because I thought the quote was unambiguous. Apologies for reverting your revert--I am new to Wikipedia and not clear on all of the guidelines just yet. OldFishHouse (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That it was the only reason for a revert, that you could think of, doesn't mean that it's okay for you to assume that, that is the reason. Not everyone thinks and behaves like you do, nor does everyone base their thinking and/or behaviour on the same things that you know or do not know. People tend to make such assumptions, but they aren't right. People are different ...and on the net, you can find very different people indeed.

Begin with the assumption that you do not know. You will be right a lot more often.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ninja

Hi Zarlan. I guess we have different definitions of unorthodox. How about I rewrite the sentence without the term? AMorozov ^〈talk〉 09:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No need. I simply removed it. That they engaged in those activities is already mentioned, anyway.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! AMorozov ^〈talk〉 09:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Katar

Hi Zarlan, I know it's an unusual example but I added the photo there because that paragraph mentions different forms of the weapon. I thought it was unnecessary to use a more typical specimen since that's already given in the main image. Should I move the forked katar photo to a different part of the article instead? Morinae (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the thing is, that the section is about the appearance of the katar. A picture of a forked katar, would be fine as one of several pictures, but if you only have one, then it should be one of a typical katar (which would be superfluous, for the reason you stated). It might be fine if it's put further down the section, though. Also, you should never use a picture of the left, at the start of a piece of text. After the first paragraph, it can be fine, but if you put the picture at the start of the text, it needs to be at the right (however, forked katar aren't mentioned until later in the section).

I have nothing against the inclusion of the picture. On the contrary, I think it helps, it's just that it was included in an inappropriate and confusing way.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. If you think the image improves the article, I suggest you put it where you feel is appropriate. Morinae (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure as to how or where it would be good to include it, frankly. It would be rather nice and simple, if it was a picture of a couple of different variants (like this image of nihontō, for example), or if it was a longer article, it could be alright to start with a picture of a standard katar, followed by a forked one and possibly other variants. While it would still be true that it starts of with a standard image, if it's far enough away from the top of the article, it wouldn't really be that big a deal. Maybe a gallery section? I don't really know.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Frustration with edits

Not sure what to do here. The edits on Japanese martial arts are bordering on the destructive. Any comments.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I might check it out, but frankly Kontoreg is a chore to deal with, and I need to look over the edits he/she's done to iaido... I dunno if I have the energy to deal with it, at the moment, but if I do, I'll see what I can do.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was reaching out in frustration. A topic ban was suggested and, much as I don't like the idea of bans, I am looking into that.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright - much as I don't like the idea of a ban in this case I really see no alternative but to propose one. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Topic Ban (Martial arts) for Kontoreg and comment if you will.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A ban for Kontoreg, eh? It was merely a matter of time, to be honest.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited School uniforms by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friesenheim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Iaido

You haven't said in your edit summaries what's wrong with the reference you've removed at this edit and a previous one. Could you please explain? Ruby Murray 07:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain why there should be a reference there, in the first place?

Furthermore, "Iaito, a replica weapon of the real Japanese sword. Few practitioners are using the sharp edged sword." and "Weaponry" are two very different statements. Why would you assume that a reference used for the former, would be appropriate for the latter?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying the reference should be put back, I'm trying to fix the broken repeat cite: see the reference section. References 9 and 12 are broken, so either the missing references should be put back into the repeat citations, or the repeat citations should be removed. Thanks, Ruby Murray 07:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't saying that the reference should be put back, what the heck are you complaining about? That reference is no longer broken, is it? When I undid your edit, I made sure to keep the reference whole, by putting it on the next instance. Also you claimed that I didn't explain, in my edit summary, what was wrong with the reference I re-removed in this edit, but I clearly did.

As to the other broken references... Yeah, well that needs to be fixed, of course. Your way of doing so, however, makes no sense. The way I did it in the edit you link to, however, works perfectly.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

...and now the remaining broken references are fixed by bot. Fixed in a proper way.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Iaido merger discussion

It actually is a merger proposal and my edit did not change the meaning just clarified it. And by way of point - the talk page does not belong to other people. My intent was to make the various merger tags point to the right place.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I re-read the initial comment, to double check...

Not quite. It's a request for information/opinion, which may lead to a situation where a merger would be suggested. Either way, the current solution is okay, I guess, so... whatever.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I said it's okay, but... a merger proposal asks for a different kind of discussion and a time limit, so... Now if you'd suggested it be made into a proposal, that'd be fine. Your assumption that it was a merger proposal, and your further assumption that (assuming that it actually was a merger proposal) the editor would appreciate it being done in the manner of an official/formal merger proposal, however.. That is speculation. To edit someone else's talk page contribution, based on your own speculation of what they meant/wanted (regardless of whether or not it happened to be accurate in this case), is not proper behaviour.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Iaijutsu

An article that you have been involved in editing, Iaijutsu, 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. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Question??

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ninja&diff=583782530&oldid=583781119 - ? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC) I corrected the text by style. Now agree? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

No. It's still just citing the work of one individual ...and it's all in Russian, which means (pretty much) no one can confirm its accuracy. The fact that he has a degree is irrelevant. When it comes to research, it doesn't matter at all, who it is, who comes up with it. The content is what matters, not the person.

Something doesn't become reliable, just because it is the opinion of one individual, whatever their degrees.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion." --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources you cite, do confirm that the statements are his opinions. Is he notable? No, not in the least. Then his opinion has no place on wikipedia.

Also, the section is not written, as if to present the opinion of a person, but as if to present something as being true.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, ZarlanTheGreen. You have new messages at Morinae's talk page.
Message added 14:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Heads up

You might have an interest in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uprising of the Iga NinjaPeter Rehse (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

5:2

Hello. I completely agree with your last message. However you are, of course, just reverting mine back - yours are not more 'important' than other people's. Anyway, let's go to the talk page. Freeranging intellect (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits twice. No more. Technically I should only have reverted it once, but... Either way, you should never have reverted it in the first place. If you get your edit reverted, you should stop and discuss.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I reverted yours originally, so by your own direction, "If you get your edit reverted, you should stop and discuss" - which we are now doing in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeranging intellect (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What you are saying makes no sense. You reverted an edit made by Nick Levine. Not me.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that you are in breach of WP:3RR ...which means that I could have you blocked.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Swords by region navbox

Thanks for your refinements to the template, and reverting my misguided template additions - I was mostly just adding the template to articles that were already feature there. With Tantō, however, the article clearly states it's a sword, and it's duly cited as well. StAnselm (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The only reason for any reference to tanto (which have blades that are, by definition, less than 30 cm long ...which is absurd to refer to as swords) as swords, is due to its status as a nihonto. The term nihonto is usually translated as Japanese sword, but... Nihon means Japan, but the "tou" bit is more accurately translated as "single edged blade". Please see Talk:Japanese_sword#Naginata, where I have already gone over this issue.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "5:2 diet". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of revert button

Dont misuse the revert button. Its annoying and pointless, you didnt revert me, you knew you didnt revert me so what on earth made you use the revert button. Anger at being made to ref a BLP statement? Or what? Thanks for reffing anyway, I removed the second ref as unreliable but there are still two. I also removed the red link but hey you can write the article if you like and we can re-link if you or someone else does, but those 2 refs mean the name can stay. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I did revert you. Or do you need to learn what the term "revert" means here? Also I am unaware of any "revert button". I pressed on the bit that says "undo".

Sure, you are generally not supposed to leave the standard edit message unless the previous edit was vandalism. Frankly I regarded your edit re-revert as disruptive and without basis, anyway, so I couldn't be bothered.

...and yes I am angry at having to go through all that shit, to include something I had already shown to be verifiably true.

Now please heed Wikipedia policy & guidelines in future (notably WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CIVIL ...the latter of which I am struggling with, at the moment).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As an editor you need to demonstrate that what you know is verifiable to others not to yourself♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

...if it's challenged (and not just by someone being pedantic) or likely to be challenged. Otherwise, there is no need. Also, if you already have a source, but the only problem is that it isn't in the page: Just put it in the page!--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP warning

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#Cartoon pornography before re-adding the name of the likely living person whose name you re-added here, BLP also applies to Kevin J. Taylor♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You MUST comply with WP:BLP policy 100% of the time on ALL contentious claims in topic areas such as pornography, ZarlanTheGreen. There are no exceptions to this policy, none at all. High quality reliable sources must be added to any such article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is misplaced. It should be here.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of good will...

...here is a sword for you. I hope you like it, but if not, that's ok.Zaereth (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am disappointed, that you thought there was a lack of good will ...and I am also disappointed, that you think that sword is sensible, in any way.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations?

Hi. I hope you won't be too dismayed by the disarray at Citing sources. There are some fossilized attitudes there, and sensitivities, and hitting anything hard enough to make a change tends to spark metaphorical explosions. Perhaps I can give you some assistance here.

I think you're right, that the others don't understand what you are asking for. But then, you haven't been specific enough. Perhaps the strongest consideration is that within any existing article you must (per WP:CITEVAR) follow the existing "style" (whatever that is). However, possibly you want guidance on citation generally? Or for starting a new article? I can give you some suggestions if you wish. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I see you haven't understood either. You seem to be preoccupied with style as well.

All of them speak of style: In what manner one should use the templates/tags ...but nowhere is it described how the tags/templates actually function. If someone wants help with painting a picture, it doesn't help to talk of surrealism and cubism, when he has neither brush, nor paint.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Not all article use citation templates or tags. If you want to edit an existing article, and the article doesn't use them, then you shouldn't use them either. Also, footnote tags are separate from citation templates; one article might use footnotes but not citation templates, another might use citation templates but not footnotes, and a third article might use both.

If an article uses footnotes, how to write them is described at Help:Footnotes. Also, the software extension that supports footnotes is described at mw:Extension:Cite/Cite.php. Within the <ref> and </ref> tags that surround the footnote, any kind of text to describe the source may be entered, but the text should match the style already being used in the article.

One option for what to put between the <ref> and </ref> tags is citation templates. The most popular family of citation templates is described at Help:Citation Style 1. Another option that is sometimes used is the {{Citation}} template. Other variations may be seen in some articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  Zarlan: It might make a little more sense for you to understand that "style" is being used here in the broadest way possible, comprehending pretty much every variation of how citations may be done, and at every level. It is not just "in what manner" templates (etc.) might be used, but every aspect of how citations might be used.

  So just what do you need? What kind of "brush" and "paint"? Jc3s5h has just given you some examples, and I could give you a general conceptual framework. Do you have any specific questions? Or do you need general guidance? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"If an article uses footnotes, how to write them is described at Help:Footnotes."

It seems that I forgot to reply to this. I'm sorry about that. Better late then never, I guess.

That is actually a bit of an answer! It's severely lacking, and even if it wasn't, it would only be a partial answer, but still:

It's something.

Thanks.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to know what brushes and paints exist, and how those brushes and paints can be used ...and for that information to be accessible.

Now could you two explain why you are saying thing here, when you should be saying them in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You were given some "brushes and paint" information at the the other talk page, and if you follow the various links you should be able to scope out pretty near all the tools that can be used. (Including some that are deprecated.) As to what approaches ("style"!) should be used, or for a straight-forward guide for doing citations without all the philosophical considerations: sorry, that is a strongly contentious topic, where we have not been able to agree on even the definition of basic terms. (Glance through the archives.) I could give you some guidance that should be helpful, but if I (or Jc3s5h) do so on a more public page (and perhaps even here) others will jump in and argue about it. It really comes down to whether you have specific questions. Especially as I am getting jammed for time, so if you want any help from me you need to get to your key questions. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"You were given some "brushes and paint" information at the the other talk page"

That's news to me. Where? When? Quote please.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Davidwr referred you to the hatnote at the top of the WP:Citing sources, which says, in part:

For information on referencing citations in Wikipedia articles, see footnotes, inline citation and referencing for beginners.

Which no one denies are not perfect, but that is what we have. Additional suggestions were made by WhatamIdoing, davidwr, Schreiberbike, Jc3s5h, and SlimVirgin. If you can't get anything from any of that then my suggestion is that you look for some one-on-one mentoring. However, if you are just going to whine you should seek some congenial blog.

My offer of assistance is rescinded. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, Jc3s5h did mention Help:Footnotes, which I didn't think of, when I answered you. I was wrong to completely deny that any answer, in any form, had been given. I'm sorry and I thank you for your correction.

Sure, Help:Footnotes could count as a bit of an answer. It does make some mention of how to use the ref tag, though not much. It is, however, the only instance of any form of answer to what I said, and it is only partial.

Neither WhatamIdoing, davidwr, Schreiberbike, SlimVirgin or you, have given me any answer, in any form ...and Jc3s5h hasn't really provided much of an answer either, to be honest, but has at least provided something.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have tried to learn how to cite, which is commendable, but (as you said on a recent comment) you have much to learn. Please refrain from editing references until you understand the process. Freeranging intellect (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly will not refrain!

None of what I did, had any significant negative impact (and any flaws were fixed within seconds anyway).

I have no obligation to obey you, and Wikipedia policy is in direct conflict with your advice. Besides, non-perfect citations are better than no citations and while bare-URL citations are the lowest form of citations, they are a perfectly acceptable form. While it is fine to improve them, there is no excuse for removing any flawed or less then perfect citations.

Adding and modifying citations, as I have been doing, improves Wikipedia. This is exactly what Wikipedia policy is all about. The sole purpose of Wikipedia policy is to facilitate improvements to Wikipedia.

If I were to follow your advice (and I can see no logical reason to do so), I would be refraining from improving Wikipedia ...and that rather goes against Wikipedia policy.

You attitude of not tolerating anything, unless it is perfect right from the start, runs counter to what is advisable if you want success (in anything) and counter to Wikipedia's policy and guidelines concerning these issues:

Mistakes are acceptable, though they should be corrected. Poorly phrased sentences or references are acceptable, though they should be improved.

If you want to get things right, make more mistakes. If you're not making mistakes, you aren't trying.

If you only accept perfection, you'll just be hesitant and barely do anything, paralysed by perfectionism.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but at least please try to get it right the first time. Otherwise the rest of us have to take time to correct your mistakes (and references are a fairly simple thing to get right). Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fine, but at least please try to get it right the first time."

Clearly you failed to understand a single word of what I said.

"Otherwise the rest of us have to take time to correct your mistakes "

That's the beauty of Wikipedia: If a mistake is made, or something is a bit sloppy, there are a lot of others who can fix it.

"(and references are a fairly simple thing to get right)."

That is utter and complete nonsense and there are no instructions on how to do so, anywhere.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"there are a lot of others who can fix it"

the "I'll leave it to someone else" philosophy "runs counter to what is advisable if you want success (in anything)" (to use your words). But yes, if mistakes happen, hopefully someone else will pick up on it. But that general idea is not meant to be an excuse to not spend a few extra seconds to get it right if you can.

"That is utter and complete nonsense and there are no instructions on how to do so, anywhere."

Many other Editors have tried to help you with this, much to their own frustrations. I won't join them, but please at least consider the idea that if many Editors say the information is available (as much as it can be), but you cannot understand it, that the fault may lie with you. I don't want to get into this because many others have already tried to help you understand, but it's something to ponder perhaps. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"Leave it to someone else" might not be that good, but "make a bit of what is ,hopefully, an improvement, and leave the rest to someone else", is perfectly fine and advisable behaviour on Wikipedia. It is often explicitly stated as how you should behave, in Wikipedia policy/guideline articles. None of it runs counter to what is advisable if you want success.

"Many other Editors have tried to help you with this, much to their own frustrations."

Tried and failed.

That they failed is fine (as should be clear from what I've said above), but they don't even have the grace to admit any fault and seemed to mainly just get annoyed with me, which is simply immature.

"please at least consider the idea that if many Editors say the information is available (as much as it can be), but you cannot understand it, that the fault may lie with you."

They didn't. They didn't even understand what information I was asking about, much less identity it as being available.

I had no difficulty understanding what they said, it's simply that none of it was relevant to my question.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"There are no right answers to wrong questions." - Ursula K. Le Guin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.164.40 (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Dao

Just to ask, do you speak, read Chinese? I do and I can assure you that dao mean cutting tools, again form follows function, they are single edged because that is what is all that is needed for their intended use. not because they are single edged and therefore used to cut. The claim that dao are derived from kitchen knives is laughable, if anything they would be derived from agricultural tools, reaping dao (sickles), mountain opening dao (machetes), but that said I've not presented evidence to back up my claim that it is a mistake that modern dao are derived from kitchen knives, and can live with the citation needed tag, however I would feel justified in removing that sentence completely in two or three months time if no citation is provided.--KTo288 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just read the Chinese version of the article, maybe I should have done that first, and that article says the convention is that single edged blades are dao, and double edged blades are ken (my understanding was that anything primarily intended to cut is a dao, and anything that stabs is a ken) I still think the convention has it backwards but given that article is in agreement with you I have to admit that I'm mistaken, you're right. I still find it laughable the claim that dao are derived from kitchen knives though.--KTo288 (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not speak or read Chinese. I am, however, somewhat familiar with Japanese and while the two languages are rather different, Japanese has borrowed a lot from Chinese (notably the writing system, but a lot more than that, along with it) and I have an interest in swords, so I do have some familiarity with the terms used for swords, in both languages (mainly Japanese, but...)

I can safely say that the Chinese "dao" (刀) and "jian"/"ken" (劍/剑) are the same as the Japanese "tou" (刀) and "ken" (剣) ...and what differentiates 刀 from 剣, is the number of edges (as the Chinese Wikipedia apparently confirms). The distinction is not always strictly observed (at least in Japanese), as seen with words like kenjutsu, which use the kanji for two edged blades, despite generally referring to the use of the single edged katana, but that is, nevertheless, the distinction.

As to the notion that dao (as in the swords) derive from kitchen knives:

I have never claimed that they did.

I don't have any issue with that claim being removed (though I chose to put a citation needed tag there, just to be on the safe side. If nothing comes up after a month or two, it is, of course, fine to remove that sentence), but your claim that it doesn't come from kitchen knives is just as unverified. Furthermore, I don't see any reliable source, that indicates that they are commonly thought to come from kitchen knives, in the first place. If they aren't, and that was merely the thought of a single editor, then there is no reason for any mention of its connection, or lack thereof, with kitchen knives.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I'm thinking of adding a section with regards the terminology translated form the eequivalent section in the Chinese article and proposing a move from Dao (sword) to Dao (weapon), (the title used for the Chinese article) as this more properly reflects that dao properly includes weapons which in the west would range in size from daggers to polearms, any thoughts?--KTo288 (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the current Dao (sword), but Dao (weapon) would be a bit more accurate, so... Yeah sure, why not?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barefoot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on Vikings

I don't know what nationality you are or which language is native to you, but the text you are edit-warring to preserve in Vikings ("Vikings were the people of the Norse culture") makes very little sense grammatically in English, so please stop. The correct way to start the article is by saying that they were Norsemen, with a link to that article, since it's as obvious that Norse culture was the culture of the Norsemen as that French culture was and is the culture of the French people. Thomas.W ^talk 18:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't address any issues of what is proper to have on the article, as that is discussion to have on the articles Talk page, rather than having it here and there (which would be useless duplication of effort and keeping part of the discussion from other editors), but...

Edit warring? How so?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W - As you have discovered Zarlan is the King of editwars. Talking him out of it will be difficult (FYI). Freeranging intellect (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

...and yet, you have no evidence to back up that claim, I see.

Please note the policies WP:Civility, WP:Assume and WP:No personal attacks. If you think I'm edit warring, you need to have, and present, evidence of that being the case.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see your contributions for evidence - see all those reverts (usually prior to talk page entries?). There's the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeranging intellect (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You'll have to be more clear and specific ...and it's a bit rich, being accused of edit warring from someone who has just violated WP:3RR.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Terms

Thank you for your recent comments about what is "bad" and then the transition to "real bad". I have noted said occurrences in a spreadsheet (titled 'bad and real bad' for my future reference. Freeranging intellect (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the main issue is to learn to avoid those things.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Vote on Merger of Vikings and Norsemen

There's a more formal vote going on at the bottom of the Vikings talk page. Your vote would be appreciated. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

OK it was easier than I thought it would be. Thanks for pointing that out to me.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad I could be of help ...even despite the insults.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with replacing the templates, sorry again if I was being a dick. I tore my rotator cuff and the pain meds make me an asshole at night time.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Molyneux

Your edits here to remove his classification as a philosopher seem to be in bad faith. Firstly, you removed citations that appear elsewhere in the same article - If they aren't reliable sources for naming him as a philosopher, then how are they reliable for use in the other sections? If you believed they are not RS, then surely you'd remove them totally (though, I think you know that a print newspaper of a major city like Toronto would pass the RS test every day of the week). Second, there are several other references to him being a philosopher (infobox, major topic heading, several references in the text) which you also did not remove along with that single word in the first paragraph. Third, his vast publishing history in both book, video, and audio on the history of philosophy and his own philosophical constructs make ample proof that he is indeed a philosopher. Please revert your edit, raise issues on the talk page. Unless you do that, I can only imagine you want to somehow deface the article and the man for your own personal motivation. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Your edits here to remove his classification as a philosopher seem to be in bad faith."

On what possible basis do you claim that? May I remind you that you are supposed to always Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

"If you believed they are not RS, then surely you'd remove them totally (though, I think you know that a print newspaper of a major city like Toronto would pass the RS test every day of the week)."

Why?

They are not RS for saying that he is a philosopher, but that doesn't mean that they are not RS for other claims. A source is not either reliable or unreliable (well some sources are just plain unreliable, in any context). It is reliable or unreliable for verifying a particular claim.

Can you find me a statement from a University, that confirms that he has a doctorate in philosophy? Can you find me, academically accepted, papers he has written on philosophy? Sources that confirm that he is widely accepted by other philosophers as a philosopher?

"Second, there are several other references to him being a philosopher (infobox, major topic heading, several references in the text) which you also did not remove along with that single word in the first paragraph."

Thank you, for pointing out that oversight. I shall have to remedy that.

"Third, his vast publishing history in both book, video, and audio on the history of philosophy and his own philosophical constructs make ample proof that he is indeed a philosopher."

How so?

By that logic, you could just as well say that people like Ken Ham and Kirk Cameron is a biologist and physicist.

"Unless you do that, I can only imagine you want to somehow deface the article and the man for your own personal motivation."

I want to improve the article, and make sure it doesn't violate WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to read the whole article, to note each and every statement, and see if it's correct, but I have gone through it, and I think that I will have gone through everything relevant to the issue of claiming that he is a philosopher and anything else you've mentioned here. I didn't fix the infobox, but that's because I don't quite know how to do so, without effectively blanking out everything in it. Well, there is no statement in the infobox, claiming that he is a philosopher, so I don't really see how it's much of a problem, anyway.

Again, thanks for pointing out the bits I missed.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

replied. -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, take a read of WP:ABOUTSELF first. Information the person publishes about himself should be considered reliable as long as there is no reason to doubt the information, and especially if it is corroborated by other sources. -- Netoholic @ 08:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:ABOUTSELF? Yes, why not.

It states that what a person writes about themselves can be regarded as reliable as long as it is not:

"the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;"

This is arguably the case, in this instance ...but I'll admit that, that is debatable.

"it does not involve claims about third parties;"

It most certainly does. There are claims about the University of Toronto and of the Academic community, in general.

"there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;"

There is.

"and especially if it is corroborated by other sources."

What other sources?--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, his educational background is posted on his About page. He describes his philosophy career, which is corroborated by the print citations you removed and dozens of online ones (some are better than others, sure, but all say the same thing). You removed an entire section of his educational background, which is likewise confirmed by multiple sources used in this article. If you want reference number spam repeated several times, I can give it to you, but I think we all kind of desire a more appropriate presentation. It shouldn't be necessary for me to reference number every single word or partial phrase. If you need better sources, mark them and we'll find them. But you're acting completely counter to common sense by nerfing the "philosopher" thing out of the entire article. Its coming off like a personal attack. -- Netoholic @ 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"Specifically, his educational background is posted on his About page. He describes his philosophy career"

That only describes what he claims about himself. As I've pointed out, that isn't enough, under Wikipedia policy.

Furthermore, that same page also says (emphasis mine) "A self-described philosopher, Molyneux has/.../". I.e. he is not acknoledged as a philosopher, but is merely claiming that of himself.

...and even if you look at the claim he makes about his educational background (emphasis mine):

"earned a graduate degree from the University of Toronto, focusing on the history of philosophy. I received an 'A' for my Master's Thesis analyzing the/.../"

So... a masters degree ...and not even on philosophy, but on the history of philosophy (and no, that's not the same thing. It is a different subject, if connected).

"which is corroborated by the print citations you removed and dozens of online ones (some are better than others, sure, but all say the same thing)."

Not really. Who's to say that they're not just taking him at his word? A lot of Find me a statement from the University of Toronto. That would be a very good source for what degree the University of Toronto has given him.

"You removed an entire section of his educational background, which is likewise confirmed by multiple sources used in this article."

No sources that are reliable, for verifying that.

"If you want reference number spam repeated several times, I can give it to you"

Dozens of bad sources doesn't verify it. Quantity is worthless without quality.

"It shouldn't be necessary for me to reference number every single word or partial phrase."

No, but any claim that is, or is likely to be, challenged is required to be verified by a Reliable Source.

"If you need better sources, mark them and we'll find them."

Find them, then.

Until then... To quote WP:BLP (with emphasis and everything intact, as it is in the policy article):

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

It is my duty, as per WP:BLP to remove those statements, without discussion. You may argue for its re-inclusion, but you need to do so with proper sources, or by showing that the sources used are actually valid.

"Its coming off like a personal attack."

How so? I haven't said or done anything against the man.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged". This doesn't mean wikipedia editor challenges, it means outside ones. Unless you can find a reliable source that DISPUTES his educational credentials, we defer to WP:SELFPUB and take his own words for granted, especially when there are news sources that repeat the information. We list educational details in almost every BLP, and never require statements from the universities. That would be an impossible standard. --Netoholic @ 14:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"This doesn't mean wikipedia editor challenges"

Yes it does. That is exactly what it means.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "How a cyberphilosopher convinced followers to cut off family" - "He has a master's degree in history from the University of Toronto and graduated from Humber School for Writers but he says his lifelong calling is philosophy."
• "Their software keeps tabs on site data" (reproduced for WP editors to view at Talk:Stefan Molyneux#Toronto Star article section for editor reference) - "He wanted to be an actor, and was accepted to the National Theatre School in Montreal. "First of all, the technology wasn't that good at the time, and secondly the people going into computer science then weren't exactly the kind of people I would be aching to spend four years with,"he said. But Stefan never entirely forgot computers. After pursuing an acting career, as well as writing poetry and fiction, and getting a master's degree in history, he returned to programming a few years ago."

Two different newspapers, in Toronto itself, corroborate Molyneux's self-published educational background. I think you need to explain why two print sources in Toronto wouldn't be reliable enough to confirm that he has a Masters. There simply is no legitimate source that disputes what he says about his educational background. -- Netoholic @ 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"/.../and never require statements from the universities. That would be an impossible standard."

No it isn't. It's a very easy standard.

""He has a master's degree in history from the University of Toronto and graduated from Humber School for Writers but he says his lifelong calling is philosophy.""

That would confirm that he has no degree, whatsoever, in philosophy.

"After pursuing an acting career, as well as writing poetry and fiction, and getting a master's degree in history, he returned to programming a few years ago."

That's saying what Molynuex has told the interviewer. I.e. the source is, ultimately, Molynuex himself.

...and again: Nothing about any degree (not even a mere master's) that is, in any way, related to philosophy.

"Two different newspapers, in Toronto itself, corroborate Molyneux's self-published educational background."

No they don't. They merely say he has a Master's in History.

That's not what Molyneux's self-published educational background states.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to dispute the fact-checking of two Toronto newspapers, about a resident of Toronto and the degrees he got a Toronto universities, then we can't really continue the conversation here. --Netoholic @ 17:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"then we can't really continue the conversation here."

Excellent!

We shouldn't be having it here, in the first place, but rather in the articles talk page.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Per the RFC text "Place any discussion, including discussion of alternative terms, or proposed qualifiers (such as have been discussed here on talk) in the Threaded discussion section below." - please move your point by point replies down into that section, so the votes stay clear. Also, read User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Definitions. -- Netoholic @ 03:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Very well, I'll move my comments. Thanks for informing me. As to User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Definitions... You know perfectly well that I've looked at it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ken Ham

On a related note, for a laugh I clicked the Ken Ham link. Turns out there is no RS for his intro paragraph either (the only source is first-hand from his bio on his own website), so we shouldn't be publishing the claim that he's a creationist, from Australia, or president of AiG. You mind going and blanking all that out too? -- Netoholic @ 08:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You should maybe read WP:LEAD. There is no need to cite sources on the lead section as long as the statement is verified in the body of the article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

So, if in the body of the article, we link an WP:ABOUTSELF that describes their educational background in philosophy, their philosophical broadcasts, their books related to philosophy, and their on-going work in that field (all of this confirmed by secondary sources)... we can naturally include in the LEAD the word "philosopher", right? -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

"(all of this confirmed by secondary sources)..."

What secondary sources?

"we can naturally include in the LEAD the word "philosopher", right?"

If you would be able to manage that, then yes.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Chiba Shusaku

Hi, Re your edit '11:35, 12 May 2014‎ ZarlanTheGreen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,160 bytes) (-153)‎ . . (You can't verify a claim about Chiba Shusaku, with the words of Chiba Shusaku himself. That's not a Reliable Source. See WP:SELFSOURCE)'

The Book "Chiba Shûsaku Ikoshu" was written by Chiba Eiichiro not Chiba Shusaku himself. It was written 1942. Chiba Shûsaku died in 1856. That is not a self source. Chiba Eiichiro wrote the book after the "great time" of the Hokushin Ittô-ryû Hyôhô, and it is mostly about how the school worked during the Bakumatsu-period, which training methods were used, famous samurai of the school etc. Hope this helps you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.159.36.163 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I looked into the book, and it is Chiba Shusaku's writings.

Not that it matters, though. Even if it were Chiba Eiichiro who wrote it, that still counts as WP:SELFSOURCE, as Eiichiro is clearly Shusaku's descendent.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I think "Chiba Shûsaku Ikoshu" is an acceptable source about Hokushin Ittô-ryu. It's a primary source, and thus not ideal, but WP:SELFSOURCE clearly states "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" which is what is being done here. Francis Bond (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ffbond:You are, intentionally or not, quote mining WP:SELFSOURCE.

What is actually says is:

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:"

"1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;"

It is a very self-serving claim.

"2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);"

It argues that they were the ones who came up with it, thus involving everyone else, involved with sword training, in that their claim that none of them did it before them.

"4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;"

Well, due to 1...

So no. WP:SELFSOURCE does not support it as being an acceptable source.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I considered the fact that Chiba Shusaku reorganized and gave the modern names to many techniques to be completely uncontroversial general knowledge, not a self-serving claim. There's a good discussion of this in the foreword to Shiba Ryutaro's 'hokuto-no hito' and when I find my copy I will add it as a citation. it goes something like 'in XXX-style there is a move called the phonix rising is defeated by the dragon's dip. Chiba called this men-nuki men' :-). So my understanding was that the claim is not that all the techniques are new but that they were newly systematized (and this much, much easier to learn). Francis Bond (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ah, I considered the fact that Chiba Shusaku reorganized and gave the modern names to many techniques to be completely uncontroversial general knowledge, not a self-serving claim."

Oh really? It's not self serving to claim that you are the one who gave the names that are officially used by everyone?

Besides, if it is such common knowledge that Chiba Shusaku was the one to give the names, then surely an unbiased source should be easy to find.

"it goes something like 'in XXX-style there is a move called the phonix rising is defeated by the dragon's dip. Chiba called this men-nuki men' :-)."

That just says that different styles have different names for the same technique/stance/kata. That's rather unremarkable and insignificant. Not even worth mention. Any mention would fall under WP:UNDUE and/or WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

"So my understanding was that the claim is not that all the techniques are new but that they were newly systematized"

...and that this was done by Chiba Shusaku and that other schools/styles had no or minimal input.

How you can claim that this is not self serving, is beyond my capacity to understand.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for thanks

And for the implied compliment. All the best. JonRichfield (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)