User talk:Itsmejudith/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

James McGready

I added a source and fixed the notability problem on James McGready. Also, the copy & paste is from a PD source, so there's no copyvio, but I still don't like it. Hopefully someone can take a swing at it later.--Jwilkinsen (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

MLE

Hey thinks for the link on my discussion page. Thegryseone (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rohingya Jihad

I have never edited the article, never seen it before, and know nothing of it. I really don't know why you sent me that AfD note. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have already voiced my opinion on the AfD page. And, it calls for a delete. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery

Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banjeboi 20:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright, Isaac Newton Seligman

Hi. :) Not that I'm the queen of copyrights, but I am the most active admin at WP:CP, and I just wanted to thank you for your note on this one and suggest that when you run into a clearly PD source, you might want to WP:IAR and remove the copyvio template, putting the PD attribution template in place. If you're not comfortable IARing with that template (some people aren't), please feel free to stop by my talk page if you think about it, and I will happily address it immediately (so long as I haven't been swept away from Wikipedia by aliens). That saves that article being blanked for a week waiting for admin attention. I also appreciate your making the note at the talk page. It hasn't been that long since my first encounter with the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the first time I ran into it I didn't know it was PD until I found time to dig deeper. A note like the one you left can save a lot of confusion down the road. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Vieta

Something new about Vieta Franciscus on my page : i have translated my 'owm' page of WP fr in english. you can see it here : User:Jean_de_Parthenay/Viete2/wikipedia

As my english is not native, i am scattered with the idea to publish it. if you are not agree, say it ! If you want to make change, do it ! If you don't say anything, i shall publish it through a week. Thanks.

And please, after that, it will be a first class article, with great importance ! isn't he ?Jean de Parthenay (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Readminship

If/when you do go for readminship, could you let me know? I don't think it's a WP:CANVAS issue if I ask to be informed.

Normally I do not vote in RFAs. In most cases I lack sufficient familiarity with the candidate's track record that I feel sufficiently confident to venture an opinion. In your case, I would have the pleasure of doing so.

RFA is often a crapshoot and bloodsport. I hope it doesn't discourage you from the overall project. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If your ears are burning

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Recent_unsuccessful_candidates. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is against you

You do realize that multiple people have pointed out the absurdity in even attempting to claim the guy as an expert on Wilde. As such, your continual pushing the matter continues to go beyond point. If you claim as you do that you want to stay in the RS noticeboard and you are pushing obviously wrong statements, then it is clear that a topic ban would be necessary to keep you from disrupting. There is no content dispute. There is no dispute. There are only a few people trying to push an absurdity. You have gone on far enough. If you set up an RfC for me, I will start up a section asking for you to be topic banned because your understanding is so flawed it is disruptive because you have gone to various things to push something that is clearly inappropriate and you wont stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The way to stop bullies is to confront them. Ottava has behaved in this abusive fashion to dozens of people, and it's about time we put an end to it.

Judith, all you have to do is find someone else who has tried to get through to Ottava. That's not hard -- I tried a couple of times myself. Ottava is way out of line with his shrill and nonsensical demands for bans, blocks, desysoppings, and topic bans, each of which are violations of our behavioral policies, in spite of his wikilawyering. Just say no to bullying. Antandrus (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, it is nice to see you here. You do realize that your post is further evidence of your abusive meat puppeting, which can result in desysopping and long term blocks, right? Talk about bullying. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Abusive meat puppeting?" LOL. Ottava, you have no idea how out-of-line you are. So someone who shows up to defend another editor against your bullying and abusive behavior is a "meat puppet"? The honorable thing for any administrator to do when seeing bullying going on is to take a stand against it, which is what I am doing. Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Ottava has been engaging in this shrill bullying for too long. When we see this combined with his aggressive insistence on preposterous claims it is cleaer he has become disruptive. Paul B (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, when you claim that a person who has no background in Oscar Wilde and with no publications on the individual can some how be a "reliable source" for his sexuality without using any references, then your statement lacks all merit. Your pushing the issue here is the very definition of disruptive. I welcome an RfC because there are people like you that have no business in any kind of decision making process of determining what a reliable source is because you are patently making things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The person in question does not need to be absolute specialist specifically in Wilde, a subject about which you appear to know next to nothing by the way. He needs to be an expert in the mores of the era and to have a good knowledge of Wilde. That is what he has. You don't know the meaning of disruptive. Paul B (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• "I entered into the discussion on the quality of the source in good faith" And once evidence was provided that he was not an expert on Oscar Wilde, you should have immediately retracted your claims. You failed to do so. That is when your "good faith" turned into outright disruption. You still claim as if your promotion of the source is some how appropriate when reality is clearly against you along with our policies. That is the very definition of a "troll", and if you perform such actions on a noticeboard then you are damaging Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your claim that I am "angry with you" is preposterous. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is definitely pertinent to the above discussion. By the way, Itsmejudith, I sent an email off to the ArbCom mailing list because of your history with Antandarus and others that are involved in the Persian Empire dispute. There is a lot of evidence of retaliatory practices going on. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Hello Itsmejudith, in regards to your comment; feel free to approach the RfC. If you don't want Ottava Rima posting anymore discussions on your talk page simply approach the use and ask to stop. If that doesn't help the problem, simply revert the edits as a personal attack and a block will be issued. Thanks and happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox) 19:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A3R0, you do realize that claiming a simple post is a personal attack is a personal attack per NPA, and if you do go ahead with the threat, you are in direct violation of our admin policies? Please, if you are going to be outright corrupt and ignore our policies, have the decency to not be so blatant about it. I suggest you strike your claims now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, please observe the First Rule of Holes: when in a hole, stop digging. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to understand the policies of Wikipedia himself; considoring policies don't cover everthing. His disrespect will only end up causing him more distress than the people he's directing to. Please proceed with WP:RfC, the need is legite. Thanks.--A3RO (mailbox) 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A3R0, you stated above for her to make up a concern so you can block. That is pure corruption. For your information, ArbCom has had emails with diffs and other pertinent information sent to them about the meat puppetry disruption that Antandrus has been operating in for over a year. You want to protect them while making such blatantly inappropriate comments about blocking, please, be my guest. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, being ask to stay off someone's talk page is a legitimite request and if that request is not followed then that user can be baned or even blocked. Simple as that. Itsmejudith, per the section on the WP:RfC, I suggest you now move this issue to WP:ANI for further view.--A3RO (mailbox) 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Antandrus, you have already gone way too far and ArbCom has more than enough information to verify that your behavior is completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is not some game that you can bully and meat puppet to dodge policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. I challenge you to produce anything. Anything. You have nothing on me but empty threats. Empty, Ottava, empty, hollow, meaningless, and utterly inappropriate. You are out of line and if you had any sense, decency, or shame you would realize it. Antandrus (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think that, please submit an email to ArbCom and see if any of them will send you any of the information that I have sent them. I have sent some stuff directly to the list and other stuff to various Arbitrators to be passed onto others. I have talked to 8 of the members directly about various aspects of the issue and over a years worth of such tag teaming and domination of both Fringe and RS noticeboards that, more often than not, promote policy violation while bullying anyone who disagrees. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, someone has dared to contradict Ottava Rima. Call the cops! The culprit must be blocked, banned and/or desysopped right away to save Wikipedia from such appalling "disruption." What's worse, several people have dared to contradict Ottava Rima. It can only be an evil conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia. It can't possibly be because Ottava Rima is wrong on a point of fact. The only solution is to conduct an off-wiki campaign against this cabal to prevent them using such unfair weapons as "evidence", "common sense" and the "bleeding obvious" to defend themselves. --Folantin (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It is ironic that Folantin claims that her group is using evidence, common sense, and the rest, while they are currently claiming that an author who has no publications on Oscar Wilde is able to declare him as a pederast even though the biographers do not. You'd think she would actually look at the conversation at hand before blindly jumping to defend her friend in a belligerent way that contradicts many of our policies. It is nice to know that your standards for "expert" are now non-existent and that you have utter contempt for encyclopedic standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's news to me that I'm female too. --Folantin (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If you would care to make your gender official, it would help establish which pronoun is proper. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've told you several times I'm male. This just confirms my suspicions that your comprehension skills are not of the highest. --Folantin (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary - you've questioned me multiple times on why I thought you were -female-. You never said one way or another, and you were asked directly at least twice. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think even you could understand this statement [1]. If you can't then here it is again: I'm male, not female. Got it now? --Folantin (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I got it, sir. Excuse the unintentional reference. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Just wow! Itsmejudith (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Meaning: how quickly things can get into Alice in Wonderland territory. I'm calling a halt to this discussion on my talk page and will remove further comments under this head. Me, I'm off to check whether I ever edited on the Persian Empire page. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I didn't! Nor did Ottava Rima. Or Antandrus. Curiouser and curiouser... Itsmejudith (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, Itsmejudith, of course Ottava Rima's behavior is unacceptable. But I doubt that the ANI thread will result in anything useful--that's a place for fomenting drama, not solving it. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI is a complete waste of time, except for those users who are here to treat Wikipedia as a soap opera. By now you would have expected at least one admin there to have picked up on Ottava Rima's somewhat cavalier attitude towards this section of WP:TALK: "Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with 'admins you know' or having them banned for disagreeing with you." Apparently, you are part of my cabal of "meat puppets" and we're all involved in some dark plot to destroy the 'Pedia. Pleased to meet you. Are you a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country) by any chance? According to Ottava this is the motivation for my "agenda-pushing" on Persian Empire [2]. I'm not sure what Ottava means by my "history of user page proclamations of blatant POV". Maybe he was referring to my old user-boxes [3]. Um, yes. --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(NB: I've posted the above simply to give you a bit of background info. I have no idea what this "conspiracy" is supposed to be either. You can wipe my post if you want to avoid the possibility of another "Alice in Wonderland" argument breaking out on your talk page. Cheers.) --Folantin (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kambodjas

Your wellintended edits to Kambojas made some problems with the references. Please check whether my fixes had the desired result. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

They did, thanks for fixing them. You'll appreciate the article is so complex it is easy to make minor errors. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I provided some peer review comments on the solar energy article as you requested. Would you mind commenting on the geothermal power peer review? Thanks.--Yannick (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Good comments.--Yannick (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RSN

A response has been given to your earlier comment. As you have Rvt'd a Rvt in the normal course of a collegial 1R BRD, I do not wish to give even the appearance of anything untoward by Rvt'ing again myself. Thank you. _99.135.170.179 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Searchlight

I saw your comment at the RS board. The Searchlight is associated with and run by big C Communists. It is very political.--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could comment on that board. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know, it is not run by members of the Communist Party in any case. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it was initially but it hasn't been the case for many years. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Human suit recreated as Human disguise

This is a notice to all who participated in the recent AfD of Human suit, here, that resulted in a consensus for delete. This article has been recreated as "Human disguise", and has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human disguise. Thank you. Verbal chat 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi IMJ. There a discussion on the gender disguise article talk page that might interest you. As a merge has been proposed there you might find greater receptivity to a "speedy merge" suggestion. People are pretty dug in on the human disguise article. I would consider merging it to disguise, but it seems like it might be overweight to cover it there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg

Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Aubane as Reliable Source - again

Hi Itsme. In light of the questionable motivations of the initiating IP editor, I've asked that this issue be reconsidered at RS Noticeboard. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

un-merge of Kamboja-Pala Dynasty article

The Kamboja Pala dynasty is not the same as the Pala Dynasty of Bengal. They were a separate dynasty that ascended in the twilight years of the Palas, similar to the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom and the Seleucids. --Reahad (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Anita Turner and BLP/NPOV

I think you may have gone too far in the other direction while trying to fix BLP issues on her page. Yes, remove the unreferenced stuff immediately (it helps reduce the WP:WEIGHT issues in any event), but completely removing any mention of controversy isn't the point of BLP. For the sourced claims, they really should stand, even if the tone could be softened. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. I was erring on the side of caution given that it is a BLP. And I am not sure how well sourced some of the points were. Please put back in anything that is reliably sourced, e.g. to Media Guardian or to ITV. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the BLP guidelines are awkward. At the same time, I'm equally leery of whitewashing Wikipedia; I prefer more (useful) information to less. I'll try and take a look after lunch. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've readded a limited amount of sourced information. On reading the reference thoroughly, the weight issue was actually not a problem; the source itself only gave positive quotes from the "axed" actors. The mild controversy remaining on the page is adequately balanced by my change to point that out, IMO. Do you agree? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the page as it stands, which is approximately how I left it, is good enough. I know you were working to keep it balanced, but the BLP nature of the article means taking out anything where the source is less than adequate. Thanks for your help and understanding on this. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Madam

I just suggest you not to messup with Kamboj History. As it is now amply clear, you are totally ignorant of ancient Indian/Central History and thyerefore your edits are trying to derlete the realistic information on Kamboj and other ancient tribes. I suggest you to take some courses in ancient Indian/Central History and only then dare to mess up with the historyy of these ancient tribes like Sakas, Kambojas, Paradas, Nadras, Kekeyas, Pahlavalas and thye like. Hope you would listen to sane advise and stop deleting the genuinie information on Kamboja/Madra/Saka/Pahalava people. Cheers 67.161.176.99 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

List of major phenomena captured on Ghost Adventures

As the prod was removed I took the article to AfD. Verbal chat 15:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Regarding your comment here, [4] if this was a normal article, I would agree with you. However, Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident has been the victim of edit-warring and POV-pushing from all sides of the AGW debate. This criteria is a simple way of trying to prevent some of the POV-pushing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The article has also been nominated for AFD, [5].Teeninvestor (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok

I've written up a nomination for you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith 2. As is normal, this isn't transcluded to WP:RFA yet, so you have plenty of time to get a co-nom or two (ping, Vassyana!), and answer the 3 first questions. If you would prefer not to use this nomination, or want to postpone the RFA altogether, just let me know (although I don't really see the point of either). Best of luck. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

David Littman

Hi, as regards the AFD, does this addition affect your position and his general notability? Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to glance at the many refs I've just added also, as well as those I've not even had a chance to populate the article with from these articles and these books. The nomination reflects IMHO one of the more egregious failures to do a simple google search as suggested by wp:before before bringing an article to AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ha'aretz and Jerusalem Post are just the kind of RS I was looking for, so will reconsider on that basis. I didn't do a google search myself and I'm not sure that everyone would think to search in the way you have, Epeefleche, excluding terms that lead to the hockey player, so let's AGF and just respond to what we have in front of us now. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering your vote. I did AGF. But that concept doesn't require that, where there are dozens of articles on the fellow any way you search him (I just pared the list), that in the face of that we lie and say "yes, I believe you followed wp:before, but ..." As to you not having done a google search, that's fine -- the wp:before requirement is a requirement that the nom perform such a search, and not bring an AfD if the search would yield the RS support for the notion that an AfD would be innappropriate. IMHO such is the case here (I started off with the broader search myself, and articles just jumped out at me -- there are dozens out there beyond those cited). BTW, I'm having trouble w/the editor who is template bombing (IMHO, without basis -- all I can get out of him is that he does not like Littman's views) the article. Thoughts? Can he really just affix a COI template, etc, without any basis whatsoever, and tell me I am forbidden from removing it? Perhaps others' advice/communication could help address the situation. I've tried communication, to no avail.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a quick look. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith

Hi Itsmejudith. I noticed you created an RfA page some time ago. I was wondering as to what the status of that RfA might be. Please let me know if you still intend to run for adminship with that RfA; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete it for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I do intend to run but am waiting for a time when I'm a bit less busy in real life and will be able to give it my full attention. Can you keep it open for this week at least? Ta. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David F. Haight

An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the shout-out you gave me. :) -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing this proposal

Hi Judith, a number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and they are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. I've reviewed their proposal and have decided to lend my support and signed my signature. Can you please review their proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Law Suit Threatened by DeGrazia

Today I received an email from Alfred de Grazia threatening a law suit against me and Wikipedia for using material from Ted Morgan's Literary Outlaw, whose defamatory content was subject of a libel suit against publisher Holt and author Morgan, which found in favor of plaintiff. Here's a passage from de Grazia's email: "Much of the material on these pages is false, malicious and grossly exaggerated, quite in keeping with the character of Burroughs and sympathetically depicted by Ted Morgan, the Author. It is typical of you to seize upon it and promote its publication even farther. I must inform you that materials on this page were matter for a lawsuit against Henry Holt and Ted Morgan, the Author, which ended in a legal settlement under which damages were paid to me by Henry Holt and the Author. They also signed and provided me with a statement that no copies of said book would be sold anywhere (such as in Great Britain, where the attitudes of the courts towards parties publishing and distributing defamatory matter, such as Yourself, the Author, Wikipedia, and Henry Holt, are notably stern)."

I was not able to determine today when and who originally used Morgan's book for a source. Do you recall who? Using the hardcover edition of 1988 from the St. Louis Public Library, I quoted the relevant passage in response to some editor's concern over just what was related. In America, a paperback edition came out in 1990 from Avon, but there is no local library holding this edition and I cannot readily compare the two versions. Would this initiative of de Grazia's be grounds for reconsidering the use of Morgan-based content in the DeGrazia entry? Any feedback would be appreciated. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'drifters and dropouts' language was introduced here [6]. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And I can find this lawsuit, but it doesn't mention de Grazia. [7]. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the judge's decision that you've linked to, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're doing here. Morgan and his publisher were guilty of copyright violation in using phrases directly from letters. But we're quoting from Morgan, a secondary source, and attributing properly. If that is wrong, then all of Wikipedia is wrong. So I think we should post on BLPN, but we don't have to change the article until we have a complaint from de Grazia that makes sense. Should we not advise him to write to the Wikimedia Foundation? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for yours and Dougweller's feedback. I have sent a copy of DeGrazia's email to [email protected] after your suggestion; but I did not find a link to wikimedia.org as stated. The Morgan quote has been modified to conform to the 1990 version in compliance with WP:LIBEL. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I failed to appreciate the extensive editing on DeGrazia's entry in the past year by Dbachmann and HandThatFeeds in addition to Itsmejudith, Hrafn and Simonm223, not to mention Amideg. I have not been able to identify who originated the ref to Morgan's book last year, though I suspect it was Amideg because an early, if not original, cite to it uses Avon paperback as publisher with its ISBN number, BUT with the hardcover date of 1988, instead of 1990. This suggests an awareness of the difference between the two editions. I have changed the ref in the entry's text to the Avon edition to conform with the revised quote in Talk. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The email link you used was the correct one. I thought it was to wikimedia. My mistake, sorry. I don't remember who first added the Ted Morgan reference. It wasn't me, but I did reword soon after it was added. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Having looked through the history, I'm now fairly sure that it was first added by Amideg on 17 April 2009. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank for your "due diligence" in tracking down the date of origin for the ref. to Morgan's book, which I did not think was that early in 2009. DeGrazia's email to me on Feb. 24th began with my present comments in [brackets]: "My attention has been called to a so-called “discussion” led by you in Wikipedia, referring to the University of the New World, an organization which I had much to do with founding. The particular pages of material in the discussion, which you signed under a pseudonym, come from a book by Ted Morgan which is a biography of William Burroughs published by Henry Holt and Company. As you indicate there, and in a prior [email] letter to me, you have been searching for material concerning myself and the University of the New World of Valais, Switzerland. We may note from the letter (not quoted here) and your statements in Wikipedia, that the motive and the initiative of your search were entirely yours [in the hope of finding additional reliable sources to flesh out the sketchy Morgan account, not to defame]." I find it strange that his attention has been called to the Morgan material as quoted on 5 October over four months after the fact when his wife, Amideg, has been a major editor of the Wikipedia entry on him. It is also strange for me to be identified as the leader of the discussion when clearly most of my edits and Talk comments are in reaction to initiatives by other editors. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith 2

Hi Itsmejudith. I noticed you created an RfA page some time ago. I was wondering as to what the status of that RfA might be. Please let me know if you still intend to run for adminship with that RfA; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete it for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I might have dropped this message on your talk before. At any rate, if you're not considering running anytime soon, within the next two weeks or so (I see this RfA was created in December 2009 - it has been nearly 3 months since then), then there really isn't much point in retaining it at the moment. Please let me know what you decide. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, of course. Please delete and thanks for your patience. I kept thinking that my real life commitments might ease up a bit, but they probably won't any time soon. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Thank you for being upfront about it. If you ever want to run for adminship in the future with that RfA, please let me know and I'll restore it for you. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Foucault sado-masochism dispute ongoing

For your information, this was not resolved as it appeared to have been. See here, and your further input would be appreciated. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

SCIRS

I have made a stab at adapting WP:MEDRS for more general scientific topics at User:2over0/SCIRS. For reasons I may or may not be able to recall at the moment, you crossed my mind when I was considering other editors who might be interested in working on such a thing. The page is strictly preliminary for now, but this invitation to take a look and offer suggestions, comments, and improvements is open to everyone. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dalit Voice

I see that you were involved in editing Dalit Voice. There is going to be a discussion very soon on that article. You can help improve the article. ManasShaikh (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

matzav.com

As “User:Jayjg” put “matzav.com” on the “Reliable sources/Noticeboard” you responded, and gave the answer.

Although I cannot argue with the “secondary sources” part of your answer, I do want to take issue with the second part of your position, that it can be left out because the “article already contains similar information”.

This is not true in my opinion. Because, the argument around Wise, has gone on now for all the years, since the middle of the war, as he was alleged by several writers and historians, to have neglected his ability to help the Jews in peril, and until now all these years, all there was, were the opinions and theories, of the said writers and historians, until now, when there is a firsthand witness to this substantial historical story, because Kestenbaum claims to have heard from Wise directly words to this effect.

Bloger (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Itsmejudith. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Assyrianization.22.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FAIR

Hi. In the past you participated in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of using FAIR as an RS. The question has arisen again, in this case with regard to a BLP. The issue is being discussed at the RSN here. Your thoughts would, of course, be welcome. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Kambojas

sorry for the late reply. I understand your concern. However, I do think the burden of producing acceptable content lies with those uploading content. It is painfully clear that the Kambojas mess is not acceptable encyclopedic content. So what if there are some nuggets of bona fide information buried in there? If we had a reasonable editor who was willing to accept the help of other editors in getting the job done, we could move the stuff to a workpage and assist them in getting it into good shape. Since we have no such editor, only a crackpot troll long-term edit-warring over the articles, it cannot be expected of us to sift through their crap and write the article for them. If we find something worth keeping when we clean this out, we should by all means keep it. The entire "Victorian speculation" these endless reams of {{puffery}} {{synthesis}} is based on would probably make for a short or medium-length article. I hope this clarifies my attitude to the caste-cruft articles in general.

The Kambojas nightmare looks rather brighter than it used to, but there are of course a number of abominations left, such as Kamboj in ancient inscriptions, Location of the Kamboja Kingdom, etc. Kamboja (name) and Kamboja Kingdom should just be merged into Kambojas. "Kambojas" is a topic that certainly deserves a (one, singular) detailed article. We certainly have more than enough material for that article. It's just a matter of pooling it in a single place and throwing out the rubbish. --dab (𒁳) 12:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply. Agreed that those mergers just need to be performed. There is massive duplication of text anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are really making an effort with the Indian stuff at the moment, I see. I have no idea whether Prakash is any good as a scholar. I suppose the comments he made on Indian antiquity in the 1960s are as good as any of the period, but there is no reason why we should not use literature that is less than 50 years old.

As for the use that was made of him and other authors in King Porus and Puru, these articles are obviously in bad shape, but we have our editors to thank for that, not Prakash himself. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he does seem to be fine, for that time anyway. Unfortunately Google Books has only the tiniest snippets of his works and I really don't want to take out interlibrary loans on them. He seems to have used Greek and Indic sources together to build up the picture of Alexander's campaign in Punjab.Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Itsmejudith. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Message added 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Old business

I just saw your comment in an RFC in which I've been involved. We haven't been crossing paths on Wikipedia lately - in fact, I actually forget where I used to notice your contributions. Your comment made me remember your attempt at becoming an admin about a year (longer?) ago, and I realized that I never got around to telling you that I thought it was a real pity that it didn't work out. Anyway, if you ever feel like making another go at it, I'd be happy to support you. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

POV insertions and reverts

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gaza flotilla raid. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please stop reverting the changes and adding POV statements ignoring the discussions and consensus on the talk page. Also note that there is a WP:1RR restriction on the page. If you continue vandalising the page, you will be reported. --386-DX (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I did either of those things. My main concern is the no. of non-English refs. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• 386-DX, can you provide diffs when discussing particular edits? TFOWR 11:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edit.

What this book Maulana, Andhe ki laathi with India? Contact on my talk page for more info.

_Contribs Muslim Editor ^Talk 06:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and it's obvious to me that you're a learned and open-minded person deeply interested in peace, culture and minorities, I've also seen that you understand Catalan so I suppose you know very well what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment because Catalan is not supported by a state even though our Association is working real hard. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence

Could you clarify your position. I am particularly curious as to how you came to the conclusion that this is "definitely not in line with recent scholarship." mikemikev (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No account taken of the new genetics, uses superseded classification of "races". Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you back that up with some sources? mikemikev (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly, and not now. See work of Luca Cavalli-Sforza and discussion on article talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I read Sforza. I've also read some more modern work, and taken notice of medical research, where it seems the categories "black" and "white" can save lives. Could you try to put together some kind of point? mikemikev (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Puzzlement

Hi, I can relate your "materialism" with the "ten thousand things", but how do you account for The Way? Aquib (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The Way is the material world. And yet of course it isn't. It will have to work itself out. Thanks for the question. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese diacritics

Hey, I've cleaned up the "In a nutshell" section in the diacritics discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam#Diacritics. When you get the chance, please indicate your support or opposition to each consensus point to allow us to determine which points have the most support. I've also added a note to the effect that, for now, these points do not constitute a formal proposal, but just indicate where we're at in our discussion. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the right time

Hello. I saw your email, but now is not the right time. Matters are at present being handled by ArbCom and I prefer to leave it that way. No need to add an extra layer of complication, no matter how well intended. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. will respect that. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities Signpost Interview

Hello Itsmejudith! My name is Mono and I represent the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost. Mabeenot recommended that I contact you, so I wanted to invite you to participate in the Signpost's upcoming report on WikiProject Universities. This is a wonderful opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. If you'd like to join in, I've posted interview questions here. Thank you!  ℳono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 21:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC).

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

Vietnamese Poetry

Hello. I recently did a little work on Vietnamese Poetry. Obviously much more remains to be done, but I don't dare go further without help (I don't know Vietnamese or French). My interest is in verse structure, and I think you'll pretty well see where I'm coming from by my edits and notes there. I see you've done some work on this in the past, so if you'd care to work with me, please let me know. (Or, if you think my meddling is not helpful, that's also good to know.) I've also contacted User:Hongtran0507, the originator, but s/he doesn't seem to log in with any frequency, so I'm not expecting a response any time soon. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd and cold fusion

I noticed that you're active at talk:cold fusion recently. It seems that Abd's topic ban has expired and he's jumped back in again. Problems are already surfacing:

• He's still posting "walls of text."
• He's indefinitely banned from intervening in disputes of which he is not an originating party, but already he is jumping into several disputatious threads on that article talk page.

Rlevse has warned him off the topic, and I've added a couple of references to apparent breaches of the ban.

I think we really have to think carefully about how to dissuade him from pursuing this to the point at which he will end up with a long site block or ban. --TS 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I just saw walls of text, now the context is helping it fall into place. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion on the arbitrator Newyorkbrad's user talk page. --TS 15:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet reviewed the above link to NYB Talk. I have responded to the warnings of Rlevse and TS on my own Talk page, see User_talk:Abd#Cold_fusion_walls_of_text and User_talk:Abd#Editing_restriction. Technically, by the interpretation of my MYOB ban there, this post is a violation, but, in substance, I obviously must be considered an "originating party" if it's about me! In fact, however, I was previously blocked for doing just this, commenting where I was mentioned, that ban is a monster to interpret, with, many times, it being applied outside my prior understanding of it. Be that as it may, I intend to comply with these overstated restrictions, pending clarification, probably from ArbComm.

As to the substance of your request that the other editor and I delineate the "dispute," that is premature. Both Kirk Shanahan and I are COI on the topic, and both he and I are therefore prohibited from editing the article, and I personally would also prefer to avoid escalating a discussion based solely upon some unclear disagreement between editors who have no legitimate power to edit under controversy. I am limiting myself to discussion on the Talk page. As COI editors, our knowledge of the topic is way above the norm. I will help, as I can, given my standing restriction, to organize and make discussion clear. It takes time. The present rambling and back and forth isn't clear, I expect. But the decisions for the article itself must be made by other editors, and they should also be the ones to take any dispute that stands to the noticeboard. Kirk, in particular, either does not agree with WP policy on sourcing and alleged fringe science, or he doesn't understand it. I do, I both agree and understand.

But I also understand that I'm not in charge and it is not my decision to make, what goes into the article. Kirk is, outside, a long-time very dedicated skeptic on the topic; as I noted at one place, he is practically the only skeptic still having published under peer review, recently, one article, as part of a debate, i.e., he wrote a response to an original article that was very much "pro cold fusion," and his response was co-published with a strong critique of his response by multiple scientists. He and I can be expected to disagree strongly in some cases, even though I'm seriously trying to make sure that his POV is reflected in the article, as much as possible, according to what is in reliable sources. I've been trying to keep the discussion focused. It's difficult, and I sometimes make extra comments myself that aren't necessarily necessary for the immediate decision. However, most of the discussion on that talk page, predating my return, is like that! I try to put these extra comments in collapse or in smalltext, so they are only for those interested in more background. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Conciseness, Abd, conciseness. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Your interest is history of science, Itsmejudith. I suggest you read Simon, Undead science, Rutgers University Press.... There is conciseness and there is information density. High information density combined with conciseness can equal unintelligibility. Take your pick. Reading is optional unless it has one of those red triangles with an exclamation point.

You asked this question, and I assume you want an answer. It was off topic where you asked it, so, here:

So you are just back from block and immediately trying to re-open the above three questions, with walls of text. This doesn't seem helpful at all. I see that at one point there was a suggestion of you getting a mentor. Did that work out? Itsmejudith (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

When the proposal was made, Fritzpoll immediately made an offer to mentor me. He was one of a number of scientist-Wikipedians who appreciated my work. My first block was supposedly for attacking him; he later wrote that it was all a misunderstanding.... FP was told that a mentor wouldn't be needed because the remedy requiring a mentor wasn't going to pass. Later, when trouble appeared over the interpretation of the "MYOB" ban, which had passed and which depended on a mentor for interpretation (crucial!), he offered again to mentor me. He was by this time elected to ArbComm (and he told me, before he ran, that he was going to run because of what happened in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley). Even though he was -- properly -- recusing in any matter involving me, he was told that he couldn't do that as a sitting arbitrator. Other arbs, quite allergic to my work, don't recuse. Hence, IMJ, we have the foxes running the henhouse, or, at least, unopposed.

Instead of leaving the passed remedy intact, and allowing me to find a mentor whom they could approve, ArbComm struck the mentor review part, leaving interpretation of what turns out to be a vague ban in the hands of whomever. It was continually applied where I didn't expect it, and since it wasn't based on documented behavior, but on an idea that "it might help," there is no ready means of interpreting the intention, so it's whatever anyone can imagine. In spite of what has been asserted, I wasn't banned for "walls of text," that wasn't about to pass. It takes a moment to collapse a "wall," if it offends someone, and one person's "wall" is another's fascinating essay. Besides, I don't present true walls of text. I present organized discussions, layered, and with various devices to improve readability, or at least I attempt to do that. Brief enough for you? Please point to a "wall" and I'll respond.

If this is too much, you are welcome to delete it on sight. I'm assuming, however, that your question was sincere. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was sincere. Your post above isn't wall of text, but it is 5 times as long as it needs to be. You bravely and honestly declare yourself to have ADHD. Even if you aren't required to have a mentor, you should ask for one as a matter of entitlement. 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Itsmejudith (talk)

Thanks. Let me put it this way. I already put perhaps half the time I spend writing into rewriting and condensing. Everything there is there for a reason. (This I'm not perfect at this.) Yes, by putting in far more effort, I can condense even further, but the writing then starts to become polemic, designed to manipulate rather than to actually discuss. In any case, thanks for affirming that it wasn't "wall of text." That term has been tossed at me many times, when it wasn't really appropriate, I'd put a great deal of effort into maximizing accessibility. For wall of text, take a look at a recent addition to that talk page! But it's probably material of some value, though the editor has no concept of WP inclusion policies and why they are how they are. My goal has always been consensus...

How would you suggest I ask for a mentor? Are you available? --Abd (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I edit too erratically to be of any use to you as a mentor, thanks for your confidence. There's the adoption procedure. But why not ask ArbComm or one of them to recommend a menor? Their job is to help the encyclopedia, not to mete out punishment for punishment's sake. Please note that I'm pretty well disposed towards Kirk Shanahan - editors who are academics tend to stick together, although Kirk edits only in his area of his expertise whereas I seldom do. On conciseness: someone once said "I'm sending you a long letter, sorry but I didn't have time to write a short one" ;-) Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)cmt

Mark Twain, though I think it is also attributed to others. --Abd (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me put it this way. I already put perhaps half the time I spend writing into rewriting and condensing. Everything there is there for a reason. (This I'm not perfect at this.) Yes, by putting in far more effort, I can condense even further, but the writing then starts to become polemic, designed to manipulate rather than to actually discuss. In any case, thanks for affirming that it wasn't "wall of text." That term has been tossed at me many times, when it wasn't really appropriate, I'd put a great deal of effort into maximizing accessibility. For wall of text, take a look at a recent addition to that talk page! But it's probably material of some value, though the editor has no concept of WP inclusion policies and why they are how they are. My goal has always been consensus...

"Let me put it this way" is content-free wordiness. It has little information content. It says, "more words are coming".

Almost never is it useful to talk about yourself, about how you spend time. Just get to the point.

Do not state the obvious unless a point derives from it.

When debating with yourself, state the pros, but rarely does listing cons help the reader. We want to know why you do something, but listing bad things that you don't want to do, is not about what you do, and it becomes tedious.

Be brief with apologies, don't repeat. Don't bring up past inappropriateness. Don't bring up that same inappropriateness occurring elsewhere. Don't talk about other users with negative purpose. Motherhood statements for goals belong on your userpage, not in idle conversation (it means that your are talking about yourself). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Good advice. One problem with it though. The topic here was my editing, and how it fits here. I was a professional editor, and I know how to edit the way you recommend. It's a lot of work, and suppresses human contact. I do it for polemic, such as filing an RfC or RfAr. But maybe that's what's needed more than I'd want. These comments are on a User talk page. Not Article talk. How much dicta is allowed? --Abd (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice rarely comes without problems. I have read a lot of of your writing, even though I have rarely interacted with you. Your intentions are sensible and insightful, and never I have had urge to disagree. The problem is too much human contact. Reading your word, I feel as though I am in your mind. You bring the reader in too close for comfort, and so I don't think "suppresses human contact" is such a bad thing for you. As for deleting unnecessary words, something I do often. I don't think it is a lot of work at all, being less work than the original typing. What is can be is painful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A useful technique could be to make just one point per post. Imagine you're on Twitter. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea of writing long meandering comments "for human contact" seems self-defeating. Nobody will read them. What you describe here as "polemic" is actually how most people communicate. Briefly summarizing your opinion and justifications invites dialog, dense walls of text don't. The main thought they communicate is discourtesy and self-indulgence. They also have the effect of drowning out attempts at dialog. --TS 11:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No business organization which suppresses human contact would survive long. It might seem to be efficient, but it's not. Suppress human contact, and conflict will fester and grow. Look around, open your eyes to see what has been happening. Judith, I hope you will watch Talk:Cold fusion and help out, and your suggestions to me are quite welcome. Likewise, SmokeyJoe, even though your last comment reminded me of why editing Wikipedia can make me ill. Not because of you. Because of others, ready to assume bad faith and toss mud. My friends ask me, "Why do you bother?" As to Tony, I'm not posting "dense walls of text." Please point to one (not on my Talk page, okay? How about doing the pointing, as well, there?) However, experts often do this, write in detail, and the project will benefit if they are supported, not attacked for it. What happens in functional communities is that a few, as few as one, will read them and summarize or point to what is of general interest for the purpose of article improvement. Your approach and attitude has been damaging the project for a long time. This is about far more than me. --Abd (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sad to see you using my talk page to attack another editor. Just let it be, and I'm hoping TS will too. General advice, if I may, forget about the personal interaction. Orient yourself to the quality of articles. If you want to help out with the wikification backlog .... you're as crazy as I am, which is pretty crazy. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, Judith, please, always consider a comment with reference to the context in which it appeared. I am a general-purpose editor, but not for the moment on Wikipedia, I'm working more on other WMF wikis. Now, you made a comment on RSN: In our natural science articles we usually regard individual papers as primary sources. Yes, that would be true, but this would not, I'd hope, apply to secondary source reviews, as much as to single original publications and single responses to other papers. In the case under discussion, though, the paper isn't "single." It is actually the sixteenth in a series of similar reviews, published in mainstream journals or academic publications, since 2005, it is merely the most comprehensive and in the most prestigious journal. There are no corresponding negative reviews. So considering this as if it were some "primary source" would seem to be without foundation.

There is more. Papers on cold fusion related topics have been appearing now, in Naturwissenschaften, EPJAP, and other mainstream journals since 2005, with no response from the "skeptical position" which is alleged to be "mainstream." The last evidence we have as to the balance of opinion among experts, other than the defacto synthesized evidence from what peer reviewers are accepting, is the 2004 DoE review, which came very close to confirming majority sentiment for cold fusion. Just not quite, so many considered the glass half-empty. That was a brief review process, based on one presented paper, that was fairly clumsy in certain aspects. That Naturwissenschaften was willing to approve the Storms paper, however, says much about what the experts are thinking. They would not risk their considerable reputation on fringe nonsense.

One more point. In fact, you are confirming what I claimed last year, and that claim quite possibly contributed to my topic ban. That cold fusion is "emerging science," not "fringe science." Controversial. I'm still not prepared to assert, for the article, that it has gone beyond that point, even though evidence has now appeared for that. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

You raised some very legitimate concerns in Jesus in the Talmud. I have tried to deal with them. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Longevity

I think your proposal to merge is probably the best option. Let's hope other agree. Thanks for the initiative.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please do not mistake my lack of an apology as a slight against you. The comment wasn't to be bitey or even rude. The admins can issue a ban if they want and I can appeal it if it does not seem justified.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)