Congratulations on being made an admin! I thought you might like to know of a javascript tool that may help in your editing by giving easy access to many admin features. It's described at Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. The quick version of the installation procedure for admins is to paste the following into User:Tristessa de St Ange/Archive 2/monobook.js:
// [[User:Lupin/popups.js]] - please include this line
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/popups.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
popupShortcutKeys=true; // optional: enable keyboard shortcuts
popupAdminLinks=true; // optional: enable admin links
Well, Adminship is no big deal, but feeling trusted by the community is. Nick, you're very welcome to have had my Support - I meant everything I said, and would have said more had I not figured it might embarrass you or irritate the skeptics. I don't need to be persuaded of your trustworthiness, cluefulness or general ability to apply your "powers" with discretion and fairness. I also appreciate the warm thank-you note. Rob ChurchTalk 01:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the "thank you"... wait, Im mean "youre welcome". Have fun with your promotion, Im sure that you will carryout your duties with deligence. →Journalist>>talk<< 02:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]Journalist awards N.T this Reversion barnstar as a symbol of his newfound duties. Keep up the good work →Journalist>>talk<< 02:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply].
Congratulations, and you're quite welcome. --Merovingian(t)(c) 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on yr adminship! I support editors who have low edit counts, but focus on quality instead. Maybe you'd like to try your hand at FAC one day? =Nichalp«Talk»= 05:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations from the land of ice and snow. CambridgeBayWeather 20:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you need admin help, like how to close an AfD, you know where to find me. There's always IRC too. Cheers! Redwolf24 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Alkivar: Even though you did not support my candidacy, I would like to thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA. In some respects, Oppose votes are as useful to me as Support votes, since they serve to highlight areas in which I can improve myself and become a better administrator. Since my RfA was successful, I would be exceptionally grateful if you might tell me how you would like to see me improve, and what areas you think I should work on to ensure that I am successful as an administrator - I am always looking for feedback. I am most grateful for your assistance, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 05:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Its not so much that I see any problems with your effort as I just feel that we dont have enough edit history on you to see trends in behavior... I've seen too many admins behave entirely too abruptly of late and violate WP policies. Just for the record it has nothing to do with CoS, or the low edit count, merely that I did not feel comfortable supporting you at this early date, but since you've made it to admin let me add my congratulations to the rest of them. Please just remember to keep your temper and not let the vandals wind you up... ALWAYS REMEMBER: DONT FEED THE TROLLS! ALKIVAR™ 05:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your successful adminship process. You will do well... if you spend some time doing some "mop and bucket" stuff, as well as engaging editors in conversations about articles and policies. Welcoming new users is also nice to do. You have demonstrated so many good qualities already, so if you just add a few of these humble tasks to the mix you will be fine... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 07:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes dear Nicholas, my congratulations and best wishes to you upon your elevation to adminship. We shall surely interact more. --Bhadani 12:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! As I said, I have full confidence in you. Enjoy your shiny new buttons! :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 15:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rob: As promised, I have nominated you for adminship; far overdue, my dear fellow, and I think that the community would be quite mad to turn you down. Would you be so good as to go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 2 and do your bit so that I can list it on RfA (new rules, you see). Thanks! --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)(e-mail)(cabal) 00:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nomination; I've now accepted that and answered the questions, so I'll let you finish up. Rob ChurchTalk | FAD 00:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you are doing right now some active deletioning right now and those Blank Libary Catagories has been wating for more than a day to get speedy deleted Could u finish them off please Ty --JAranda | yeah 04:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your RfA. My vote was nothing personal, just a general idea I have of how I feel RfA should be. You certainly had the support of some of the best Wikipedians around and I'm sure you'll do a great job. The Mediation Cabal alone indicates your worth to this place. My only advice about adminship would be; ease your way into it and don't let it stop you editing articles. All the best. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Leave me alone, alright? You don't need to be my mentor, or give me any tips, or tell me how to be civil. Just leave me alone. You interrupted me nominating Wikiacc for admin. --WikiFanaticTalkContribs 18:11, 10 October 2005 (CDT)
Dear Rbj: I just thought I should drop a short note re. the work you have done in referencing the comparative numbers of paper citations on Bogdanov Affair. It is an important point to raise, and thank you for your contributions in this area; however, for the sake of encyclopaedic style, brevity, and readibility, I have condensed your paragraph on SPIRES data down considerably. I do hope that you agree that my condensed version is more readable.
In addition, regarding some of the text that was added in that same paragraph, and the edit summaries that you made, I thought I should direct you to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy for further information on how matters should be presented on Wikipedia. No matter what our opinions are of the merits (or lack of) pertaining to the work of the Bogdanov brothers, we must nonetheless present all views fairly and equally in the article.
I would like to thank you for your continued cooperation, and your hard work on the article.
Hi Nicholas, i think your compromise condensation is fine and i can live with it (but i suspect Igor and company will remove it). regarding NPOV, i have read through this many times, Nicholas. i think some of the fundamental definitions as put forth by the policy are salient. particularly:
The basic concept of neutrality
Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.
...
Undue Weight
Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
anyway, Nicholas, i have fully admitted that since beginning with this article i have come to an understanding that is not, per se, neutral, but i'm far more objective about this than the subject of the article himself (or his groupies). all i have been including is information and while i have not been trying to prevent Igor's supporters to edit at all (i do not think that Igor should be editing, however) - in fact CatherineV added a statement (that is true) at the end of the CQG "apology" that is fine, because it is factual and does not change the meaning of the CQG statement - but i am trying to prevent allowing Igor to present his defense as a 50-50 thing for the very same reason as the Undue Weight policy quoted above. it needs to be clear that, in reality, the vast majority of physicists understand the Bogdanov "research" as pseudoscience. and these comparable citations make that clear. if Igor tries to remove them, i will put them back, but i can accept your condensation. r b-j 23:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to thank you for nominating me for adminship, which I have now received. I appreciate your supporting me, and your confidence in my attitude to the project. And if you'll excuse me, I have tons more "thank you" messages to write. Once again, thanks; all the best, Rob ChurchTalk | FAHD 16:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely caught on Igor B, by the way. ;-) Rob ChurchTalk | FAHD 16:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas, apology fully accepted (i didn't think it was so bad, and it gave me another excuse to reiterate my position). i think the article as you left it now is fine. i don't feel any need to modify it (which means that Igor and company will feel a strong need to modify it). i do not know how you will protect it from creeping vandalism from additional sock-puppets and IPs of Igor without really protecting it. but, as Snowspinner says, it's not the wiki way. i guess we'll just have to keep on our toes. if i see unreverted whitewashing/vandalism, i'll send you a note. thanks for the hard (and somewhat thankless) work. r b-j 23:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just stumbled onto the Bogdanov page, now I have used up my "3RR"s for today, all 3 revert were of highly POV stuff by editors who had 0 previous editing on WP. My question to you is: is it possible to ban editors who have less than a certain number of edits to edit a page? If it is, then that perhaps should apply here? Regards, and good luck! -Huldra 15:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
hi Nicholas, can you admins do something to prevent the subject of the article who is banned by the ArbCom, posing as obvious sock-puppets and using anonymous IPs, from removing factual and relevant data from the article? the article needs to be protected .r b-j 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
an anonymous IP that traces back to the same "RIPE Network" that Igor B, a banned editor from wikipedia, has been known to use, has again vandalized Bogdanov Affair less than an hour after it was unprotected. are you surprized? can you protect the article again? Igor will not give up this soon. the article has to be protected long enough that he might give up. he might never give up, and in that case, i do not know what to suggest, but can you revert and protect the article again? r b-j 23:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nicholas, it's a pity to see all the ARC breaks the case is causing. I'd suggest to bring some ethics in on a tone 40 scale to deal with the SPs :D . Ze miguel 23:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hah hah hah! Dear Ze miguel: Yes, indeed, the B. brothers are definitely being very 1.1 about this, and are clearly dramatising their own overts on this subject. They've more or less placed the article in a permanent PTS Type III condition through their persistent alter-is, and their apparent theta in their edit summaries is clearly to disguise their own missed W/Hs. The arbcom have declared them SPs already, so we've basically got to counter postulate their 1.1 pan-determinism. We editors will just have to get our ruds in and handle the PTS condition, doing some False Data Stripping on the article. By the way, are you a fellow Scientologist, or do you just know Scientologese? :-D ML, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)(e-mail)(cabal) 00:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just know some of the language (I should add that to the babel block on my user page). I'm a hard-core agnostic, but one day, I was browsing the web, and I fell on the OTIII thing. I started reading more and more, and I spent the next two years around French critic groups and people, such as Roger Gonnet. Hey, perhaps that was the effect of the implant triggered on me :) That being said, I have a lot of respect for independant Scientologists such as yourself. Ze miguel 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear things up here: Rob Church is (or was) a friend of mine. His claim that I am impersonating him is baseless, as I have already informed him, since I created my account nearly three months before he created his. Certainly I have never vandalised pages or committed any other type of offence, so I see no reason whatsoever for him to block me. We have a history of making snide remarks to one another; however, I will try to keep them to a minimum in future. -- Gurch 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas, editors are requesting Bogdanov Affair to protected again. I could protect the page myself, but ss you were the last admin that protected and then unprotected the article, I would appreciate your involvement and to decide if a new protection is warranted. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈t • @ 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas, you removed some relevant, salient, and factual information from Bogdanov Affair[edit]
[1] was not mere "minor copyediting". the fact that both B brothers barely got Ph.Ds with a lot of pressuing and cajoling (this need not be included because it is some professors subjective opinion) and finally with the lowest possible passing endorsement (this is very uncommon for a PhD. it's letting someone pass with a "D" and this is not subjective) tells the reader something salient about the Bogdanovs as the genius physicists they claim to be. if it's good enough for the New York Times, it's good enough for WP.
changing the CQG "apology" quote [2] to soften the gravity of the problem that they, themselves, recognized is literally a POV edit that the Bogdanovs would do themselve. it is untrue to claim that edit as NPOV editing (even though i do not claim that you have a specific axe to grind here, the edit, nonetheless is POV).
[3] is definitely POV editing. this is relevant, salient, and factual information. a Nobel Laureate publically places his reputation taking a stand that these guys are imposters. that their "physics" is non0existent in the discipline.
i cannot presume to know your thoughts, but why are you coddling the Bogdanovs? especially now that it should be painfully obvious to everyone who these brothers are and what they are. these are definitely POV editing that the Bogdanovs do not deserve and the French (who read English) public, particularly, have a right to know.
the article was cleaned up and fine the way it was, with a lot more "soft" content for the B brothers. a lot more than they deserve.
there are other pro-Bogdanov edits you have just done. but this is the most egregious.
respectfully, can you reconsider some of what you have done? r b-j 00:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Rbj: I have to say I am quite surprised that you consider what I did was POV; however, please rest assured that my goal is to remain as neutral as possible, and I will change what I have done if you do feel I have made it non-neutral - I am always open to being told I am wrong, that is after all one of the more attractive aspects of a wiki. Let me address your points individually.
For "lowest-possible passing grade" there was no reference attached to it, and as such would fall under the category of "original research" (see Wikipedia:No original research). Can you find me a reference which specifically states that the Bogdanovs received this grade for their work, and that it is indeed the lowest possible grade? (A newspaper article, etc. would suffice - you mentioned the New York Times).
As for the CQG quote, all I did as far as far as I am aware was trim the quote down to a reasonable size - I never for one moment thought that it could be construed as changing the intent. On the basis of your bringing this to my attention, I shall change it back promptly.
My edit [4] which you describe as POV editing was merely the removal of what I would consider to be a most unobjective and not particularly useful quote. Regardless of who it is who made it, Nobel Laureate or not, it was not what I would consider to be a factual commentary on the Bogdanov publications (it was more in line with a simple scorn, rather than a proper evaluation). Perhaps you might find me some more objective prose spoken by this source that criticises the Bogdanov's work for what it is - pseudoscience - rather than simply stating they do not exist in science (that quote doesn't even say anything about the quality of their work).
If you would please tell me your opinion on the above I would be most grateful; I appreciate your continued assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)(e-mail)(cabal) 01:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
below is a snippet from the NYT article:
Dr. Sternheimer described the twins as stubborn "wunderkids" with very high I.Q.'s, who have a hard time understanding that they are not "the Einstein brothers" and prone to shooting themselves in the foot with vague statements and an "impressionistic" style. He called teaching them "like teaching My Fair Lady to speak with an Oxford accent."
Certainly they did not come off as the Einstein brothers in their dissertations. In June 1999, Grichka was granted a Ph.D. in mathematics by the École Polytechnique in Paris but with an "honorable," the lowest passing grade.
Igor, however, failed. The examining committee agreed that he could try again if he had three papers published in peer-reviewed journals, a common litmus test of legitimacy, Dr. Jackiw said.
"One has to have trust in the community," he explained. Igor's thesis had many things Dr. Jackiw didn't understand, but he found it intriguing. "All these were ideas that could possibly make sense," he said. "It showed some originality and some familiarity with the jargon. That's all I ask."
Igor got his degree in theoretical physics from the University of Bourgogne in July, also with the lowest possible grade, one that is seldom given, Dr. Sternheimer said.
"These guys worked for 10 years without pay," he said. "They have the right to have their work recognized with a diploma, which is nothing much these days."
a while back, i put this along with some other information in a subpage Talk:Bogdanov_Affair/comments where we were slugging it out, possibly before you came along. the text from the NYT article was posted (not legally, because we know the NYT copyrights their stuff) to a USENET group that i can't find at the moment, but i am certain the text is correct and untainted. i didn't want WP to get in any trouble for having that text there on that comments page, so i don't want to draw a lot of attention to it, but it is there for those of us, who do not subscribe to NYT, to read what it said.
YBM had a reference for the Charpak quote (it had to do with Igor publically insulting Charpak in retaliation for making that quote). it is highly relevant. when he says "The Bogdanovs are inexistent in Science", he is saying that what they have published is not science. how can that not be relevant? how can removing it not skew the POV in favor of what Igor would have you do? Igor has not denied the quote (because he would have trouble explaining his resulting insult to Charpak) but he just claims it makes the article "too negative."
please revert the content of the article to the state it was before this "pruning" of yours. copyeditting is fixing grammar, poor usage, spelling, etc. that was content editing, for the most part. i am not saying that you have a POV, but what you have done, possibly in the interest of finding a peace with the B. brothers, has definitely slanted the article back from an accurate portrayal of an ugly affair to much closer to the whitewashing the subject of the article would have you do. r b-j 02:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
oooops. i also meant to say that your efforts are not unappreciated. i feel frustrated because i can't just fix these things myself, but i have to accept the ruling of ArbCom that prevents me from fixing them directly. i wish i could be a happier "client". but i'm pretty pissed off and how Igor is just blowing off any authority here at WP. it makes me understand the 2nd amendment supporters more. r b-j 02:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, NicholasTurnbull! Thanks for your kind note about your RFA candidacy. My vote quite possibly was intemperate and I see your spirited note shows you are not holding grudges. Please note the vote had no personal animus in it. Welcome to the project and do let me know if I can help with your articles. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 13:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, I ran a sanity check on your edits to Bogdanov Affair. I reviewed a good number of edits back and, I can quite firmly assure you, not one of them appears to be pushing any sort of point of view. Your fears that you're losing your marbles are quite groundless, my dear fellow. All the best, Rob ChurchTalk | FAHD 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, I've had these further independently verified, and the person doing it (who is also a neutral party) can't see anything wrong with your edits either. Ignore the people who claim you're POV editing - their claims are based, I think, on a desire (conscious or subconscious) to push their own point of view, and are quite baseless. Frankly; look upon it like this - if they're so desperate to see the article made good; well, they should have damn well thought about that before getting into an argument about it. For god's sake, take a break or something and don't burn out any further. All the best, Rob ChurchTalk | FAHD 13:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nicholas, please come back quickly, don't let the B. brothers get on your nerves, the Wikipedia is so much more than that. ARC :) -- Ze miguel 18:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if you are still considering to modify the Bogdanov Affair article (in addition to the usual revert thing since the article is unprotected now), maybe the following suggestions could be useful. I do not want to start a new revert war about the article, so I leave these comments at your appreciation. Feel free to do whatever you want with these.
I am not sure the word controversy is accurate to describe the affair (first paragraph). There was never a controversy about the value of the work, as nobody found it interesting or meaningful (well, there are meaningful parts in their work, mostly about quantum groups, but they are completely uninteresting; at least they were never cited). The only controversy was about the accuracy of the hoax rumor, which very quickly turned to be a wrong guess. It was not an academic scandal either because there were no official reactions from any French institution (which does not mean that they did not investigate about it, of course, but no official comment were made about this in the end). I do not know the most accurate way to start the article. Maybe something like The Bogdanov Affair started after an Internet discussion regarding the fact that French twin brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (or Bogdanoff) may have performed an Alan Sokal-like hoax in theoretical physics. At least, this is closer to the initial Usenet thread title. This is a difficult subject, so maybe the wisest thing is to leave the sentence as it is now.
As far as I know, Niedermaier's only public comment about the affair was distributed on 28 October, not 24. He probably had some private communication about this before with the brothers, but his official comment was form the 28th of October. At some point it could be useful to quote his exact email, especially in view of its last sentence, and because other highly misquoted versions of this email have been distributed.
Dear friends,
apparently a private e-mail of mine to two persons was inadvertedly widely distributed far beyond my 1-step consent. As the message triggered a flurry of activity I feel obliged to add some disclaimers to whatever `audience' it meanwhile reached.
In addition to some by-and-large factual information the e-mail described a possible scenario (`hoax') underlying the former. Neither of them was based on first hand information as I immediately stressed in a follow-up message to the two intended recipients. Meanwhile Dr I. and G. Bogdanov informed me that the `hoax premise' is incorrect. I expressed my sincere apologies to them which they accepted. I join them hereby in the attempt to confine the uncontrolled multiplication of this incorrect premise and the secondary rumors that followed.
Everybody is invited to judge the scientific merits of the Bogdanov's published work independent of their intentions on his own. Please make an effort to distribute this message as widely as the first one ...
I am not sure the first recipient of the email which was then subsequently distributed was Ted Newman. So maybe it is better to remove his name.
The sentence Physicists found this statement, and subsequent attempts at its explanation, extremely odd since Foucault's pendulum is a museum display piece. is irrelevant. What should be written is something like Physicists found this statement, and subsequent attempts at its explanation, extremely odd since Foucault's pendulum trajectory is accurately predicted by classical mechanics and even more precisely by General Relativity. Even if the rest of the suggestions may be annoying ,I think that this one definitely deserves attention, because this "museum display" thing is stupid. I prefer the verb predicted rather than explained because one can always argue on what it "described" and what is "explained" by the laws of Nature as we write them. GR allows a more accurate description of the effect because it predicts the so-called Lense-Thirring effect which is so small that it has never been observed as yet, but should be observed in the near future (spaceprobe Gravity Probe B was launched last year to detect it).
Thanks for your attention. I presented my recent case on the talkpage on the article in question. I will post it here, for you, and you tell me if it's up to standard. Thanks.
My source on Grigore Ureche is being refused
Two users disallow me from using the source I have on Grigore Ureche by reverting the article. These users are user:Christopher Sundita and user:Node ue. I have tried to solve the conflict via ANI, RfA, RfM, and most recently, TINMC. A moderator directed me to this talkpage, where I'm supposed to first try and solve the dispute.
Here is the fragment that is being refused by the two users:
"The Moldavian chronicler, Grigore Ureche (1590 - 1647), established in his "Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei" (The Chronicles of the land of Moldavia) that Moldavian (Moldovan) and Wallachian (Romanian from Wallachia) are essentially the same language; and that Moldavians and Wallachians share the same ethnicity."
The reasons for this refusion have been changed over time. I will bring them in chronological order, by the name of their author. I will, later, post the sources from where these reasons have been posted.
00:16, October 21, 2005 Node ue (anittas, any sentence which uses "liberated" is not NPOV)
My comments: I never used that word in my fragment, and to this day, his complaint remains a mystery.
18:51, October 21, 2005 Christopher Sundita (rv - two reasons 1 - it's almost 400 years old 2. It's a POV statement 3. you also reverted other things.. Also, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism - what node didn't isn't vandalism. Hardly.)
My comments: Sundita justified the reverting by saying that:
1. the source is too old; and
2. it's a POV statement
A source is allowed to be old. History, one could argue, is old - but that's a matter of perspective. Sundita further claimed that this was Ureche's point of view. Well, as a matter of fact, it was also the view of the Prince of Moldavia at the time; it was also the view of Dimitrie Cantemir; and it was also the view of those Moldavians, including Ioan Cuza, who united Moldavia with Wallachia to create Romania. And it was the point of view of most Moldavians, I would dare to say, until 1994 onward. And, to my great shock, even CIA Factbook shares that POV. See here: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/md.html#People
But enough of POVs. Let it be known that Ureche was a scholar who identified foreign sources that also, to our greatest scandal on this Wiki, shared that POV; mostly, Polish and Hungarian sources.
(cur) (last) 01:45, October 23, 2005 Node ue ("liberated" is not neutral language.)
My comments: Node's mystery intensifies and we might have to archive his comments on a seperate page. We should name it: The X Files.
22:35, October 23, 2005 Node ue (no explanation of revert; again, "liberated" is a non-neutral term, and your source is centuries old)
My comments: Who is creating that subpage?
23:09, October 23, 2005 Christopher Sundita m (rv - the source is 400 years old, as I said. Languages change in that amount of time. Find a more recent, credible source. Thank you.)
My comments: Sundita repeats the age of the source and concludes that in this amount of time, languages can change. This is irrelevant. Let languages change whenever they want - I should still have the right to post a source. And if Sundita wants a more recent source, he can check CIA Factbook. Or, he can consult Encyclopedia Britannica:
During the Soviet period the Moldavian language (as it was then called) was written in the Cyrillic alphabet. Soviet scholars, mainly for political reasons, insisted that this language was an independent Romance language that was distinct from Romanian. In fact the differences between the two languages are of little significance and are confined to phonetics and vocabulary. In 1989 the script of the Moldovan language was changed to Roman; thereupon began a heated debate over whether the language should be called Romanian or Moldovan.
Two-thirds of Moldovans are of Romanian descent, the languages are virtually identical and the two countries share a common cultural heritage.
Can we use those fresh and credible sources in the article, Sundita?
05:44, October 24, 2005 Christopher Sundita m (rv. It is not a reliable source. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources)
My comments: Sundita now says that the source is not reliable. May I ask why? I think the source is very reliable. As I said: the scholar researched the history of Moldova and its language, and of course, he noticed that Moldovan and Wallachian was essentially the same language, and so he drew that conclusion - the same conclusion that the rest agreed upon and the same conclusion that CIA, BBC, Britannica, and god knows how many other sources, agree upon. Wikipedia is the only exception.
"Well, I am one of the users with whom Anittas is in a dispute with. I am not sure he understands the concept of language change. Language is dynamic; it changes every day. In 400 years, a language has certainly undergone some changes. I am not disputing Ureche's opinion at all for it may have been very applicable then. However, it is misleading to say that it applies now. Take a look at Afrikaans. One could argue that back then it was essentially the same as Dutch. But in the 400 years since then, this is no longer the case. They are different now. Yes, they are very similar, but they each have their own vocabulary, grammar, and phonology. On another note, Grigore was not a linguist who studied the languages. For a linguistics article, it would make more sense to quote what the consensus of linguists around the world have to say, based on linguistic research. Thank you"
My comments: Sundita is now no longer disputing Ureche's opinion. It's just that languages can change a lot under 400 years. I have already responded to this opinion, but Sundita then says that he's interested in knowing what linguists around the world have to say about this. Fine! Let's ask them!
Let's ask the INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS of Moldova. This is what they call their language:
"In the field of dialectology and linguistic geography, the cartography of the materials was continued, aimed at compiling a linguistic atlas showing the territorial distribution of lexical units peculiar to the Romanian spoken between the Pruth and the Dniester, the same as in more remote zones."
My comments: Republic of Moldova lies between the Prut and the Dniester, and as you can clearly read from the text, they call their language for Romanian. You may read the full article.
Some scholars even wrote books about this dispute; one of them is American scholar Donald Leroy Dyer who wrote "The Romanian Dialect of Moldova: A Study in Language and Politics". His CV: http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/modern_languages/Dyer.html
You can buy his book on Amazon.
If Ureche is not good enough, then perhaps the popular opinion of linguistics is good enough? But why should I have their permission to use a source? I want to hear their argument. You can await further excuses made by the two fellows, but know that neither of them speak either Romanian, or this Moldovan language that was given birth in 1994 - because before that year, the language was called Romanian.
I was out of line for posting on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal since I am not a member of that group. I did so because this user was finding all avenues of dispute resolution unresponsive. This was a hostile experience for this user who was attempting to resolve a dispute. That was my motivation for doing so. I will not take this action in the future since my attempts at resolving this dispute are apparently not welcome at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal (both you and Kelly Martin have voiced that). As for the dispute resolution process itself, I encourage you to review my comments to User:Anittas. On many occasions I recommended that the user take their dispute to the talk page of the article in question as a first step in the dispute resolution process. Not the only step, but the first step. For backing in procedure regarding this, I refer you to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, where it says "The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page.". This had not been done. I was not out of line in any respect for suggesting the user take this as a first step; in fact it is entirely appropriate. Such debates on talk pages can help to clarify the points at hand with people who are knowledgeable on the subject rather than people on mediation groups that have no personal knowledge of the subject. If the dispute can be resolved on the talk page of the article, it helps to reduce burden on the already over burdened dispute resolution processes. I stand by my actions in this regard and do not find fault with my suggestions in any respect. I was polite, encouraging, non-dismissive, and focused on getting the user to take that avenue of action. I also stand by my actions in noting that the user was potentially in violation of WP:3RR. As an admin, part of my responsibility is watching out for such revert wars and stopping them as appropriate. I am not heavy handed in such actions; I work first to get the users to willingly drop the revert war so that it doesn't crop up again right after blocks expire. My goal is to improve the users, not slap them with policy. I acted entirely appropriately in bringing this to the attention of the users in question, and would gladly do so again. It is standard behavior for conscientious administrators. I also stand by my comments regarding User:Anittas' incivility. I did not get hostile in response, and specifically said "With regards to "babbling", please observe Wikipedia:Civility. Thank you." Again, I was polite and to the point. I do not see any reason not to attempt to improve a user away from incivility by using such polite requests. It is entirely appropriate and I would do so again. My record here on Wikipedia shows that I am a calm, practiced editor and admin that admits error where appropriate, takes corrective action when needed, and has remained civil in a variety of tense situations. My RfA is testament to the community's support of my behavior. With that in mind, I would like to say very candidly that I have never been so offended here as I have been by your remarks and Kelly Martin's remarks. I have not been officious, my behavior has not been appalling , and I have most definitely been conscientious in my attempts at directing the dispute in appropriate ways. I feel that both you and Kelly Martin have not followed WP:AGF, but rather have assumed that I have tried to countermand the processes in place to handle dispute resolution when the opposite is clearly the case. Worse, you have taken to insulting my behavior as a consequence, rather than asking for clarification first as to what I was doing and why I was doing it (as I have given now). Good day, --Durin 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dudes, there's no reason for you to argue about this. I got no problems with either of you. I'm not upset with you, Durin. I was annoyed, at the time, but that has passed. And me asking why you "babbled" was no big deal. I wasn't sure of what your intentions were. Whatever was said between you guys, just let it be water under the bridge. I don't want any of you to argue because of me; especially since the problem lies somewhere else. All of you seem reasonble. --Anittas 20:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NT: Apology gladly accepted, and I thank you for your well considered and kind words. With respect to the mediation cabal, having been rather dramatically off-put by two members of nine total on the team, I find I am rather turned off at the prospect of working with that team. Personally, I'm rather shocked that a team which should be bent on resolving disputes managed to create one, no less with an administrator who was attempting to resolve a dispute. I fully accept your apologies on this, but I hope you will understand if I find it rather difficult to imagine myself participating with your team for the near term future. I hold no hard feelings, but I must adjust my behaviors to take into account what I have found. If you get burned at a fire, you don't stick your hand back in it any time soon, despite any claims by others that it is indeed safe. For the near term future, I'll keep away from contributing there. I was out of line for posting there in the first place; I was not familiar with mediation cabal prior to that posting, and did not read the page in entirety before making the post. I acted outside of your process and I can understand that I (unintentionally) ruffled some feathers. --Durin 22:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(I am including this text here, which is a reply to Kelly's comments on my talk page, so that you may continue to be appraised of the situation)
Kelly, you're operating from presumptions that are (with no insult intended), frankly speaking, false (I am not saying in bad faith, just false). I assert again that you and Nicholas failed to observe WP:AGF. You say you were personally approached. Yet, I had no means of ascertaining that this had happened since it was out of process, off Wikipedia, and beyond my ability to see. You can not hold me accountable for acting without consideration of his personal approach to you. Yet, you are. In no respect did I assume his mediation request was made in bad faith; in fact vigorously the opposite. Please read my response to Nicholas Turnbull's statements to me. Based on what I could see here on Wikipedia, nobody was responding to Anittas and offering him any means of resolving the dispute. I stepped in to aid him, and to help prevent him from violating WP:3RR. I had no prior history with this editor; you are incorrect. I was acting in my role as an admin to help avert a 3RR violation and to give advice on how the user could proceed according to policy.
It states in the very introduction on WP:MEDCAB "This page will never be Wikipedia policy. It is, by design, entirely unofficial and out of process." MedCab has no special authority under which it operates. Meanwhile, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, under which I was operating, is official policy. I stand by my actions, which were made in good faith, to aid an editor who was in need of assistance. As I noted to Nicholas, posting on WP:MEDCAB violated the process there and I have apologized for it. That said, my posting there was not in any violation of wiki-spirit, was done in good faith and was entirely inline with Wikipedia policy. Despite this, both you and Nicholas did not follow WP:AGF and instead took to insulting my behavior. Nicholas apologized for his actions in a very abject apology. I have to admit that when reading his apology I was expecting the other shoe to drop as it were; I was expecting there to be a "but,". There wasn't. His apology was well articulated, and heartfelt. From you, I have received nothing of the sort. Instead, I have received a continued assault on my behavior. I find this unacceptable, distasteful, and wholly undermining of my trust in WP:MEDCAB and indeed in ArbCom if your behavior is standard. You are attacking me without grounds in policy, doing so on the basis of not assuming good faith, and have been insulting in the process. I find no grounds for validity of your complaint except in so far as my previously apologized for breaking of process at WP:MEDCAB.
Referring to WP:MEDCAB, it says "we don't ... judge anyone's actions". Clearly, you and Nicholas both did, violating the spirit of WP:MEDCAB. Further, it says "we are just here to ... be nice to people". Calling my behavior appalling, and Nicholas calling my behavior "Officious" is not being nice to people. I would also like to point out that in the very template for new requests at WP:MEDCAB there is a section for comments by others. I admit, as I did before, that I did not read all of WP:MEDCAB prior to making my posting. However, on seeing this template, I have seen that my comments would be acceptable under that section (and indeed it has now been placed under such a section after the template was applied to the case). So, my posting was not all that out of line with the process at WP:MEDCAB, else it would have been summarily deleted.
Earlier, I asked you "If you find something in particular about my manner of handling his query with respect to what I said on his talk pages, then by all means state it clearly." You have done so here. As noted, I find the basis of your complaint as being false (I'm not saying it was in bad faith, just false). I find no basis in which your complaints have validity. Extending this further, I am asking you now to indicate what specific Wikipedia policies I have violated, and how I violated them. From my chair, I did not violate any Wikipedia policies. But, I am not perfect; certainly others may see something I have not. If you can find it, I will apologize for it and correct my behavior with respect to future actions. If you can not, I stand by what I have repeatedly said before; I will gladly do as I have done before except in so far as posting on WP:MEDCAB is concerned, where it is obvious that I am not welcome...which is odd since it is a place of welcome. Therefore, on my part, I have taken corrective action as appropriate to prevent this dispute between myself and you and Nicholas from happening again; if I remain off WP:MEDCAB, I won't affect your process. Since, failing any findings of violation of policy on my part, there are no grounds for your complaint against me in any other respect, there is no need for corrective action on my part in so far as my conduct on Anitta's talk page and that of the other involved parties.
In closing, I would like to say that I find this entire episode entirely avoidable and extremely distasteful. I am by nature a pacifist person, and do not like to be the subject of extended arguments. My behavior here on Wikipedia is an extension of that; I do not violate WP:CIVIL because I know it will only serve to make matters worse. In this dispute, I find myself the subject of negative scrutiny of the head of WP:MEDCAB and a member of ArbCom. You will forgive me, I hope, if I find it necessary to vigorously defend myself when faced with two people of such positions on Wikipedia. Were this to become an RfC or worse, I would be just an admin vs. two admins both with significant positions in addition to their admin status. I feel the two of you have placed me on a slippery slope from which recovery is difficult. This could ultimately lead to sanctions against me. With the words of two such prestigous people as yourselves, my words carry less weight. Yet, I feel that the actions of both you and Nicholas were terribly in the wrong. Certainly Nicholas, with his abject apology, is in agreement. It is disheartening and threatening from the slippery slope perspective that you do not find your own actions regrettably flawed. Yet, I can't find it within myself to prostrate myself before you to ask for forgiveness from you. I have reviewed my actions and apologized for anything I felt even marginally flawed. I will not ask for forgiveness for any other act because what I did was entirely proper; asking for forgiveness would essentially be me saying that Wikipedia policy is invalid. I won't do that. Still, if I don't prostrate myself before you, I fear the outcome will be you taking further action against me. This is all horribly, horribly wrong. Nicholas has exited from the dispute as he has abjectly apologized and his words here are a matter of record. I want to exit this dispute because I have taken what I find to be the appropriate corrective action. You have not exited the dispute, and instead insist on continuing your assault against my behavior. The power to end this is in your hands. Use it wisely. Good day, --Durin 18:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Nicholas, do you have any news for me regarding the dispute? Thanks. --Anittas 16:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You sure are a smoothy; your message makes me really sad. Yeah, I was really passionate about it, and loved interacting with other contributors. Thanks for your wonderful words! But I'm just too distressed and depressed by the huge amount of venom floating around in public about me ever to set foot on WP again.
If I haven't been blocked or the RfA terminated early, I'll make a statement on that page concerning how the procedure desperately needs to be reformed. The irony is that had Redwolf not kindly nominated me last week, I'd still be here, beavering away, helping people, critiqueing, and rewriting parts of project pages. It's all dissolved into sludge, now, and I'll leave really hating WP.
I was a professional musician until that age of 45 (five years ago), in a very traditional frame: I ended up teaching 18th- and 19th-century harmony and keyboard skills, and supervising the improvement of literacy skills in musicians at the University of Sydney. But classical music is shrinking, and my career wasn't in good shape, so I bailed out and have steadily built up a new career in editing - I get to work with some brilliant scientists who need help in the preparation of their grant applications; this is a bonus!
You appear to be an interesting and thoroughly likeable man. My email address is tony1 at iinet dot net dot au, and you're welcome to contact me too if there's anything you want to talk about.
Perhaps I can ask a favour? I'm having difficulty in finding an admin to kill off my user page and image when the time comes, probably next week. Might have someone's agreement, but if not, or if suddenly I'm blocked in the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you waited a few days and then did the deed. (But I'll understand completely if you're uncomfortable about it and say no!)
It claims under your categories that you're an LGBT Wikipedian. Am I wrong in assuming that this would conflict with your apparent belief in Scientology? Is it just vandalism? Thanks. Sillstaw 22:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sillstaw: Hah, no, it isn't vandalism; as I am sure you can see from the page history, I added the category myself. :) Actually, the subject of Scientology doesn't conflict with my sexual orientation; although some of L. Ron Hubbard's earlier works refer to being gay as a "sexual abberation" (for example, in his book Science of Survival) his later works were neutral on the matter. Also, in Scientology the maxim "what is true for you is true for you" is considered paramount; one evaluates for oneself what is true and what is not, which I have done - and there is certainly no prohibition on homosexuality in the subject, far from it, one is free to make one's own decisions on one's own behaviour. I do hope this clarifies the matter for you. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)(e-mail)(cabal) 23:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Sillstaw 02:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to the Mediation Cabal page[edit]
First off i thank you for you line of communication in the matter. My reasons for editing is that i never sanctioned that my name be inclued in any part of any medation, nor did i agree to be inclued as a part of any medation process. The inclusion of my name only with out the inclusion of other is only to distort that he their are other in the dipute yet i am only one that has not allowed this user to, or one of a few, that has not allowed this user to get away with his POV war that he has instagated to force a merge of articles, and to distort the truth and misrespresent the facts that have not only been presented to him but to all useres. Unfortanially as is the case with vast majortiy of internal processes here, i find them infeffective, slow, and somethimes corupt, and i have very little faith in the internal workings of this system. I will consult on the infromation present but on in a private matter, but in the end i can only see this working as an appeasment, which will not be acceptable under the current cirmstances. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The next action was to upload a picture of a few clowns over Image:PHOTOS IGOR GRICHKA.jpg, which I reverted a few times, since I was having a cache problem. I'm pretty sure this is either a sock or abusive username, so I blocked the account indefinitely under the ArbCom injunction. Would you like to review this block? You seem to be a chief enforcer of the affair, which we have so unfortunately fallen into. Thanks, Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just a pre-emptive warning; if things don't improve on Talk:Arvanitic language regarding the page move war, and the strained relations between the two main parties, then I may be calling in the Cabal for backup. Rob ChurchTalk 11:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed an RfC against Durin for the incident we both had with him last month. You may wish to review and certify the dispute. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate it that you struck out your signature on the RFC, I was wondering if you could explain the matter a bit more to the community? Did you talk to Durin? Was there mediation? Did either party apologize? Is the matter settled satisfactorily? I realize that these may be personal questions and I'd respect it if you don't want to answer them, but the matter seems rather confusing from here. Yours, Radiant_>|< 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC) I think I had best retract these questions. Sorry to bother you. May I just add that I find your settlement page a laudable attempt. Radiant_>|< 23:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to unprotect the article for short periods of time, basically as bait, to see how many fish are out there and what they try to do. Fred Bauder 14:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to have stopped removing the source of Ureche, but now started to revert other edits made by other people, instead. I think that Node is causing grief and spreading propaganda. Someone added a fragment of text to compare so-called Moldovan to Romanian, and he removed it. Without asking questions or explaining why he did so, he just removed it. --Anittas 21:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nicholas, just a reminder that the rollback function should only be used for removing vandalism. [9] Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 12:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Carbonite: Whoops, I'm awfully sorry, I didn't realise I used rollback there. I must have done it perhaps as force of habit, my mind has been at present rather disorderly and somewhat maddened. :) Actually, I don't think I should have reverted Tony at all, actually; that was very very bad of me indeed. The oddest thing of all is that I can't remember doing it; I haven't been very mentally stable lately, which would probably account for some rather peculiar behaviour of mine recently. Thanks for letting me know, if you see anything else I've done that's similarly insane, I would be most grateful if you would give me a suitable telling-off. Once again, I am most sorry. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all! I've actually hit the rollback button accidentally once or twice myself. The occasional server error messages don't make it any easier to notice your mistake. Happy editing! Carbonite | Talk 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nicholas, sorry for the mess: I figured that the article would be vandalized as soon as it would be unprotected, and I tried to insert my changes quickly, so I didn't check. Thanks for reinserting my changes. Ze miguel 12:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for reverting your changes: I really hated doing that, but I strongly feel that we need to keep the numbers somewhere, as I've explained on the talk page. Also, I note your rewording tended to remove the "short descriptions" from the start of the bullet. If we do remove the numbers, I think we should still start each bullet with a short, easily remembered name. Thanks. Turnstep 17:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you have listed yourself as a scientologist Wikipedian. You will probably be interested to know that Brian0918 has nominated Omnipotence paradox as the front page article for December 25th. You can vote on this matter
here. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. AngryParsley(talk)(contribs) 08:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of the Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee, you along with User:Marudubshinki and User:FCYTravis agreed to act as mentor for Anon 80.141 et al/Onefortyone who is on Wikipedia:probation. This person has returned to editing the same article with the same non-encyclopedic inserts, using distorted phrasing and quoting totally unacceptable sources in order to continue his agenda on the Nick Adams article. Your fellow mentor FCYTravis worked with me to achieve a consensus text pending resolution of the propriety of quoting certain sources. Despite our efforts, and despite being told his edits were improper by mentor FCYTravis, Onefortyone has ignored his mentor and repeatedly inserted them. As well, he continues his past pattern of behaviour of ignoring the facts as to why his edits are unacceptable that have been spelled out in precise detail on the Talk page over and over and over and deliberately obfuscates the issue with massive inserts of text on the Talk page. I and FCYTravis have done everything we can. Now I request that you and mentor Marudubshinki step in and examine this matter to take the appropriate action. - Ted Wilkes 07:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nicholas! Please tell me how can I involve myself in mediation? I would like to take part of mediation processes. I find it very interesting to be a mediator. Can I be a member of your team of Cabala mediators? -- Bonaparte talk 13:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
High speed pink pompoms with purple elephants and little green leprechauns[edit]
...beat that for a title. Just thought I'd drop you a note to check things are all OK - you haven't been on IRC in a while, and you didn't respond to my email. Hope the whole FSE/contracts/builders/finances issues aren't causing you hell.
Seen the demo site? The amount of progress we (Chris and I) have made will scare the living daylights out of you. Rob Church 23:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
05:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
