Regarding Badwa, there seems to be some confusion, but I cannot take credit for something that I have not done, I have been wrongly credited to the edit.
You really had a bad month! Sorry to hear about your allowance....seems you were a victim of Phishing scam! I (and many other guys) will be happy to see you now once again back in action. Take care my friend.--Anish (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alastair Haines. While exploring the User talk pages of proflic editors, I somehow came across your name. I'm doing a research project at UCSC about Wikipedia and I see that you're very active member (with important contributions to several featured articles??). If you have the time, I would really appreciate hearing some of your thoughts and experience about Wikipedia. The discussion is already underway at my talk page, it would be great if you could jump in wherever you have a comment.
It has been a very great privelege to have met you Mathsci. Thanks for your years of editing here, and for going an extra mile in the case currently concluded. An account with the excellent name you proposed should be opened in due course. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CoM! You are a treasure! Very many species are parthenogenic, and several are gynodioecious. Most people, I imagine, rather enjoy the fact that Homo sapiens are neither. ;)
With the limited time available to me, I'm rather keen for you and I to work a few 3O cases together, taking it in turns to lurk and use email. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are the evolutionary implications of cloning and female only reproduction? Are there occasions when interbreeding takes place? I thought it was basic biology that dna swapping and all that kind of thing is important.
As you might have noticed I am currently in receive only mode for e-mail. I like the idea of all my discussions being readily apparent and am hoping to avoid any off-wiki communication misunderstandings or drama (I seem to be part of more than my share on wiki). But maybe I'm just being old fashioned and stuffy? :) It's going to be a couple weeks at least, I think, before I can do any 3Os. But I'm intrigued by the idea. Cheers. Welcome back. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual reproduction seems to have evolved independently in a number of species, but some species have reverted to asexual (parthenogenic) reproduction. There is no consenus regarding the several theories proposed to explain the data. Genetic recombination promotes diversity and is generally considered to be the key advantage provided by sexual reproduction. Diversity is thought to be particularly beneficial in protecting species against pandemics of disease. But there are costs as well as benefits to sexual reproduction, so they say.
Hmmm, sorry to hear about email hassles for you. I'd be content for you to give me 3O feedback on my talk page or—more discretely, but still accountably—on yours. Same regarding me giving you feedback. In fact, I'd rather post to a talk page than go searching for the email button.
Ethically, I view it like industry standard best practice—"your call may be monitored to assess quality". You and I would be monitoring one another's 3O management. I'd have no objection, in fact I'd rather like, letting two parties seeking a 3O know that the handling of their case was being monitored by a 4th party, who would not participate in discussion. It's just a matter of whether it would distract or confuse the parties.
The key thing is mutual monitoring for personal development and quality control. We want to be fair to all parties, the details of that are important but there are many good ways of making it work, and thankfully we only need to find one of them. ;) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Skywriter (below) responds to ChildofMidnight's first post (above) [AH]
It's only a temporary respite. Alastair was warned (above) not to participate in any religious articles for the stated reason that he has an expertise in religious subjects. Although we've ignored that so far because of the silliness of the warning, I need to caution everyone that a logically irrelevant warning may not be a politically irrelevant one. I don't know how this will end. What will actually happen if Alastair becomes a fully productive editor again? That would be good for Wikipedia, but bad for Alastair. (Sorry to throw cold water on the situation).SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alastair, it's good see things have been (somewhat) resolved. If you still want myself, or John to have a look at specific diffs posted on-wiki about you please send them on to us or alternatively send them to ArbCom. Best wishes--Caililtalk19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this kind offer. I think we can cruise at DEFCON 4 for a while. The reality is that I'm more concerned about Wiki and its contributors having sufficient mutual confidence that this is reflected in many editors being comfortable using their real names. But I'll let wiser heads work out the lessons we can all learn regarding that. My main concern remains addressing outstanding content issues sans the ad hominem. But the beautiful thing about Wiki is that there is plenty of time, no publication deadlines. The latter, offsite, oppress me more than any drama at Wiki. Peace friend, a day is coming when content discussion will test our metal and I trust the proverb that "iron sharpens iron" will be proved yet again as a driving force for quality and reliability at Wiki. Sorry to be so obtuse, but I'm genuinely sanguine. Very, very best with your real life commitments, those you serve in real life are very fortunate indeed if your contributions are even half the quality they are here. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am musing on buffing up the prince of hell at some point, maybe sooner rather than later, especially since dusting off my dungeons and dragons books. I will have a look at the testament of Solomon online, but any fleshing out of material not otherwise accessbile online would be helpful.
Ah!..I seem to have missed your home coming....but nevertheless.....welcome back! I am so glad to see you back on Wiki. The admins ultimately saw the reason. I am also glad that your friends stood by you. You have accumulated good karma with your generous helpful nature. So What goes around comes around ! Be well and take care.--Anish (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You, rather than I, are one of the most generous men I know, especially with your public praise of my humble efforts. I am well and I will take care. I long to be not so busy, so I can research some more understanding of Jainism under your guidance. Very, very best to you Anish. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"understanding of Jainism under your guidance"...you are very kind. But somehow I am not able to concentrate now on Wikipedia with continuity with demands of the job. Guess I will really have to squeeze some time if I want to see more articles of Jainism on FA list.--Anish (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Good decision. Priorities. I still think we shall do work together on Jainism at Wikipedia, because even if we are slow, there is no rush! A little work, now and then, adds up to something helpful for many people. I pray that your family will remain in good health. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing well, and your sourced explanation of chastity is precisely how I, and all literature I'm familiar with understand it also. So thank you. It is true, however, that chastity is sometimes used as a near synonym rather than virginity itself, especially in evolutionary biology, but in other places also. But I agree, "unadulterated" fidelity is the key idea in chastity, linking with sexual jealousy, etc., etc.
Hello Alastair, I have been well. Busy with job and other work. Having too much work is better than having too little (and I have experienced both situations). Cheers, LuxNevada (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for File:Quantification.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Quantification.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Hi, if you are free, I will like you to see Iravan, an article just expanded and give your suggestions. I am nominating the article to GA today, anyway articles about Hinduism take a long time for a review. Till then, I request you to read and if possible, polish the article. Thanks. --RedtigerxyzTalk06:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nvineeth just gave me two links of journals to expand the article more. I think it will be a waste of your time if while expansion, I change paras, which you have contributed to. I will inform you after the expansion. Thanks.--RedtigerxyzTalk14:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great! :) I'm somewhat busy atm, so don't mind waiting. You've done good work so far I noticed. I love watching people turning sources into articles, go Tiger! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are amazing Tiger! You write faster than I copyedit. You write with not only the skill, but the speed of a tiger. Will get to work ASAP. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, maybe, either way you do turn large quantities of reliable sources into logically organised and faithfully summarised Wiki text. Speed is not really an issue. I'll get back to work. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed my research work on the article and will not more stuff in the article. Open to your copyediting and suggestions.--RedtigerxyzTalk13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 68 FAs, 7 FLs, and 146 GAs, which includes 3 more FAs. We did however lose one FL and 2 GAs over the past month, but we still basically broke even with the 3 new FAs.
Member news
With the additions of cindyrom4jesus at 69.254.33.66, User:Jwhosler, and User:Arverniking, we now have 281 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members!
Welcome to the Eighth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
Hello from the new Christian films task force! I was recently apart of founding a task force, so this is the story. For several months, I would not only contribute to Christian films, groups, etc., but I'd also see other users working on similar articles. I really wanted to create a project for us to work from. Filmcom contacted me about trying to get a task force going, so we began working together on it. When it appeared the idea was dying, we continued to fight, and several other users joined!
Thanks to the efforts of many users, I'd like to introduce you to the Christian films task force! We are currently having a bot tag all Christian film-related articles, and we are working to define our project scope. We now have our own icon and shortcut (WP:CFTF), with ten users signed out thus far - these are just some of the things that have been happening in the last few days. If you have any interest in joining such a project, we welcome everyone to join and get involved.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Iravan
On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iravan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the reorganization of "Etymology and other names". It is much better. I request you to please take a look at rest of the article too, possibly before a second reviewer arrives. About the historical present issue, please take decision about past and present - I am confused and you are better in language issues.--RedtigerxyzTalk16:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed some edit-warring going on here. I don't know much about the topic, so it's hard for me to evaluate the actual material. Do you agree with the checkuser case recently filed; i.e., is the position advocated by Rossnixon and Osprey an unusual one? OhNoitsJamieTalk17:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. It is slightly unusual. No big deal.
The Rapture itself is a slightly unusual theology, but the current article deals with it soberly.
I'm getting the impression we have some youthful enthusiasts from a bouncy, boyant kind of upbeat US Christian background, editing with more optimism than wisdom.
Everything's moving too fast, but there's nothing nasty or sneaky.
I don't want to get involved with this article, but I've just warned the other 2 editors about personal attacks, and told Hammy not to rise to the debate. Butlin may be being deliberately provocative, but if I AGF I guess I could say he's just - stuck for the word, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked at the page recently. Last I saw, Hammy was making personal attacks, just as you say.
Duncan most certainly is provocative. He never attacks other editors (I think), but he is often scathing about classes of people.
From recollection, no one has actually been contributing anything much in the way of reliably sourced material to the article.
Eventually, I will get back to the article and restore a lot of sourced material that has been removed over protests and without consensus, and most of which had two years of essentially stable life.
I have noticed your sober and reasonable peace-making at the page.
It's a "high maintenance" page, I think you're wise to refrain from intimate involvement with the article.
I'll be alerting a range of people before I return to that page to restore and expand.
It shouldn't be a problem so long as there's a crowd of relatively neutral people around, upholding policy.
I'm gaining Wiki-weight and my wife is a wiki-widow. I have a project in mind that requires your valuable insight. When I am ready I hope you can help. --Buster7 (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wife before wiki.
A very sound policy, Ed.
But, with your wife's consent, I'm happy to be your comrade in any noble Wiki project you are masterminding.
I think it's an interesting enterprise, and I support explorations and experiments where people actively engage with ideologies and wrestle with them in meaningful and practical ways. I hope the students also engage with those who have oppositional perspectives and who are unhappy with his endeavor. He will learn a lot by listening to them. Hopefully colleges and universities can be places where critical thinking is encouraged and where the constraints and confines of political correctness and narrowmindedness are kept to a minimum. On the other hand, I spent some time abroad with a group and at the end of the trip when we shared our experiences, I realized that my experiences were very different than those of the women in the group, not just subjectively but objectively. You know the saying about not judging someone else before walking in their Moccasins...
Identity politics, gender issues, equal rights, equal opportunity, and broader notions of "equality" are very interesting indeed. I imagine any one person's perspective has a lot to do with his or her experiences in life. The latest Supreme Court nominee is a case in point.
I hope I haven't been too indirect in my response. Truly I'm not sure what to make of this young man's group. But I think the group raises some interesting issues, and I think that's a good thing. The discussion of the process by which someone is labeled "African-American" has also been broached a bit on the Obama article. The policies here support sticking with reliable sources (although alternative viewpoints are also supposed to be acknowledged), but I do think the issue itself raises some interesting issues. It seems to be more of a grey area for Tiger Woods, which I think is interesting in and of itself. I guess I'm drifting pretty far afield, but I think the issue of identity and grouping has a lot to do with this fellow's efforts to form a "man's group".
Homo Sapiens may be at the top of the food chain but he had better take out the garbage and change that lightbulb if he knows whats good for him!--Buster7 (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ CoM. Thank you so much for replying and for straying far enough to actually say very clear and important things.
Yes, identity seems to be important to the human psyche. Some of it seems to be about working out who we are in ourselves, and some of it seems to be about working out both who else we are like, and who else we are not like. Some of it is solo, some is interactive. Some is subjective and some objective. But which is which is fascinating and complex. I'm suspicious when writers either deny that people have cultural or gender similiarities, or deny that people have cultural or gender differences. Whether tradition or political correctness silences research and publication, either is censorship, robbing us of a chance of benefitting from the work of others in working things out for ourselves.
I think Wiki has the right policies: do not try to say which "side" is correct (NPOV), write up every POV from the NPOV, stick to published work (RS), so we get the best work and document other people's arguments, rather than trying to resolve those among our own editorial volunteers. At Wiki all editors are equal: equally unreliable on matters of fact. The reliability of Wiki depends on keeping editorial opinion out and published opinion in.
If Wiki follows its policies, it will always contain material some people would prefer was deleted. Because everyone is given access, such material will be deleted from time to time. So part of Wiki will always be restoring sourced text deleted for personal reasons, whether those are acknowledged by the deleter or not. Unless work is done, Wiki is vulnerable to the lowest common denominator version of text: only what pleases all the people all the time will remain. And that's not a lot! Natural selection leads to erosion, not refinement at Wiki. That's why it needs policies and administration. Wiki is not built by an infinite number of monkeys, but by intelligent design. Whatever we may think of the physical universe around us. ;)
Hasn't natural selection, except as truism of circular logic, been largely debunked? I thought the consensus now is for episodic periods of "dramatic" change and speciation, adaptive drift, and genetic variability coded to be influenced by life "experience"? And I'm not sure about natural selection (whatever its merits) leading to erosion on or off-wiki, but I am a big supporter of intelligent designs. :) Otherwise I mostly agree with your comments and found them to be well put. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the project I mentioned
Thanks for you effort on my behalf. No Problem with the deletion at all. But thanks anyway. Ive created a new article (my first) and I was just trying to creat a workspace for it. The speedy deletion WAS fast wasn't it. I wish admins were as efficient. See Middle Class Working Families Task Force...a work in progress.--Buster7 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouraging words at User_talk:Muzhogg. I've been studying McGrath (mainly his treatment of Bhaskar) as part of a post-grad thesis and it's a world apart from Wikipedia. However, I'm finding the discipline of an encyclopedic medium very helpful. Even comments made in ignorance (or even malice) are simply a challenge to make submissions which are beyond criticism. Very challenging, but good fun.
I'll be sure to yell if I need to take you up on your offer of assistance.
The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 72 FAs, 6 FLs, and 145 GAs, which includes 4 more FAs. We did however lose one FL and 1 GAs over the past month, but we still gained overall.
The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute.
Member contest of the month
Given the lateness of the newsletter last month, the contest from last month continues. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of June will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month.
Welcome to the Ninth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
I am in the process of going through the various categories related to Christianity. I am finding that several of them may not have sufficient number of members to continue. By the end of the month, I hope to have the main category list finished (yeah, it might take that long, it's huge). At that time, I think we will review all the categories and see which may not have sufficient articles to continue. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- TinuCherian - 11:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, 3/4 of it had already been removed by a series of other editors, leaving little that was useful. Since a few had also added unsourced and slanted material, I thought it worth removing the dross. Don't worry, 50kb of decent material is still in the article history.
What's important is not leaving slanted and misleading material on the page, discouraging genuine contributions. Trim it right down (as I have) and we'll see if anybody offers us some new, good material.
If you really want information on the topic, look at the revision stable for 18 months from March 2007 to September 2008. It actually got quoted by a reliable source (a feminist to boot) published in 2008! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no such restrictions. That is ridiculous and without foundation. Extraordinary claims need extra ordinary evidence. Prove it.
Additionally, for interested parties, there are currently discussions regarding a number of pages related to patriarchy, suffering from a lack of editors who know sources, hence I have been invited to participate.[4] Additionally there have been issues with certain parties who have acted rudely towards me.[5]
The current furore concerns an editor, Kaldari, who has previously actively removed sourced material,[6][7][8] taking advantage of presumed restrictions regarding myself.
Until discussions are resolved with my participation, and Kaldari's obstructive and destructive actions have been investigated thoroughly, including testimony from Buster and Duncan Butlin, this precipate action looks extremely suspicious.
I do encourage outside parties to get involved, since the motives for previous failed attempts to discredit me in the past are now becoming explicit, at last.
Finally, before any casual passers by jump to conclusions about my involvement with this topic.
Here is what I saw that first got me involved at Wiki,[9] see also User talk:Alastair Haines/Archive 1. Here is my first edit.[10] And here is what the article looked like when I finished work at the end of March.[11] Here is a reliable (and feminist) source that has since paraphrased the definition of patriarchy I provided for Wiki some time ago, and has remained (somewhat) stable ever since.
Patriarchy
The structuring of society on the basis of family units in which fathers have primary responsibilities for the welfare of their families and, by extension, the responsibility for the community as a whole. There are no known examples of matriarchies from any point in history."
This is Kaldari v Haines. Block him as well as me, unblock me, or be seen to be partial in treatment of members of the feminist task force, permitted free censorship, without being subject to reliably sourced fair criticism.
Your assertion that "there are no such restrictions" is false. The restrictions were imposed upon you by the Arbitration Committee as documented by this diff. Your appeal above does not address the conduct by you for which you were sanctioned, and misconduct by others (if any) is not relevant to this sanction. Your request to undo the sanction is declined. You may appeal this decision to the Arbitration Committee by e-mail as described at WP:ARBCOM. Sandstein 09:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. There is nothing untoward in any of my actions, certainly in this case (and even at the time of the invalidly conducted ArbCom). There is nothing untoward, even under the disputed restrictions.
It is also clear from my talk page and history that, in fact, no question regarding any action of mine has been raised here prior to this precipate and unadvised comment. Quite the contrary, I have been invited to provide sources to assist with responsibly deciding questions related to the topic, since others have not been found to do so.
Please let me know when appropriate investigations regarding Kaldari have commenced. Since Kaldari initiated a complaint (without informing me) and with a clear conflict of interest, no resolution adopted without investigation of this user's credibility as a witness has any validity.
Note: Kaldari makes claims about Goldberg that show he's neither read Goldberg nor his critics: "strict biological determinists such as Steven Goldberg".[12] The date is interesting for a user who claims not to have "left the article in December" (or words to that effect).
Please remove Sandstein from the case. His willingness to make impositions on key editors, without either consulting them, or making due investigation of context, compromises his credibility. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair please write to ArbCom if you want this reviewed. Also I recommend that you don't make remarks like the above which might be considered to be ad hominem - even the appearence of that wont help you. The fact is Alastair the outstanding ArbCom ruling states that "Should Alastair make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages" - that's a normal ArbCom condition (in fact its normal practice outside ArbCom sanctions in some cases too). The cleanest, quickest way to have this reviewed is by writing to ArbCom. I would caution others to let Alastair do this with the minimum of commentary about it here and on other sites - this commentary an opinion only added fuel to fire last time, lets make this easier for Alastair than it was last time. If you are concerned about the ban or block writing to the committee in confidence is the best way forward. I hope you have this sorted soon - please feel free to email me if you like--Caililtalk16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments, Cailil are ad hominem, they communicate your presumption of bad faith, and do so without interacting with any content issues. The "evidence" you offer supports my claims, not yours.
My comments are demonstrable fact, based on content issues. Kaldari has expressed an opinion of a reliable source that conflicts with what that source actually says. He either has not read it, or didn't understand it. Ask him, yes or no, has he read the book or not. If he has, where does it say what he claims? If he has not, what's he doing misleading people about the contents of a reliable source? Because someone has actually read the source, he's been caught out jumping to conclusions because of the title of the book.
As you well know Cailil, there has never been any evidence of any inpropriety in my editing, other than leniency towards amateur administration at Wikipedia. There has always been a conflict of interest in your involvement, which you have never declared. As any user can verify, you and Kaldari play for the same team. There is a serious issue here.
Indeed I shall be emailing ArbCom, but this time their retractions will have to be public and unequivocal. They have condoned personal attacks instead of upholding policy.
I'm on honeymoon as of next Saturday, and have professional commitments until the end of August. That's plenty of time for ArbCom to get the Wiki house in order. I expect they'll be able to publish something at this page (and elsewhere) during that time.
I have little concern regarding the current situation other than the reputation of Wikipedia. People have made mistakes, and understandable ones. But they are mistakes and they need to be corrected.
Pedants typically don't like being out-pedanted, ideologues often don't like inconvenient facts, and administrators in any organization frequently become insecure and defensive about projecting any weakness like admitting error. I hope that processes at Wiki can self-correct. I'm sure there are others who hope so too.
Interested parties are encouraged to email me during the three months until the end of August. I will be collecting email but had not intended editing during these months anyway. I will be editing, in my name, after that date however. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair I'm sorry but my above note is not ad hominem as it does not infer anything about you. I'm explaining the best way to sort out the issue at hand with the minimum of drama (and I have not presented or relied upon any evidence - as it is unnecessary to what I was doing - explaining how to begin to resolve this). I'm not assuming anything like bad faith on your part - I'm assuming good faith on the part of others. That is totally different. I haven't accused you of anything or inferred any guilt of anything - I was explaining a way to end your block. And by way of clarity Alastair I've never taken administrative actions in relation to this account (ie blocking / unblocking) because of my involvement in topics with which you work. That is not a conflict of interest Alastair it's called 'being involved' and my actions accord with the guidelines for administrative action - as I have behaved like a regular editor never using sysop tools in my interaction with this account. Congratulations on your wedding. I hope you have a good honeymoon--Caililtalk15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes, I'm barely even engaging with the helpful turn of events here at Wiki because I'm naturally focussed elsewhere.
Not that I hold it against you, but your advice above is not to point to facts in criticism of the editorial actions of other users, because it might look bad.
That's a pretty dim view of the competence of other editors here. You're suggesting people can't tell the difference between fair criticism and personal attack. I'm sure plenty of people do struggle with this, but we can't refrain from helping people by offering fair criticism in fear of being labelled as making personal attacks, can we?
Likewise, we can't uphold personal attacks on the grounds that not doing so would undermine the possibility of fair criticism. You and I have seen people arguing such a case, but obviously one or two people doing so is very far from making it policy, thank goodness.
Anyway, the issues are now so clear to any parties free from influence under Wiki-politics that the Wiki system itself should find it easier to escape its own internal political constraints. So I trust ArbCom will be able to find a mandate to retract what should never have been resolved in the first place.
Good news, as far as I'm concerned, but I'm not going to be around to enjoy it, for about three months.
Although I'm on sabbatical from Wikipedia (a much needed one), I did notice this interaction here, and it's prompted me to think of the benefits and limitations of administrative action. There are a number of elements involved here:
Content issues regarding a subject, including
Unsourced information (i.e. needs more work or cutting)
Sourced information (i.e. probably okay, but still may need better placement)
Mis-sourced information (i.e. flat out wrong)
Personal history of involved editors.
Previous administrative restrictions.
Personal expertise on a subject.
Okay, fair enough. I think everyone here is in agreement that Alastair has a certain expertise in the subject of patriarchy. It is, in fact, parallel to his academic work in real life. As such he has an abundant amount of material to use for sourcing and an intimate appreciation of that material. If he were to see a source being misused, he would be immediately aware. Imagine, for instance, seeing an article on Jesus in which someone is using a commentary on the Greek of the New Testament to source that his name is really Jason. Someone completely unfamiliar with that commentary or the Greek of the New Testament wouldn't immediately know what to do about it. It LOOKS sourced. But, in fact, it's mis-sourced. Either the source is wrong, or the editor is wrong. Someone with both a knowledge of Greek AND who has a copy of the source would immediately know what to do about it.
Well and good.
But we have a problem here, don't we? Alastair was (either justly or unjustly) attacked in an earlier issue. As a matter of compromise the Arbcom put restrictions both on him and on his attackers. As a compromise, it was probably as fair as could be. It was like a judge yelling at everyone in the court to sit down and shut up.
Again, well and good.
But we have two competing goods here, and the question is which trumps which. Are we more concerned with wrong information and false sourcing on Wikipedia or on the integrity of an Arbcom decision that's been courtesy blanked?
I think we all agree that Arbcom decisions should be followed. But don't we also agree that mis-sourcing is worse than no sourcing at all? Non-sourced information is easy to see. It's normally easily identifiable even by novice readers as an opinion piece. But sourced information is generally taken to be correct -- especially by novice readers. And mis-sourced information, therefore, is infinitely worse than no information at all, and potentially damaging to the integrity of both wikipedia as a resource and the author's book itself. As an author myself, I'd much rather be ignored than misquoted into saying something opposite to my intent! And as a wikipedia reader I'd much rather not find an article than to have one lead me up the primrose path with false information. It's like having a GPS that loses power (you'll wander a bit) or one that tells you to turn left off of a cliff. WRONG information is much worse than NO information.
And in this entire issue at hand everyone here has been all concerned with WHO is involved rather that WHAT this is about. Well, are we a tabloid or a respectable encyclopedia? If we are a tabloid, by all means ban Mr. Alastair Haines from any subject he knows anything about, especially ones he has sources for -- just because we don't like Alastair Haines any more than we like Brittany Spears' choice of underwear.
If we are a tabloid, the Arbcom trumps everything because we are concerned with personalities and little editor squabbles. There are no exceptions and all must be boldly and boadly applied -- to hell with the article!
On the other hand, if we are a respectable encyclopedia, we should apply the Arbcom... with exceptions.
What fascinates me is that we've all granted that Alastair has been very beneficial to this subject and has made excellent sourcing. Alastair's issue with correcting mis-sourcing has been completely ignored.
So then this boils down to an admin wanting everyone to play nice and respect authority (very good!!!) -- with no regard for the actual integrity of the information at issue (not so good). The Arbcom should trump EVERYTHING except the integrity of Wikipedia articles. The integrity of the Wikipedia authority structure is not maintained if it contradicts the integrity of the encyclopedia itself. In this case the admin involved is cutting off the branch he's sitting on.
Well, that's tabloid time.
Let's all remind Alastair to ask for help if someone is abusing his restrictions to the disadvantage of the subject matter, on the condition that we are willing to in fact help him when someone is doing so.
But let's all make a committment to put the encyclopedia even over the arbcom that is established only to serve it. Sometimes two goods compete. The admin here has done a good thing. But he would be doing even better to actually look at the INFORMATION and make an exception here.
Or, he has the right and the power to treat Wikipedia like the online version of People Magazine.
Sandstein doesn't claim to have any reason for his action, all he claims is authority--ArbCom's authority, but generic documented authority, not specific authority for the matter at hand.
Since there is no reason for the topic ban, and it's only occurred due to a decision ArbCom made, ArbCom can simply reverse it, as I'm sure they shall.
The timing of this is excellent. I'll be thinking of things other than Wiki for the next three weeks especially, and the next three months.
Frankly, the issue and the timing are perfect. There is enough time for things to be done, and it kind of forces our hands to have a retraction that is long over due.
ArbCom need to decide, can they go on record condoning removal of sourced material at Gender of God and at Patriarchy, with no valid documented argument against what is extremely widely reported in reliable sources; and, simultaneously condemning one of the few editors that has actually made a small attempt to write sources into the encyclopedia at these articles and give normal people a fighting chance of thinking through the info?
The issues are obvious. Handling the people involved is probably the tricky part. But WP:RS is our job and WP:NPOV is part of achieving it.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"Both the restrictions and analysis are widely known to be without foundation. Remove block immediately". On the contrary, they are, in fact, very well-founded. Regretfully, I agree with this block. I shan't be handling the unblock request, as I participated in the AE thread, but I would like it to be known that I am not in opposition to Sandstein's actions. AGK09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"....and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And, lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil."--Buster7 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the administrative answer is a strict application of the language of the previous Arbcom (commendable), with no (stated) regard to the integrity of the article in question or the issue of mis-sourced information. I must ask, as I did above: are the administrators more concerned with the previous Arbcom or the integrity of information on Wikipedia? If there is no conflict, block away -- but if there is a conflict between these two goods, which takes precedence -- the integrity of Arbcom or the integrity of the encyclopedia Arbcom is designed to serve? There are exceptions, gentlemen. Let's take a moment to see if it applies here, shall we?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good comments Tim. Two problems here. First, I breached no restriction. Second, the restrictions were imposed invalidly. Only the first point is really pertinent.
But, for the record, no one has ever demonstrated me to have done anything other than maintain and improve Wikipedia. Not only are all my edits constructive, I've not even breached the restrictions. The only way to perceive error on my part is to assume bad faith, an assumption that has never stood to scrutiny.
The various parties that have published erroneous comments regarding my editing have never been investigated despite repeated requests. Their claims have never been verified. Yet material that clearly leads people to a prejudicial judgement of my conduct related to matters in which I'm professionally related continues to be published and acted upon.
The refusal to scrutinise criticism and seek evidence for proof is again evident in the reply above. An irrelevancy is stated in the reply. The reply answers the question, "are restrictions on record and unambiguous?" That they are is not an issue. Their applicability now, and their original validity are questioned, but not answered.
I usually don't contribute to wikipedia and I know very little of polices etc, and I stumbled here by chance. I just wanted to ask how can you possibly say that you are right. You've been told not to do something by some kind of authority, and yet you did it anyway. End of story. If for example a court orders you to refrain from doing something, and you do it anyway, you'll get arrested for criminal contempt of court, period. If you tell the judge "your ruling wasn't valid because I don't agree with it" he'll laugh for a while and then send you to jail. KoperTest (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Always Question Authority, while you can. If we don't, there will come a time when, as Editor:KoperTest says "..the judge .....(will) laugh for a while and then send you to jail." Don't be so quick to put up your hands in surrender Koper. or to judge another editor. There is a looooooooooong history here of administrative over-bearance and confusion. Take a few hours and follow the trail. You may change your mind.--Buster7 (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An editor once observed that this article could be improved. No reason given:just a statement of opinion. That editor did not actually make any effort to fix it...or alternatively invite a conversation (at the talkpage) or seek concensus (also at the talkpage). Wikipedia practice encourages editors to place tags with little burden of proof. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.
Support: Buster's suggested improvements to the tag template appear to reflect my experience of Wikipedia also. An excellent, humourous way to defuse potential tag-warring with tag-bombers. Well done, Buster! Alastair Haines (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Fads.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor was just to buzzy (busy) tagging to stop and do some real work
If you're engaged, or recently married, my heartiest congratulations! I trust she will keep you in line. If I'm not understanding this thread and the series of mispellings and other intrigues, please disregard my comment, carry on as usual, and make sure to have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Catherine Hakim
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Catherine Hakim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Unsourced resume. No evidence that topic (who is a mere research fellow) meets WP:ACADEMIC
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Editor:Hrafn is intent on deleting this article....not sure why. The reasons for deleting vary but the intent does not. Editor oppression can transcend itself and create bitterness and hatred. Sustaining consistent, principled action is difficult when confronted by recalcitrant editing styles. I am more and more reluctant to do battle and, instead, I just do simple editing. Argumentation has its pleasure but it is not why I'm here. Be assured, I am steadfast in my quest for wikiKnights and in my support of your endeavors. Self control...cool as a cucumber...things in perspective...calmness. One good did come from this article. I met editor:[DGG]--Buster7 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The importance of our content policies lies in the fact that, when someone arrives claiming to be an expert, we don't have to worry about whether they're telling the truth. What we ask of all editors (expert and non-expert alike) is that they rely on the best secondary sources they can find. This is something that real experts will be able to do, because they'll have read the secondary literature. You'll know the real experts by their edits, because they'll be able to tell us what other experts think about the subject, not only what they think about it themselves." Got this from Editor:DGG's userpage. I don't think he would mind. He got it from Editor:Slim Virgin. A well-known editor from what little I know about him. (her as it turns out)... Just thought I would share it for what its worth.--Buster7 (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buster, thanks for the updates on this. I will actually be putting some work into Patriarchy, Steven Goldberg, Hakim, etc. in the not too distant future, say a month or two. I have other priorities before that. Your assistance, say as talk page moderator, may well be invaluable. I will be inviting a number of other parties to get involved, and will use this opportunity to trial some new methods Wiki might like to reproduce elsewhere to defend content editors and reliable sources from self appointed "experts" who erode and obstruct work they have personal prejudices against. There are other people across the project tackling the same issues, we are not alone. Very best to you my friend, Alastair Haines (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a researcher in this field (currently supervising a PhD student researching gender related issues, as a published author on gender issues, and having supervised a Masters student who investigated Hakim's theoretical perspective), I can see no good reason to remove her page from Wikipedia for any reason. She has published several books and numerous academic articles. My own line manager (a Professor) cited Catherine Hakim's work in her own PhD. Her views are controversial and unpopular with a number of radical feminist writers and activists (which probably accounts for the determination with which various people here would like to remove her from the encyclopedia). At the same time, her contribution to the academic literature is established and she should remain on Wikipedia.
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)
Dear Dr Ridley-Duff, thank you for this personal testimony, backed as it is by reliable verifiable third party sources. Thank you for volunteering to make knowledge free to the world, the very spirit of Wikipedia. I hope I may have the pleasure of picking your brains for more bibliography over a spectrum of subjects into the future. Very best, Alastair Haines (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles!
I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much.
Related projects news
The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute.
Member contest of the month
The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month.
Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~
I think you may have been notified by email, but I thought it was worth my dropping in a note anywhoo, to let you know that Sydney Wikipedians are having a meetup this coming Tuesday, the 4th August. As you'll see on that page, we have two folk flying in from the Wikimedia Foundation who will be attending, and we have a great crowd of wiki types signed up to come along.
If you've never been to a meetup before, this wouldn't be a bad one to kick off with (we're all very friendly, interesting, and great looking folk ;-), and if you have, well come along again, why don't ya! If you've any questions you can flick the aussie mailing list an email on wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org aussie mailing list, or drop me a note on my talk page. Hope to see some of you there!
ps. If you've already signed up, and received an email, and a phone call, and a door knock, and are getting a bit frustrated with constant advances from enthusiastic australian wiki types, then I'm told you can print this message, and bring it along to use as a 'free beer' voucher, redeemable by our esteemed Vice-President of WMAU on the night...... ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Poor chap. I remember him putting so much work into that. I promised to copyedit, but only got half way through, before Wiki politicians needed me to assist them.
Thanks for letting me know about this, but I'm rather surprised you've been able to connect me with that page, albeit I'm a subject area expert and all. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 75 FAs, 8 FLs, and 147 GAs, with a net loss of one FA and one GA. Our thanks to those who helped keep some other articles listed, and to those who have worked so diligently in improving all of our articles.
Member news
Three new members joined this past month, including new members User:116Calvinist, User:Lrnngrbc, and User:Frazz, bringing us up to 295 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members!
Other news
Two new pages for the benefit of members of the project have been created. Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Mutual aid society is designed to be a place where editors seeking specific assistance from other members can with luck find others who have the abilities or materials they need, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections is, at this point, the beginnings of a list of publicly accessible special collections libraries which our members might find useful. Anyone who lives near one of the collections listed is encouraged to visit them and see if they can find anything they would like to read or use to improve some of our articles. There are always some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. I think the timing of the call for elections might have been bad (summer vacation, what was I thinking?), and have thus changed the period for individuals to run to be one of the project's coordinators. Individuals who have a particular interest or knowledge of specific fields within Christianity are encouraged to run, to serve as a kind of "unit coordinator" for that topic.
Related projects news
The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute.
Welcome to the Eleventh issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
One area in particular need of attention right now is the content related to the Oriental Orthodox churches. Several of the topics within this field are of great importance, including the churches themselves, their histories, thinking, and some of the individuals associated with it. Unfortunately, the number of people who belong to the churches, and, correspondingly, the number of editors working on that content, is smaller than it could be. Anyone interested in helping to develop this content is more than welcome to look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy page and seeing where they can help out.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- TinuCherian BOT - 18:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brain Sex, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.
Hrafn, you describe yourself, not me. Since you choose to ignore my kind warning, I'll deal with your rude and ignorant obstruction and vandalism at the time and place of my choosing, as promised. Thread closed. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Adamantius (journal), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantius (journal). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
It's meetup time again in Sydney - hopefully you'll be able to come along for friendly chat and drinks about all things wiki - topics will no doubt include the Chapter - perhaps with planning for the upcoming AGM, the general state of wiki-play, and the traditional candle lighting to encourage the mythical flagged-revisions extension to make its way on to the wiki. At this point, I usually mention that sitting wiki arbitrators are compelled to buy everyone a drink, but one of our number has taken a rather extreme route in avoiding this duty - if you have no idea what I'm talking about then you're probably busy writing and maintaining articles - but come along anyways on the 21st October, from 18.30 til late, to find out :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New articles
Hi! Alistair Haines
I am a constant contributor of articles on wikipedia on several subjects, mostly related to my country (India). I normally post my articles on DYK. I also write on religious subjects. I have prepared two articles, one on Church of Our Lady of Springs of Anjedipa Island at User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Miscel. and another on Fort Anjediva at User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Saptha Badri. But I am unable to find suitable pictures of the two churches and also their structrual details. Since you have been contributing Church related articles and also reviewing articles on India, can you help me with finding suitable photos and some references to further expand the articles?. I want to post both the articles with a single hook on DYK, and if you are comfortable with the artciles can you nominate them with any due editing? Thanks.--Nvvchar (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have any seen response from you to my above request, I am now transferring the articles to main space for nomination on DYK.--Nvvchar (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We meet after a long time. Remember Vithoba. Can you please take some time out to look at Kanhopatra, taking in consideration FA criteria and copyediting a bit. The article prose size is just 10 KB and it has undergone copyediting once by the GA reviewer. Thanks. --RedtigerxyzTalk05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just like your NIGTC. I am sure we need these articles. In last time I have expanded Papyrus 5 (perhaps title "Oxyrhynchus 208 + 1781" will better), it is still not finished, but I want to do the same with all early NT manuscripts. In last two days I created two articles on sr-wiki (sr:Синајски рукопис, sr:Ватикански рукопис), but it was really, really very difficult and too much corrections. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page was deleted by two different admins already. It was closed at AFD as delete. It has not yet had a WP:DRV. Please submit to WP:DRV through the proper process if you disagree, instead of engaging in disruption. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're misconstruing several things here:
the first speedy delete (by prod) was proved to be an error, so that hardly supports your decision
administrators have no authority to delete, they merely administer consensus decisions, so mention of admins means nothing, it's just 3rd person reference to yourself
you closed the AFD incorrectly: there was no consensus, so the outcome defaults to the status quo, in this case, "keep"
a DRV is not necessary, because there was no consensus for deletion in the first place
this is a matter between you and me and the proposer, that is all
Arguably, you are simply edit warring and making personal attacks to cover over a small error of judgment you made some time ago. Please strike your hasty comment regarding disruption, which is ridiculous regarding restoring reliable, sourced content; and is something I must take seriously and address, via quite different channels than DRV, if it is not struck.
PS You may find Thomas P. Sheck's CV—including a "Review in Adamantius 10 (2004): 473-474"—revises your opinion on the subject, and this list of notable Italian religious studies organisations ("The Group has been operating in Italy since 1994 and organizes meetings, congresses and seminars and publishes the journal 'Adamantius'"). There's other info, even online. Please stop being difficult. There was no consensus because people were honest enough to admit they didn't know enough to decide. A good example to us all. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked, and this was an A ranked journal in the 2008 ERA trial, and hasnt been excluded from the current 2009 list (which is still subject to revision).
I've compiled what I can on User:John Vandenberg/sandbox. So far, it looks like there are insufficient independent sources to sustain an article, but your library is much better than mine .. ;-)
Thank you for your diligent research in this matter, and your long suffering championing of Wikipedia's reliability, by giving readers and editors alike ready access to as much info as we can glean regarding academic journals.
A tag has been placed on Adamantius (theological journal), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Crusio (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article on notable journal has been restored.
Please feel free to propose it for an adequate deletion discussion, i.e. one that seeks input from reliable sources and subject area experts, neither are that hard to find.
I CSD'd the article again. I notice there was an AFD, deletion review, and the previous title was salted, so it would likely be best to contact an administrator before recreating the article. --skew-t (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me. I've seen no link to a deletion review, so I as far as I'm concerned it hasn't happened, hence salting shows nothing but one administrator covering his tracks after incorrectly closing a discussion that failed to produce consensus. Deletion was proposed, only two people posted and it had to be relisted to garner more comment. Two more people posted, and admitted they didn't know anything about the journal, offering that as grounds for deletion. Obviously that's unsatisfactory.
I'm removing the CSD, please review the one and only prior discussion, and the four comments it contains. I'd love to hear your thoughts after that. Cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is here, which was open for two weeks. Relisting happens, and it is unfortunate that few editors contributed to the discussion, but that is no reason to ignore the decision made by the admin who closed it. The deletion review is here (click 'show' to read it). It was looked at by a few editors and admins who saw nothing wrong with the way the AfD was handled. Unfortunately, the creator of an article removing a CSD is against policy and I will revert it [actually, it's already been reverted for just this reason]. I recommend taking this to an administrator; perhaps those involved in the deletion review.. Maybe first find some reliable, secondary sources that back up the journal's notability first to better present the case. There is also dispute resolution if you can't see eye to eye and need more opinions. --skew-t (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind intro to Wiki, so you should know that rules here can always be broken for the sake of maintenance and improvement, and administrators answer to content editors, not vice versa. What is outstandingly helpful about your involvement here is your good faith communication. In particular, I did manage to locate the deletion review, but it's heart-warming to come back to my talk page and find you've gone to the trouble of spelling out so clearly for me where to find it. I know my subject areas, I know Wiki policy and philosophy, but it links can be hard to follow though.
For your information, you may like to see User:John Vandenberg/sandbox regarding Adamantius' credentials; and for my own, you may like to click the [show] and go down to the end of DGG's second post (second last in the discussion)--"The sponsor of this article is usually very reliable, but I think this time he's mistaken." Indeed, I may be mistaken, I don't know DGG personally yet, but I trust him more than myself on more topics than I could count.
I hope we meet again, Skew-t, and please ask me for help if ever you need it. Please keep being as wonderfully diligent about communicating and assuming good faith. Please also try to read as much as you can of Wiki discussions and think critically, don't just read conclusions unless you're in a very big rush, and if you've only read the conclusion, moderate your confidence in that conclusion downwards. More often than you might imagine, your brain could be decisive in changing a fumbled decision where people were valiantly doing their best with too little information. I'm sure you understand.
PS I'm reverting the revert, when there's only one defender, it's extremely important not to silence that defender. That is, if we care about getting a decision right, rather than simply getting a decision. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Adamantius (theological journal). If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
I've said there that deleted articles being worked on should all be in the article incubator. It would help you and your cause if you suggested it be moved from your user space to the incubator (in my opinion of course). It also makes it more likely others will work on it. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs work, and Italians are the ideal people to do it. My user space is not the place. I don't think the incubator is either.
In any case, it has not been established to consensus that the article does not belong in the main space. DGG, John and I all don't know if it should be there. No one who has voted for deletion has offered any argument of substance. Consensus escapes us so the article stays until we can work out why it should be deleted. The group are notable, the journal is refereed, the group's papers are reviewed in indexed journals. I can't see any prima facie case for deletion. I'm willing to be persuaded, but I'm not quite sure on what grounds, certainly not the demonstrably false ones offered so far. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh hai, I see this has popped up again. We need to establish notability before it is allowed into the mainspace. Thems the rules.
We can drag the Italians into our user-space if need be.
What are the criteria for notability in this case? They'll meet 'em unless our standards are unbelievably high. Their work is reviewed, let alone cited, in several journals and indexed in ATLA. Many librarians and any religious studies expert contributing at Wiki could have provided that info to people considering the question. To satisfy the crowd, I think it is fair to say the group rather than the journal is more notable. A namespace for the group is much more intuitive than one for the journal. It provides more opennings for secondary material like festschriften and so on. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I looked at it, I was leaning towards starting with an article about the group, and redirecting the journal to it. But we dont want another speedy deletion!
So lets draft it in userspace, or in the incubator. Once a few of us agree it is notable, we can move it into the main namespace.
The only problem is, as Doug put it, I can't "reward the behaviour" of some of the adminstrators involved in affairs to this point.
Any article can be started, people actually have to provide grounds for deletion, which, with the exception of DGG has not been done to this point.
Burden of proof works both ways with deletion. A subject is not non-notable simply because one or two people simply express the opinion it isn't. That would open up huge room for bias were it permitted.
As it stands, an article on the group, with additional information was deleted (and salted) without consensus.
That calls for a "speedy restore".
I'll be reposting the stub at some point, though it would certainly be better if someone else did (I don't imply you, btw).
I don't have time to work up an article atm, and have other priorities for the time I'll be giving Wiki over the Summer.
Italians have way more access to information on the group (or journal). There is already plenty of reason to believe a suitably sourced (probably simple) article can be produced, what harm does a stub do while we wait for Italian input?
If I'm not obstructed too much while completing planned Wiki-work, perhaps after our baby is born, I might be kept awake enough to do more on this group of hard working Originists, but I can't promise.
I think the way forward is simple: stub on group, deletion discussion to document issues and evidence, request help from itWiki, review progress in 12 months, something like that. Am I missing something?
I agreed to the salting until such time as we have the "notability" sorted out.
Reposting content continually will result in blocks. The "harm" is the disunity. We have a notability threshold, and we need to rise to that level. While you and I might think this is inherently notable, most people feel the same about their pet topic. If everyone is allowed to keep stubs that don't meet the notability threshold, there would be a lot of junk that would make us all feel a bit dirty about our participation in this site.
"Pet" subjects is speculative nonsense. Yes, there are immature people who will use Wiki for that sort of thing, but it's completely irrelevant in this case, since it was me who created the article. A strong argument against deletion that was actually considered explictly by DGG. My consistent and unchallenged objectivity is evidenced by several thousand edits. So my name alone is enough to guarantee that's not an issue here. (If my name isn't enough, then defamation has occurred and you want to be dealing with that quickly, dont you?)
What I have is knowledge relevant to the issue, not any personal prejudice. Origen is not actually a "pet" subject of mine (nor is Bahasa Binan or Hindu Vivek Kendra, by the way). To suggest prejudice on my part (specifically) is not just irrational (because there's no evidence), it's rude. The presumption of good faith applies to starting articles: we presume people know something others may want to know, not that they want others to know something those others are unlikely to want to know. The very fact that someone starts an article is already evidence that the topic is of interest to at least someone.
Regarding salting you were simply wrong, John. Salting either prevents further information being offered, or forces recreation under other names. There was inadequate discussion even to support deletion, so there was certainly even less support for salting. People may have voted for those things, but they had no valid case, so it counts for nothing.
Salting is a particularly serious decision, because it removes a forum for discussion. It prevents the accumulation of informed and reasonable discussion.
The main problem here is that votes are being considered decisive rather than evidence and rationale. Editorial opinion is irrelevant at Wiki, only reasoned and informed opinion has any place. If it's not informed, and it's not reasonable, it is irrelevant.
It is policy that consensus not votes decides issues. Without documentation of evidence and rationale there can be no consensus, because there is no sense.
You've been a champion, John. But you're in an awful position to trout people for the emptiness of their discussion. People don't like being confronted with their errors in public, and it's not a way of retaining access to a fabulous role for strategically improving the project. People in positions that depend on popular support (like admins and ArbCom members) are limited in what they can do in correcting things when those corrections would be unpopular. That's a serious problem with democracy, which unsuits it to deciding content issues. The fact that voting is called consensus doesn't change the fact that it is, in fact, voting. When that affects content we are all bound, ultimately, to admit it and correct it.
I don't care two hoots about Adamantius (well actually I do, they are fine scholars with a lot to say of interest to a small but serious audience), what I care about is inadequate discussion.
Only one ... one! ... deletion proposer actually stopped to talk to me. Even then he didn't stop to reflect he could pump me for info, and that I might know more about the subject than all the few other people put together. I don't feel the need to be consulted, it's not about me. I'm pointing out that people seem caught up in pursuing process rather than pursuing information. It's obvious, and it needs to be addressed.
As for documenting the Italian group. I will recreate the article, simultaneously proposing it for deletion. You can't get more neutral than that, nor more "process friendly" than that. It is very wrong that people view these discussions as adversarial, rightly conceived they are collaborative: all evidence is gathered, and all angles explored prior to any decision. No evidence, no decision, end of story. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now for something completely different again
Wiki is so much fun! Kind of. For the edification of any Wikipedians resident in Sydney or nearby who may like to tear shreds off Alastair in a real life public forum, please consider coming to this free Muslim-Christian dialogue: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" A somewhat more important question than those I find myself writing about in the normal couse of affairs. Everyone's welcome (except children, by management request). There's only room for a few hundred people and seats usually go quickly. Come early and get a seat while the Muslims are praying. Then be nice and give your seat to them, they're lovely, they won't let you. ;)
image with meeting details removed by AH in response to polite personal request below
I've declined this, we usually allow greater latitude for this type of thing in userspace (not unlimited, but I don't see any indication you've crossed that line, though I certainly wouldn't want to see your userspace become a normal host for such bulletins). That being said, since you did collaborate on the design, your partner would hold the copyright along with you. Are they alright with the public domain release as well? SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair, I'd like to request that you remove the above file from this talk page and not use it in the future. Are you willing to do that?--Rockfang (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mate, you know what? You're one of the first people I can remember in a loooong time at Wiki, to actually consider the option of asking nicely for something one-to-one. (Though John may be doing just that above.) So many people here do things first then fight to have that stick, or fight to have undone things other people have contributed. By fight I mean initiate processes that are supposed to drag others away from reading and writing content to do their best expressing opinions in special process pages. I wonder if it's because some people think in terms of Wiki being access to a big public forum and want a place on that stage. Undoubtedly, but no matter. Yeah, most of Wiki is individuals working away quietly on things no one else cares about (or knows about ... yet). Or it's two or three people working out a bit of give and take together.
So, although I don't really see your objection, and I'm kinda curious as to why you ask me to make promises about the future, nonetheless, and all the more readily because Seraphimblade kindly (and I think correctly) supported retaining the image, I'm happy to act specifically to please just one person's personal opinion in this case. There's no content issue at stake, just the issue of us all getting on well together. I'm happy to surrender personal freedom in this case. I am personally a fairly uninteresting kind of dude, so I seriously doubt too many people (at Wikipedia) will care about my dialogues with Muslims or verifying that they exist.
I'm taking a long time to say "yes" and give you what you want. I'd like to keep the image, but sure, it's simply more important for me to encourage friendly one-to-one requests rather than all that tag war nonsense some people pursue. Good luck to you Rockfang. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What! No swordplay? No verbal cat-0-nine "tales" across the backside? If this keeps up we will have collaboration all around wikiWorld. Friendly one-to-one requests? Hmmmm! I may have to try that...........--Buster7 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're fast enough (5 days) to add more inline-citations, I'd say this one deserves to be on the front page for DYK. I had never even heard of "Israelian Hebrew" before (thought you were writing bad English, that's what got my attention on recent changes). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az8655607:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To use your words, Orangemike was "slovenly" because he did "not seek a second opinion before deleting" [emphasis added]. Your second opinion is only that, an opinion, is far too late, and not based on all the information. There most certainly were references for the gruppo stub and there has always been abundant evidence of notability. Six Italian universities studying one of the earliest and most prolific Christian writers non-notable? Only if you're having a bad hair day!
If you are looking at the last versions of the article, you are looking at a cut and paste I threw in as a place-holder, because I was tired of reworking material that was being repeatedly deleted five minutes after posting.
The group are unquestionably notable, and a stub to encourage an article was unilaterally deleted, without any consultation, and with personal attacks made against its originator. Very bad process, very bad form, and just plain very bad.
Recommended change: contact the originator before questioning his motives in public! Tut tut tut.
PS I do hope you realise how funny this is. Excellence in Research for Australia class a journal in the top 15%, but that's not good enough. Not only should a stub on such a journal be deleted, the namespace should be salted! What could a peer review sponsored by a government organization know, in contrast to the great minds gathered to debate the topic for 15 minutes at Wiki. Of course, there's no point in even consulting similar bodies in other countries is there. Australia is the only place that reviews journals. Wiki rigorously utilizes reliable sources rather than promoting its own anonymous editors' opinions. Really? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thread closed, it appears RHaworth genuinely isn't actually working with any notability criteria he can quote.
I added back the World Health Organization (WHO) definition for the reasons stated in my edit summary. Other recent tweaks I made to the lead are also explained in my edit summaries. If you are too against any of these changes I made, I feel that it is best discussed on the Gender article's talk page. I will not readily revert you again on this matter, though, if you revert me. I did not fully revert you anyway. I left in the changes that I feel were/are good on your part. I will rather discuss the matter with you before attempting similar changes. After all, I am somewhat familiar with your editing and usually appreciate it...such as your work on the Virginity article. Editor Darkfrog24, however, also mentioned in my edit summary, may object to the edits you made limiting gender to human beings...and may alter your changes before discussing them. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great News!!!
Bacon Materializer
Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ALL ARE WELCOME!!! The more the merrier. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the circular, buddy. Some of your humour here goes way over my head. I'm sure someone will explain it to me eventually. Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to you. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop me a note when you recreate the Admantius (journal) article. I'd like to have a look at it.
Actually, I don't expect any drama, but I've be wrong about that before. I'll recreate under the name of the group, because the group are more notable than the journal: so it takes arguments against the journal seriously (even if not agreeing), by offering a new proposal.
But, sure, it'd be nice for you to participate, especially if you could also propose ideas both for and against. That way there'd be at least two of us setting an example of neutrality.
I'll glady accept responsibility to notify you at the point of recreation. I would appreciate your astute mind, extensive experience, and neutrality being "on the job". Alastair Haines (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! The typical Kaldari "modus operandi". How better to silence reliable sources than attack the editor who supplies them? Can you please stop stiring up trouble and give up already! Alastair Haines (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Fads.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Brain Sex, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.
){kind=link}
Template:Generic tag has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. UltraMagnus (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
